NEWS OF THE WEEK.

'Ins subjects discussed in Parliament this week have been un- 'usually various ; and the talk about the allowance to the young Princess AUGUSTA, although a minor matter in itself, has im- parted some novelty to the debates. The proposal is to give this Princess three thousand a year after her father's death, because she

is going to marry the Hereditary Grand Duke of MECKLENBURG - STRELITZ ; and the grant is as hotly debated as if the honour of England depended upon dispensing the gratuity, its solvency upon withholding it. Ministers say that it ought to be given, because GEORGE the Third ceded the Crown revenues to Parliament : a plausible plea, only those same Crown revenues were not of the nature of private property ; and they were bestowed upon 'GEORGE'S ancestor by this country, for certain reasons of state which set aside the Popish heir. Moreover, the bargain is a fait accompli, not to be made open to all kinds of supplementary addi- /ions in order to wipe into the Royal coffers every possible advan- .tage which the country may have derived from it. Another plea is, that the Pension-list has been cut down : well, but it was cut down for reasons—not merely to grow up again, as a vine is pruned to make it bear the more. Another plea is, that the Grand Duke Of MECKLENBURG- STREL1TZ, already a pensioner on this country for sheer bounty, is not in good circumstances : a consideration for the Duke of CAMISRIDGE in accepting the Prince for a son-in-law, tut hardly for Parliament. If mere expediency dictates the union, 'why not choose a richer husband? if love be the motive, why Should the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland bear the inconveniences of a love-match with a poor German Prince ? Ano- ther plea is, that larger pensions have formerly been granted to other Princesses : which quite accords with what everybody knows, 'that stricter notions now obtain in respect to pensions. The Op- position further allege that the Duke of CAMBRIDGE enjoys a very large income, and is actually a wealthy man : but, says Sir ROBERT PEEL, he has a Dukedom, and is charitable,—strange excuses for mendicancy! The sum is not much to give ; but the case keeps alive bad precedents. Sir ROBERT PEEL tried to make out that it is " peculiar," though he did not state one single element of pecu- liarity in it of greater weight than may be found in any transaction : the particular date of the marriage, and the particular names of the parties, are as much " peculiarities" as any thing which he ad- vanced. It is a somewhat shabby affair ; but the Opposition was neither strong enough to prevent the job nor honest enough heartily to combat it : the Whigs are chary of incurring the displeasure of the Sovereign that " summons" the leaders of either party in turn to "form a Cabinet."

The debate on Lord ABERDEEN'S Scottish Church Bill was some relief to the incessant talk about Corn-laws and other favourite subjects of " discussion." The bill is an oddity in legislation. Ministers, past and present, were obstinate while the Church de- manded the legislation of the Veto Act and independence of the Civil Courts: the disruption of the Church takes place ; and then they suffer Lord ABERDEEN to reintroduce his bill for conceding something so very like the Veto Act as to differ from it in little but a name, while it all but excludes the Civil Courts from inter- ference with the Church. Such are the principal objections urged against it, and feebly repelled. The history of the measure is very strange. Lord ABERDEEN introduced it in 1840, but could not make way with it : the bill professes to act upon the principle that ministers ought not to be "intruded" on congregations against the will of the parishioners, yet it has been condemned by the party who assert that principle in Scotland : that party fly to an extreme which makes such a measure nugatory so far as they are con- cerned; then, and not before, Lord ABERDEEN is released by his colleagues from restraint, and allowed to reintroduce his three- year-old bill—so perfect, so efficacious, yet locked up in his desk during the crisis which it should have remedied : when produced, it is hailed with a storm of objections,—that it professes to declare the existing laws, but really makes new laws; that it makes dan- gerous concessions, yet must fail to satisfy those who seek conces- sions : and then the LORD CHANCELLOR, a colleague, who gets up to defend it, admits some of those charges ; speaks of it in the most slighting terms, as " loosely worded "; and promises that it shall be altered. It looks as if Ministers were not prepared to battle very stoutly for their colleague's hobby. Certainly they will not make it a " Cabinet question."

The Ministry have abandoned their educational scheme, yielding to the opposition of the Dissenters. The short speech is which

Sir JAMES GRAHAM announced that intention, maintained to the last the excellent temper and tone in which Ministers have treated the subject, and extorted approval from opponents as well as friends. Sir JAMES speaks as if the Government would not again

make the attempt, though the evil of popular ignorance remains unabated. It would perhaps be more discreet to do nothing, unless they were prepared to bear down the bad spirit which besets them

on all sides,—Church-domination among their own friends, and the sectarian rancour of Dissenters,—by jumping at once to the

inevitable conclusion, and proposing a system of strictly secular education, leaving religious instruction to the appropriate churches and religious bodies. The Irish Arms Bill has again been discussed, with little profit. It shows as inept as ever to the evils of Ireland, but not more so; for saying the same thing twice over does not prove more than say- ing it once.

Lord JOHN Russsm, has boldly braved the power of ennui and brought on another debate about the Coro-laws. Why he did it is

incomprehensible. Perhaps because the " leader" of the Oppo- sition thought it time to do something to prove that his office has not become a sinecure, and nothing else offered of so harmless a kind. Perhaps for the mere pleasure of hearing a debate about the

" fixed duty," which is his fixed idea. But whatever his motive, talk was evidently the be-all and end-all ; for he knew that he should not go into Committee, and yet he refused to explain the nature of his " moderate fixed duty " until he should get into Committee. So that the Whig " moderate fixed duty " has faded

to an ineffable shadow—a something of which Lord Joan dreams, but dares not name in the House. Ministers fairly enough objected to entertain the project of altering a law as yet imperfectly tried, in order to try come secret plan of Lord Joint's, about which he

himself is so diffident that be defers naming it as long as possible, for fear, apparently, of being laughed at by friend and foe. There

is no such extraordinary change of circumstances since last year as

to demand a change from the present restrictive law to another restrictive law, which must be abandoned very soon. There are permanent reasons for removing all restrictions whatsoever, and thus at once coming to the bottom of the question and to a real final " settlement." Lard Jonx only proposes a change more than there needs be.

A vain attempt has been made by Lord HOWICK to repeal the export-duty on coal ; which proves in the working to yield little revenue, and seriously to impede an important branch of the trade.

Sudbury is the occasion of some misunderstanding betweezt Lords and Commons. The Commons propose to disfranchise the

borough for general bribery ; the Lords throw out the bill; and the Commons seek the reason. The first appearances are strange indeed. It seems that the counsel who advocated and opposed the petition against the return, which formed the basis of the

Commons legislation, changed sides when the bill came before the House of Lords; and the counsel intrusted to support the bill before the Lords told them that there was no evidence of gene- ral bribery : which would be surprising, but that the same coun- sel had opposed the petition alleging the bribery. Minis-

ters aver that the Treasury afforded every facility for pushing the measure. A surmise has been hazarded that the conflicting parties

in Sudbury have collusively agreed to obstruct it. If so, there is an additional instance of corruption, and an additional reason for the rejected bill. The Commons, at the instance of the expe- rienced Parliamentarian Mr. CHARLES WYNN, have appointed a Committee to investigate the matter.