NEWS OF TM, WEEK.

THE Lords have had the week to themselves. They began the debate on the Irish Church Bill on Monday, and have continued it through the week, Wednesday, however, remaining, as usual, a dies non. On the whole, despite the grievous weakness of the Liberal debaters, who seem, with the single exception of Dr. Thirlwall, either wearied or cowed, the debate has been adequate to the occasion, lofty in tone, and distinguished by bursts of sustained oratorical power. The mighty expanse of print in which the Times records the speeches is readable throughout, even by men who, like ourselves, have been wearied to exhaustion with the discussion of two years. Had Lord Salisbury, the Bishop of St. David's, and the Archbishop of Canterbury remained silent, nothing could have saved the Bill, or averted a collision between the Peerage and the nation. At three o'clock this morning the House divided, when there appeared—contents, 179; noncontents, 146. Majority for Government, 33.

The Bishops are going up in the world. Up to Friday, while there had been only three lay speeches of marked ability, and of these one (Lord Grey's) was almost inaudible,—there had been at least four episcopal speeches of even higher mark. The new Bishop of Peterborough (Dr. Magee) made a speech which Lord Derby said had been never excelled and rarely equalled in the whole of his Parliamentary experience, and the world agrees with Lord Derby. The Bishop of St. David's made a speech not of the same oratorical effect, but of even greater moral and intellectual weight, and delivered with as much clearness, energy, and precision as if Dr. Thirlwall (who is 72) were still in the full maturity of his powers. The Bishop of Derry (Dr. Alexander) was full of humour, in logic much more discursive than either Dr. Thirlwall or Dr. Magee, and also at times a little virulent in his invective,—though, with a very keen feeling for the atmosphere in which he was breathing, he dropped out his only virulent expression with a sort of good-humoured levity, as if he were halfashamed ..of it, and kept his most earnest tones for his most moderate thoughts. The Archbishop of Canterbury was the very model of eloquently grave, measured, concise sobriety of thought and speech,—so much so that even his words, quite apart from his ideas, seemed to add a fresh dignity to the human race. Not that his voice is pompous, even in the lead degree. But it fails to give the idea of "such creatures as we are in such a world as the present." It is a snatch of a more elevated state of existence even to listen to his Grace. Of course, there have been exceptions to this episcopal success,—mainly, in poor Dr. Bickersteth, Bishop of Ripon,—but, on the whole, the effect was eminently gracious.

In Dr. Magee the House of Lords has really got a new orator of the higher order,—and one, we believe, who will usually be Liberal, though on Tuesday night he was on the side of internecine war with the Commons. Yet even so his instincts are statesmanlike. He threw aside, almost contemptuously, the arguments founded on the Coronation Oath and the Act of Union, made the question of justice the great question of the debate,—though heightening the flavour of his speech here and there with allusive references to a lees moderate and statesmanlike view, like

"Revolutions commence with sacrilege and go on to coramuniam,"—and made a most ingenious attempt to prove that it was quite just to employ national property for a purpose odious to the mass of the nation. lie commented bitterly on the narrow groove in which the imaginations of English statesmen run on Irish affairs,—the monotonous groove of successive confiscations. "Whereas in other days England confiscated the property of the disloyal in order to reward the loyal, in these days she tries to mend the matter by confiscating the property of the loyal to reward the disloyal." His peroration, in which he taunted the Lords with their cowardice in *suing to the democracy for life at the expense of all which makes life worth having, was a masterpiece of rhetoric :—" Spare us, we beseech you, spare us, to live a little longer as an order, so that we may play at being statesmen, that we may sit upon red benches in a gilded House, affect to guide the destinies of the nation, and play at legislation. Spare us, for this reason, that we are utterly contemptible, and entirely contented with our ignoble position. Spare us, for this reason, that we have never failed in any case of danger to spare ourselves !" The cheering, when the Bishop of Peterborough resumed his seat, was such as this House of Lords has seldom, if ever, heard,—though the House did not adjourn in overwhelming excitement as the Commons did after hearing Mr. Sheridan's attack on Warren Hastings, but only thinned rapidly, a remnant remaining to tone down effectually their excited feelings, by trying not to hear the Earl of Clancarty, and, indeed, succeeding.

