NEWS OF THE WEEK.

THE speechmakers in the House of Commons, judging from their inactivity during the past week, appear to be almost exhausted,

and glad of an opportunity to rest from their wordy labours. Only 36 members were present at nine o'clock on Tuesday, and on Thursday the number was too small to form a House at the usual hour of beginning business. On Monday, however, the second reading of the Irish Church Reform Bill brought together a more respectable attendance; and the strength or rather the weakness of the Conservative party was demonstrated, by a division in, favour of the bill, of 317 to 78.

It was contended by the opponents .of the bill, as on the former discussion, that the appropriation of Church .,property to other than ecclesiastical purposes was a violation of the rights of pro- perty; and that the contrivance by which a considerable sum of money was to be raised on the ;vonversion of Bishops leases for twenty-one years into perpetual ones, did not alter the real na- ture of the transaction. And this we take to be the true state of the case : for it cannot be denied, that the money, in one way or another, is to be raised out of what is now held to be the property of the Church. Let us suppose that an individual, who is restricted by family settlements from granting a lease for a longer period than twenty-one years, is empowered by act of Parliament to grant a lease in perpetuity, and that the sum which he thus raises is taken from him and applied to the public service : would not that be the same thing as taking a slice out of his estate? and, provided that he was paid a fair rent for the land so taken, he would have no more reason to complain, as far as he is individually concerned, than the Bishops will have under Mr. STANLEY'S bill. This would be an excellent plan to pay off two thirds of the Debt! But it will be said at once that such an arrangement is im- practicable ; that the proprietor would not be able to get a large sum of money for a lease in perpetuity, and a rackrent also for the land so leased. As long as a tenant pays a rackrent for the land he occupies, and pays it regularly, he runs very little risk of being turned out of his farm ; at least, the risk he incurs is so small, that he will not pay much to be insured in its occupancy. But Mr. STANLEY'S bill proceeds upon the supposition that the tenants of Bishops lands will pay largely for this advantage. They pay already, we are assured, in rent and renewal fines, a sum equal to the full value of their land; and yet they are willing to pay six years' purchase on the annual rent, in order to convect their leases for twenty-one years into perpetual ones. Now this can never be. Either they do not pay a rackrent at the present time, or they will refuse to give six years' purchase on this rent for the advantage which the bill holds out to them. Let us bear what Mr. STANLEY has to say on this part of the subject. After stating that, " in anticipation, the Bishops received already the full rackrent," he proceeds as follows. " Now, this bill proposed to add to the Church the power of granting leases in perpetuity, instead of confining them to grant leases for twenty-one years _only, renewable at any period of that term. This would be a great advantage to the tenant, as it would enable him to sell his lease in perpetuity ; and it was this very property, which was neither the property of the Church nor of the tenant in fee, which the Government were now preparing to sell under this act of Parliament. The Church would receive and the tenant would pay the same as they did now : and yet, though the advantage to the tenant was so notorious, they were told that the tenant ought not to make any pecuniary remuneration for the pecuniary advantage which he would receive from this change in the ex- isting law. You might just as well argue, that when a copyhold tenant en- franchiied himself from the lord of the manor, he ought to pay no fine for his enfraneRsetnent. In the case of the Church of Ireland, the Bishops were the lords of the manor, and the Church tenants were the copyholders ; but, as the Bishops had no power beyond twenty-one years, it was only the State that could enfranchise the tenantry; and for that enfranchisement the State was entitled to demand a remuneration." The fallacy of this illustration is obvious. When a copyhold tenant purchases his enfranchisement from the lord of the manor, he is no longer compelled to pay hint the fines, which at stated pe- riods, or when certain events occurred, he has hitherto paid him. But the tenants of the Bishops are to pay as much as ever—that is to say, a full rackrent. They therefore will not derive the same advantage as an enfranchised copyholder, who purchases his ex- emption from the payment of fines. In fact, all Mr. STANLEY'S ingenuity will not enable him to evade the charge of having to a certain extent plundered the Church. It would have been more manly and consistent had the Government avowed at once that they consider Church property as public property, and that any surplus which remained after providing decently for the support of the Establishment was justly convertible to secular purposes. This- is what they are doing in point of fact to a certain extent, though

they endeavour to cloak the deed by ingenious sophistry and mis- representation.

Mr. HumE, on Wednesday, called the attention of the House to a curious specimen of the way in which pensions are carved out of the public money for needy Aristocrats. Lord DUNGLASS, the

son of Earl HOME, is "Chamberlain of Ettrick Forest," and is fairly entitled to about 14s. 2d. for the services he performs in that

dignified office. This was the sum at which the salary was origi- nally fixed; it has now risen to 3001. annually, although the rents which it is the Chamberlain's duty to collect only amount to

2301. The late King granted this pension to Lord DUNGLASS for life: which he had no right to do, inasmuch as it was to be paid out of the hereditary revenues of the Crown, and his Majesty had Only his own life interest in thein.

• •A Commission is at length appointed to inquire into the state and value of the Crown Lands and property; excepting the Dutchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, which are to continue the unmolested nests of sinecure and patronage. -

The Army jobbing is also to be inquired into, and, we trust, exposed. Lord EBRINGTON'S Committee may be of the greatest. service, if it performs its duty thoroughly. It is not in the pay of rank and file that our Army Estimates, as compared with those of the French, are so disproportionately high; but in the extra number of sinecure Generals 0214 Colonels, with all their variety of perquisites, avowed and secret.

Last night, the Dutch embargo was discussed in the House of Commons. We are not aware that a single new argument was produced to prove the expediency or inexpediency of the measure. Considerable hardihood of assertion was displayed by Ml'. Alder- man THOMPSON, Mr. BARING, and Sir ROBERT PEEL; who maintained that the loss arising from the interruption of our com- merce was all on the side of England, and that Holland was by no means injured, but on the contrary flourished under the infliction. If this be true, why all this clamour on the part of the Dutch gentlemen in the House and in the City to have the embargo re- moved ? Sir ROBERT PEEL quoted poetry, both Latin and Eng- lish, on the occasion. The following is from the concluding pas- sage of his speech.

Even supposing that it was the intention of the Government of this country to force Holland to a negotiation ay injuring her trade, all they had done was, to show that they were

" Willing to wound, but impotent to strike."

They had not injured the trade of Holland, but they had excited in that country a feeling of resistance, and in this country feelings of the strongest sympathy with the sufferers. As far as Holland was concerned, the measure of Govern- ment was most completely

" Telum imbellc sine icta."

So, the people of England have the strongest sympathy with sufferers who do not suffer, and mourn the wounds inflicted by a pointless dart ! Sir ROBERT is an admirable logician.

The Army Estimates were also brought forward by Mr. ELLIcE ; who promises that reductions shall be made in them the next ses- sion. Lord JOHN RUSSELL also admitted that many reductions were necessary. Mr. HUME asked why, if the reduction were ne- cessary, they were not made? No satisfactory reply was or could be given to this pithy question.

Lord ALTHORP hopes to bring forward the Bank question to- wards the close of next week; but Mr. CHARLES GRANT is not prepared to say when he shall be ready for the discussion on the renewal of the East India Charter.