NEWS OF THE WEEK.

THE only great measure which the Government has the slightest chance of carrying during the present session—the Irish Poor- law—was brought forward in the House of Commons on Mon- day, by Lord JOHN RUSSELL. The leading provisions of the bill were correctly stated in the Spectator, a fortnight ago; but it will be as well to repeat them, with details not then specified. The English Poor-law Commissioners, with the prospective ad- dition of one member to their Board, are to form in Ireland tunas of districts, without regarding civil or ecclesiastical boundaries, as they may see occasion. In each of these unions—which are to be twenty miles square, giving an area of 400 miles to each—is to be erected a workhouse, capable of holding 800 persons. It is calcu- lated that there will be 100 unions, and 100 workhouses, when the plan comes fully into operation : there will therefore be accom- modation for 80,000 persons. No relief is to be given out of the workhouse, and only in the workhouse to the destitute, whether able-bodied or helpless. There is to be no law of settlement. The estimated cost of the workhouses is 700,000/., and the expense of each pauper eighteenpence a week. There is to be a Board of Guardians in every union, composed exclusively of laymen, sub- ordinate to the Commissioners ; and to be elected in the first in- stance by the County Cess payers, afterwards by the Poor-rate payers. The rate is to be levied half on the tenant and half on the landlord, the former to deduct his payment from his rent ; but the occupier of land or buildings under 51. a year is not to be liable to the rate—there the landlord only is to pay.

It is intended to give some slight assistance to persons wishing to emigrate; but the Poor-law contains no provision as to emigra- tion—and of course none as to public works.

The measure was explained to the House in an able speech by Lord JOHN RUSSELL, and received the attention it deserved from the leading men on both sides. It seemed to be taken for granted that a Poor-law for Ireland must be passed this session. The difficulties which may impede, if not prevent the practical opera- tion of the Government plan, were forcibly pointed out by Mr. O'CONNELL and Lord STANLEY; but both pledged themselves to do their utmost to improve it. Mr. O'CosisrEss said emphatically, "Whether efficient or not, a Poor-law we must have." It is plain that he does not expect the present measure to be efficient ; but now that the necessity of a Poor-law for Ireland is universally ad- mitted, and that legislation towards it is about to commence, it will be easier afterwards to carry a measure of greater efficiency than this mere beginning. Sir ROBERT PEEL endeavoured to damage the bill, while profes- sing a general approval of it. His comments were not made in the spirit of one who really rejoiced that so great a step had been taken towards the civilization of Ireland. Sir ROBERT never for- got that he was leader of the Opposition. Lord STANLEY yielded to the impulses of a more generous nature : none who heard him could doubt his sincerity in promising to the Ministers every assistance in perfecting their scheme ; and, judging from the know- ledge of the subject he displayed, we can believe that his aid will not he useless.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL has also reproduced that miserable abortion of Bishop BLOMFIELD, the Pluralities Bill. Mr. HUME has given

him timely notice this session, at all events, that it would meet with sturdy opposition. The measure is in every material part the same as that NI hich was scouted last year. We trust that it will never be allowed to pass the House of Commons. Every

Parliamentary mode of hostility should be used against it. If Lord JOHN RUSSELL and his colleagues are content to be the

humble tools of a Tory Bishop, let not the Independent Reformers degrade themselves by assisting in the dirty work. What can

possess these Whig Ministers ? Would PEEL or WELLINGTOM father the unpopular offspring of Dr. MATLBYS ambition ? If the measure were agreeable to any large body of men in the country, there would be a motive and a reason for taking it up, bad as it is. But the great body of the Clergy, as well as all pious laymen, must dislike it ; the Dissenters have neither part nor lot in it ; a majority of the Liberal Members of the House of Com- mons are resolved, if possible, to strangle it. Whom then will it gratify ? The Bishop of LONDON—perhaps the most unpopular man in England ! When will the Home Secretary incur such obloquy to serve his friends The Independent Reformers put their new policy into action for the first time on Tuesday. Sir WILLIAM MOLESWORTH moved to repeal the Acts which require Members of Parliament to be possessed of 6001. a year if for Counties, and 300/. a year if for Bo- roughs, in landed property. The arguments by which Sir WIL- LIAM MOLESWORTH, Mr. LEADER, Mr. EWART, and Mr. O'CoN- NELL, supported the motion, will appear from a dissection of those with which it was resisted.

