NEWS OF THE WEEK.

THE House of Commons followed up its rejection of the principle, by demolishing the details, of the Peers' Bill for Ireland. In pur- THE House of Commons followed up its rejection of the principle, by demolishing the details, of the Peers' Bill for Ireland. In pur-

suance of Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S motion, the House met at noon on Monday ; and although two hours were lost in endeavouring to settle a paltry squabble between Colonel TRENCH and Mr. WASON, before three o'clock eighty clauses of the original measure were restored, and nearly every trace of the hand of LYNDH uRsT was erased. On Tuesday the work of restoration and rejection

was completed ; and a Committee was appointed to draw up the reasons of the Commons for refusing to agree to the Lords' "amendments. Last night, the "reasons" were adopted by the House of Commons, and communicated in a Committee of Confer- ence to the Peers; who will decide upon them on Friday next. It thus appears that the relative position of the two Houses has net been changed during the week. Affairs are still at a "dead lock." The machine stands still. Is there any prospect of either adverse power yielding ? As yet we have seen no symptoms of an intention to give way. There are rumours that certain Peers will abstain from voting again; but we heed them not. No organ of the Tories by public speech or writing has intimated any failure of Lordly resolution.

What then will be done ? For the last two or three days the talk has been of early prorogation—a prorogation for three or four

months, with another session before Christmas. But then it is asked, whether there is any likelihood of a better understanding between the two Houses on their reassembling, than there is now ; and if so, what is to produce the change ? No answer to this is forthcoming. Then why postpone the result of the actual con- test ? No doubt, some accident may happen, which may benefit either party. But it is poor statesmanship to trust to the chapter of accidents; and even if the present difficulty were by any means got over, will the Peers be reconciled to Liberal principles of government? No; the same obstructions would be constantly recurring. The old system of ruling by temporary expedients is worn out. A vigorous, permanent, "organic" change in the con- stitution, is needed, and cannot by possibility be long staved off.

The Tories know the advantage of having the Government on their side in a general election; and if it is true that the King is their puppet, it will be impossible to deprive them of that ad- vantage. The King may refuse to dissolve the Parliament at Lord MELBOURNE'S instance; but as soon as a prorogation takes place, he may turn out the Whigs, reinstate the Duke, and then dissolve. The aim of Ministers should be to keep well with the Country ; and then, come what will, they may defy the Tories: but any indication of quailing, or of preferring place to character, would damage them irretrievably. In a political crisis, boldness and decision are above all things necessary for success. The event is at hand. In the course of a few days the resolu- tion of the Pet ifis first, and then of the Government and the House of Commons, will be tested. Upon the conduct of the Whigs depends their future existence as a political party. The Peers are also on their trial; though it is impossible that they can come with credit or safety out of the ordeal, do what they may. That the House of Commons should fail in its duty, is incredible; but it will be well for the People of England to be prepared for the worst.

Lord Chancellor COTTENH AM'S Bill of Chancery Reform was thrown out by the Peers on Monday, by a vote of 94 to 29. It was a feeble and inefficient measure. Lord CorrENHAst is inca- pable of grappling with so large a subject as Law Reform. He finds that the Chancellor's business falls behind ; and so be pro- poses that there shall be a new Equity Judge, and that the Lord Chancellor shall be confined to the hearing of appeals in the House of Peers. This is his only remedy for a vast and compli- cated system of mischief. Lord LYNDHURST takes an equally narrow, we might almost say a pettifogging view, of the changes

[LATEST EDITION.] required in the mode of administering justice in the Equity Courts, and of the duties of a Lord Chancellor. He would ap- point a new Equity Judge, and give the Committee of the Privy

Council the constant benefit of a Judge's assistance; and that is the extent of the reform he proposes. Lord LANGDALE main- tained the reputation of 131CKERSTETH by u speech of a very superior

order. The separation of the political from the judicial functions of the Lord Chancellor, he considers indispensable to the proper dis-

charge of both classes of duty. The former heswould transfer to a Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, with functions somewhat ana- logous to those of the Minister of Justice in France; the latter should be performed by a Chancellor confined to the Chancery Court, and unconnected with party politics. For the trial of ap- peals to the House of Lords, he proposes to appoint a Lord Speaker in Judicature; and he would do away with all intermediate ap- peals from the Vice-Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls to the Lord Chancellor. This looks something like reformation. For a masterly exposition of the reasons on which Lord LANGDALE grounds his plan, we refer to an ample report of his speech in a subsequent page.