It was urged by Mr. ARTHUR TREVOR and Mr. MACLEAN, that the property qualification alone kept persons of the " lower orders' —the " canaille "—out of the House of Commons. To this the brief and sufficient reply is, that, notoriously, the Qualification Acts are evaded by a very large number of Members. Very few persons indeed are prevented from obtaining a seat in Parliament by the want of a qualification. They are manufactured by dozens on the eve of an election ; and the only known instance, in re- cent times, of the want of a qualification being used as a reason for not going into Parliament, is that of Dr. SOUTHEY ; who was glad of the excuse to escape a duty to which he was disinclined. The reason alleged by Mr. MAC LEAN and Mr. TREVOR for keeping the Qualification Acts on the Statute-book, is therefore utterly worth- less; since the enactments do not answer the purpose for which alone those gentlemen value them. But their defence of them proceeds altogether upon n false prin- ciple. The Tory framers of these laws, ill the reign of Queen ANNE, had the design of maintaining the predominance of the landed interest. They desired to bolster .up.the country gentle- men against the growing power of the mercantile classes; but it does not appear that they considered property as the test of fit- ness to represent the people. Such, however, is in effect the argument of the modern Tories. A man may be intelligent, well- instructed, active, eloquent, industrious, and the unanimous choice of his fellow citizens; but all this availeth him nothing unless he has so much a year. Such is the basis on which the Tories build their opposition to the motion of Sir WILLI aar

MOLESWORTH.

But, it may be said, it is some guarantee of respectability at any rate, that a person is able to procure even a fictitious qualifica- tion. Let the list of those who voted against the motion be scanned, and it will be seen that the ability to procure a fictitious qualification is not the slightest surety for respectability of cha- racter. On the other hand, let the list of Scotch Members be examined, and it will be found that the electors do not need the Qualification Acts to enable them to select men of respectability and fortune for their Representatives. In fact, nothing can be more contrary to experience than the notion that, if left free to choose whom they please, the people would generally elect men of broken-down fortunes or dependent means to represent them in Parliament. Be that as it may, the principle of our repre- sentative system is free choice by the electors; and any law which tends to curb and restrict that choice is a violation of the principle. If the electors would choose a different class of persons from those who are now in the House, and are prevented by the Qualification Acts, then those acts impede the working of the representative system, and the existing House of Commons usurps an unconstitutional authority. Lord FRANCIS EGERTON took up a different ground of opposi- tion to the motion, He said that if the property qualification of the Members were abolished, it followed as a corollary that the property qualification of the Electors also must be done away with. We do not feel the force of this argument. Unless we go as far as universal suffrage—which, in the strict sense of the word, prevails nowhere, not even in the most democratic states of America—we must have some simple test of fitness to exercise the elective franchise. If it were possible to examine and decide upon the intellectual and moral character of each elector—if we could weed out of the mass the foolish and the depraved—then, beyond all doubt, wisdom and virtue should be the qualifications required from an elector. But, in the case of the constituencies, it

is not practicable to make the selection—we cannot apply the best tests. The case is different altogether as respects the candidate.

He stands out from among the crowd : he is a marked man : in- stead of thousand, we hale only an individual to deal with : his eapaoity may be measured—his moral fitness scrutinized. In his House of Peers, even though clergymen should continue to be ease the vulgar test may be discarded, and the best one applied ; excluded from the House of Commons. That alliance might be there is no need for him to produce his rent-roll, as he should preserved in England, as in Scotland, by the appointment of a• not be elected for his wealth, but for the possession of more ap- Lord High Commissioner to preside in a General Assembly of propriate qualities. Does not Lord FRANCIS EGERTON see that, the Clergy. Other effectual modes might easily be devised—sup-. if be throw aside fanciful analogies, and take a common-sense posing it predetermined that Church and State alliance shall view of the subject, there may be excellent reasons for retaining always be the sine qua non, and the reality of religion sacrificed the qualification in the case of the Elector and abolishing it as re- to a name and a pretence. The question therefore is, not whether

gards the Member ? the Church and State are to continue in connexion, but whether