The Peers have adopted a proposition of the Duke of WELLING- TON, for inserting in all Railway Bills, now in progress, a proviso that the parties are to be liable to the operation of any act regulat- ing the profits of such undertakings, which may be passed within a twelvemonth of the passing of their bill ; it being understood that Government has it in contemplation to introduce a measure for the periodical revision of charges, by the Legislature. The policy of interfering to limit the profits of any speculation which cannot be carried into effect without risk of loss, and which, if successful, will benefit the public, is questionable. It is the prospect of large profit at some future time which induces present outlay. To render this a fair proposal, the public should be made to bear a portion of the loss, as well as reap a portion of the profit. But the partner- ship is only to commence when the profits are large. The inter-

mediate less of interest on the capital employed, or sunk, is to be borne entirely by the shareholders ; and if the concern again become a losing one, then the rartnership is dissolved. It will be exceedingly difficult in a legislative enactment to strike a balance of profit and loss, and say at what point the public is to become a partner. Besides, (and here, we suspect, our law- makers are overreaching themselves,) suppose that a percentage is fixed upon,—suppose it decreed, that when the losses, if any, have been recovered, and the profits would enable the directors to make a dividend of eight per cent. on their capital, then the public should step in, and the charges of con- veying live and dead stock on the railway should be reduced,— does the Duke of WELLINGTON or Mr. MORRISON imagine that the managers would not find means to keep the dividend within the specified amount, and indirectly divide the surplus profits among the shareholders ? Depend upon it, this might be done. Again, by limiting profits, (on the supposition that they can be limited,) you may seriously injure the public. We can easily believe that improvements might be made in the management of a railway which would enable the proprietors to reduce their charges and increase their profits thereby—the increase of custom being the source of augmented profit; but you take away the motive to improvement if the public is to have the additional profit, as well as the advantage of reduced charges. On the other hand, we are not insensible to the disadvantage of creating a monopoly; and, unquestionably, when any set of men come to Parliament for especial privileges, the Legislature has a right to impose certain conditions, which the parties are at liberty to reject or accept. But there is weight in a remark of Lord HATHERTON, as respects the Duke of WELLINGTON'S clause, that notice of it should have been given last session. A company may have gone to very great expense in preliminary arrangements for a railway, and may have carried their bill to a second reading in the House of Peers; and then they are to be told, that their profits are to be limited within a certain percentage. Surely they might object to this—that their undertaking must be unprofitable for many years, always a precarious one as regards profit ; that their inducement to engage in it was the prospect of large profits at some future time ; and yet, now, Parliament interferes at this late. stage of the proceedings, and decrees that they shall not have these large profits. This strikes us as scarcely just.

On the whole, the only certain conclusion arrived at is, that it is excedingly difficult for the Government to interfere, without committing injustice, with the profits of trading speculations. It is not less difficult with regard to the Brighton Railway than to the house of BARING.

On Tuesday, Mr. O'CONNELL took his revenge on the Times for a twelvemonth's abuse. Mr. WALTER afforded him the oppor- tunity, by a broken-winded speech on Irish affairs. The unhapry Member for Berkshire was mercilessly belaboured by thelgemler for Ireland, who chose toiiol him romponsiblelar all the 'personal scurrility and political tergiversatiosof Ithe Ti's. Oae after an• other, Mr. KEARSLEY, Mr. RICHARDS, Ur. SCABLETT, ildr.GOUL- BURN, and Mr. Sergeant JACKSON, rove to the rescue OrWALTER; and one after another O'Coneeee knocked them down with some joke or sarcasm, amidst the laughter of the House, in which even the grave Speaker was compelled to join. When the interruption ceased, Mr. °tor/Nese proceeded to lash the Times, with rather too copious vituperation. The conductors of that journal deserve no mercy at his hands, and received none; but Mr. O'Connese's onslaught would have been more effective, if, with less of mere epithet, he had pointed to the diminished power of the Times since the period of its desertion of the cause of Ireland and Reform.

We have already alluded to the loss of time occasioned by the quarrel of Colonel TRENCH and Mr. WASON in the South Dur- ham Railway Committee. It was, indeed, little to the credit either of the Members particularly implicated, or of the House, that such a brawl should have been allowed to engage their attention to the exclusion of the most important national business. The House bad been especially summoned for the discussion of the Irish Corporation Bill ; but instead of devoting their attention to that measure, two-thirds of the time at their disposal was wasted in listening to a series of as stupid, tiresome, and foolish speeches, as ever was delivered in a public assembly'. The affair of course endt d in the mutual apologies of the squabblers ; for everybody knows that in these cases it is very safe to be valiant, and that the choice is submission, or the not very agreeable and somewhat costly custody of the Sergeant-at•Arms. On Thursday, the House was treated to another small quarrel, between Sir JOHN Hots- HOUSE and Colonel SIBTHORPE ; in which Sir JOHN was rather flippant, and the gallant Colonel of Militia not more wise than usual. Fortunately, this affair did not consume quite so much time as the heroics of Monday.