It grieves us to say what a shabby figure Lord JOHN RUSSELL the present mode of preserving that connexion by taking Bishops sot in this diseussion. He admitted all that the supporters of the from their especial spiritual duties, to make them bad politicians and motion insisted upon : he allowed that no danger would arise from mischievous partisans, is the best. Supposing the interests of Re- abolishing the qualification—that the People might be safely left ligion and those of the Establishment identical, the existing system to the free choice of their Representatives—that the existing is injurious to both. It is merely serviceable to a few ecclesiastical system led to disgraceful frauds and evasions of the law : and yet, grandees and to the Ministers who job in bishoprics. The argu- after having privately signified his intention to vote for the motion, ments of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, then, are reduced to this—that he voted against it,—professing his willingness to amend the law ; the change proposed is an infringement on an old evil custom. thus, as a Member remarked, in words memorable for their truth This plea may pass in Parliament for some time longer; but it is and point, " winding his way between right and wrong." Sir already out of vogue in the country—the majority of people have WILLIAM MOLESWORTH would not yield to the Leader's solicita- no great reverence for any thing merely because it has existed for tions, though backed by those of the Liberal Lord EBRINGTON centuries. Utility, not antiquity, is valuable ; and the Bishops in and the Radical Mr. WARBURTON. He would not be the instru- the House of Peers are useless for any good purpose, though the went of tinkering or glossing a law bad in principle ; well know- workers of much wrong. mg that the best method of preserving a nuisance is to abate it It was amusing to witness the swelling self-importance with only in part. which Sir ROBERT PEEL came forward to aid Lord Joint, and to A division took place ; and the motion was rejected, by 133 to " share the unpopularity " of' resisting the motion. How could 104. But of whom was the majority composed ? There were of he lose popularity by opposing it? He was acting with his friends

ority, 16=120. Thus it appears, that of 120 Liberals in the nessl ouse, 104 voted with Sir WILLIAM MOLESWORTH and 16 with

the Minister. Lord JOHN RUSSELL was beaten by a Reform defeated his own friends by the aid of the Tories. The majority majority of six to one. Sir JOHN CAMPBELL and Mr. J. A. MURRAY, notwithstanding of 197 may be thus analyzed- their offices, honourably and wisely voted with the minority,— Liberals

well remembering the burst of indignation from Scotland, when, Trimmers 10

in the days of the Reform Bill, it was attempted to impose theTories 146 property qualification on Scotch Members. Mr. Fox MAULS

followed the Home Secretary : if be bad remembered as freshly 197 as his countrymen, CAMPBELL and MURRAY, the doings of 1832, The Ministerial force in the majority was only 41. The Inde- • he would have paused to ask himself, whether a vote for rivetting pendent Reformers numbered 92. On this division, then, Lord on Englishmen fetters from which Scotchmen are free, was the JOHN RUSSELL was supported by only about one-third of the best preparation for his approaching encounter with " the hater Liberals in the House, with all the assistance of his salaried col-

of the very name of Reform:. in Perthshire. leagues. How many more exhibitions of a similar character will By way of covering the disgraceful defeat of Ministers, Mr. he submit to? When will his Lordship again go out in sweet WARBURTON has given notice of a motion to amend the Qualifica- companionship with PETER BORTHWICK to vote against a LIAO-, tion-laws. If be think .better of it, Mr. WARBURTON may find rity of his own supporters?

more useful employment. Being a sound logician, he ought to Bribery and corruption triumph at Stafford. The House of know that the case made out, and which he properly supported by Commons decided on Monday, by a vote of 132 to 151, that the his vote, was a case for abolition, not for patching and mending. long-suspended writ should be issued. The majority was coin- Men of talent, knowledge, and principle, are not so over-abundant posed of 150 Tories, with Mr. BUCKINGHAM and Mr. TuLx, in the House of Commons, in proportion to the labours demand- who on this occasion thought proper to walk over to the enemy. ing stout workmen, as to justify any Member, who possesses Sir JOHN HOBHOUSE, on the other hand, walked out of the these requisites, in wasting his energies upon the infinitely House, to avoid the disagreeable necessity of opposing his

little. colleagues, or, we suppose, violating his conscientious feelings.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S main argument against the motion

persons to be eligible to a seat in the Legislature by their fellow- however, on the Tory.

House of Commons, as they would, in general, be considered not h

Tories 98 and his party, who expected no less from him. To have supported

Trimmers 7 the motion would have damaged him. Poor Lord JOHN RUSSELL Whigs 16 was the magnanimous person, for he sacrificed himself for his Ministers and their employes 12 enemies : he blessed them that curse him, and fondled those who would gladly sting him to death. Yet PEEL, forsooth, must

133 come forward and make a fuss about his generous disinterested- To the minority of 104, add the unsalaried Whigs of the ma-

The Division-lists on this question also prove that Lord JOHN RUSSELL was opposed by a majority of the Liberals, and that ho 34 Ministers 7 as his countrymen, CAMPBELL and MURRAY, the doings of 1832, The Ministerial force in the majority was only 41. The Inde- • he would have paused to ask himself, whether a vote for rivetting pendent Reformers numbered 92. On this division, then, Lord on Englishmen fetters from which Scotchmen are free, was the JOHN RUSSELL was supported by only about one-third of the best preparation for his approaching encounter with " the hater Liberals in the House, with all the assistance of his salaried col-

Cabinet Minister, and Leader of the House of Commons, 16 ! It is very true that other places may be almost (not quite) as Another attempt was made, on Thursday—unsuccessfully of corrupt as Stafford; and it is also certain, as Mr. ROEBUCK stated, course—to procure a vote of the House of Commons for the re- that the best cure of bribery is to be found in extension of suffrage moral of the Bishops from Parliament. Mr. CHARLES LUSHING- and the secret vote : but that does not justify the acquittal of an TON led the assault on the Right Reverend Bench, seconded by offender whose guilt has been established. Because we cannot Messrs. HUME, EWART, and CHARLES BULLER. Lord JOHN Rus- punish all, must those escape whom we have in our power? SELL awl Sir ROBERT PEEL, though feeble in argument, proved If the question had been—" Shall proceedings be commenced strong in numbers ; and the resolution which declared the sitting against Stafford, on account of its notorious corruption ?" — it of the Bishops in the Upper House to be hostile to the interests might have been plausibly alleged, that bribery was so general rejected by a Tory-Whig majority of 197 to 92.

of Religion and the Church, and disagreeable to the People, was that it was not worth while to select this particular borough for an example. But the first step had been taken, and a case of enor- was, that it would destroy, not reform, an essential part of moos corruption actually proved against Stafford. The sympathetic Lords saved the sinners last year, for reasons not to be named; the Constitution, and he was not prepared to go that length. If and this year the conforming Commons stultify their former the connexion of the Church with the State was to endure, proceedings, because the Tory Whippers-in had been active in the and illustrations drawn from countries where the alliance be- the matter is settled. The Tories have gained the day. An apathy. But clergymen must he admitted to the Legislature; and precedents morning, while the Liberal leaders dosed in dignified

tween Church and State was not as intimate as in England, were assurance has been given to all the boroughs in the country, that not to the purpose when addressed to a British Parliament. If, though they reek with bribery and debauchery, not a voter shall said Lord JOHN, you expel Bishops from the House of Peers, be touched, and they may sin in safety. Now then, gentlemen, 'We are ready to accept the alternative : we would allow all be ye Whigs or Tories, send down your candidate to Stafford. you must admit clergymen into the House of Commons.

The place is for sale—success to the highest bidder 1 We bet, citizens. Few clergymen, however, would find their way into the Questions of privilege have recently engaged much of the qualified for the performance of legislative functions. attention of the House of Commons—more, indeed, tan there the best has been any great occasion for. The Honourable House has But it does not follow that the connexion between Church and thought it necessary to deal with the dictum of a Judge, which State would be dissolved by turning the Bishops out of the led to no practical consequences, as though it had been a most

formidable assault. In charging the Jury, last week, in the case of IIANSARD And STOCKD3.1.11, Lord DENMAN laid it down as the law of the land, that the authority of Parliament could not justify any body in publishing libels. But the Jury, in that ease, found that the publication in question was justified by its truth. Thus, Lord DENMAN S exhibition of scrupulous regard for the rights of the subject would have led to nothing, if the House bad not, moved by the plaint of its printer, taken the alarm at an abstraction. One of the achievements of the week has been to appoint a Select Committee to search for precedents to make out the title of the House to authorize the publication of libels. In candour we must own that another point is involved—the "judge-made law" bears not only against libel, but against truth, and all free Parliamentary discussion.

Mr. LECHMERE CHARLTON remains in limbo. Great efforts were made to procure a vote of the Committee of Privileges in his favour. But his friends, fiqiling themselves in the minority, ac- quiesced in a report, delivered to the House on Thursday, which declares that no grounds exist for interfering with the Lord Chan- cellor's decree. So Mr. CHARLTON Will be kept in gaol till he be "purged of his contempt." Mr. WYNN wished to have the Morning Chronicle summoned to the bar of the House for an article describing the " whipping- in" of Tory Members of the Committee to vote for Mr. CHARLTON. But upon Lord JOHN RUSSELL showing very clearly, that if the Tories began that warfare they would be worsted, and that Bishop PHILPOTTS himself might be "had up" for blackguarding the Irish Papist Members, Mr. WYNN prudently retreated.