The silly bishop,—a debate on such a subject without a silly bishop would be hardly "canny,"—has been hitherto the Bishop of Ripon (Dr. Bickerateth), who speaks like the grating of a file, or what is described, in one of Dickens's works, as the rasping of "an iron bar on a nutmeg-grater," his words falling harshly without. intermission, but the nutmeg-grater—the subject treated—showing no signs of modification under this agreeable process. After this fashion the Bishop remarked that the nation (holding, of course, a vast number of inconsistent faiths) is bound to choose out the one true faith, and propagate it, under pain of the "disfavour of God." Besides this, the principle of the Bill was inconsistent with the Act of Union. He believed that there was a great reaction springing up in the country against the Bill, and held that if the Irish Protestant Church had been a great injustice to Ireland, as it is now said to be, some previous statesman must have discovered it before Mr. Gladstone ! With such arguments as these,—ground out from a sort of mill full of like gritty hag. ments,—Dr. Bickerateth made up a remarkably hard and silly speech.

The palm of debate belongs to the Bishops, but the speeches of many lay peers were worthy of the reputation of the House. The worst of all delivered by leading men was that of Lord Derby, who did not make a single point except in his peroration, in which he alluded with some dignity and much pathos to his age. His official life was ended, his political life was nearly over, the term of his natural life was approaching, and it was therefore with a full sense of his responsibilities that he opposed the Bill. The best of all was Lord Salisbury's,—the "terrible Marquis" delivering a speech full of sustained eloquence and dignity, in which he called on his party not to refuse a second reading to the Bill, defined the relation of the Lords to the Commons, as one of inferiorityonly when the Commons and the nation were one, as on the point of Disestablishment one they certainly now were, and denied that in yielding to the nation the Lords forfeited one jot of their freedom or their honour. He believed that amendments, substantial amendments, might be carried, and instanced the amendment in the Reform Bill in favour of minorities. Mr. Disraeli, "who could not be accused of arrogance in rejecting amendments," utterly refused one in favour of minorities, yet accepted it when voted by the Lords. Lord Carnarvon, who spoke on Monday, also made a good speech, penetrated by the feeling that the State often fettered the Church, especially in Ireland, where governments made her "a cesspool of patronage ;" but his voice was accidentally weak, and the reporters made an aatoundiug mess of some classical points. He defended the admission of the Bill into Committee, "as the deliberate and expressed opinion of the country," but denounced its niggardliness, declaring that it left the Church only 2150,000 besides the life interests, and believed that with a majority in that House, and a great minority in the country, amendments would be sure of full consideration. Lord Granville's speech was, on the whole, the weakest he ever delivered. He seemed nervous or ill, and for once slightly overdid conciliation. However, he described the Bill effectively, and Lord Grey (Tuesday) supplied deficiencies, describing the Bill as the result of an opinion which had been growing silently for years until it had become irresistible. Of course, he was crotchety, declaring that the agitation had destroyed peace in Ireland, and wanting many amendments ; but still he accepted disestablishment as inevitable, and wound up a speech, acrid but lucid and dignified, by calling on the waverers not to avoid the responsibility of voting for the Bill.

The Dii Minims may be , more briefly dismissed. Lord Harrowby only repeated the worn-out, semi-religious arguments against the Bill ; Lord Clarendon made a short man-of-the-world speech, in which the newest point was that all foreigners condemned the Irish Church ; the Duke of Richmond descanted with much power on the unwisdom of forcing a collision with the people ; Lord Redesdale declared uncompromising hostility, though he is willing that some Catholic Bishops should be admitted into the Lords ; Lord Stanhope, detesting the Bill, wished to amend it in Committee ; and Lord Kimberley warned the House not to be influenced by the fear of being thought afraid. All the lay speeches in direct support of the Bill were more or less poor, and we are not sure that those of the Dukes of Devonshire and Cleveland were not the most influential. The great Whig magnates had not much to say, but they said it clearly, and to Peers it meant much, namely, that they, of all men alive most interested in the security of property in general, and advowsons in particular, saw no danger in the Bill. There are men with whom such a declaration, made by such men, will weigh more than any argument, and we do not know that they are wrong. The instinct of great proprietors tells them quite as well as reason when property is endangered by legislation. It seems the Cavendishes have been told they have no right to speak on this question, because they hold so much property taken from Catholic priests. The Duke rejected that argument, but he missed a splendid point in rejoinder. Have the Bishops and clergy, the whole of whose revenue was taken from the Catholic Church, been silent in the debate?

One feature in this debate was very remarkable. Scarcely a Peer stood up on either side, except Lords Salisbury and Carnarvon, who did not declare that, at heart, he was in favour of the old policy of levelling-up,—of endowing both creeds. Even Dr. Thirlwall was on this side, and there was not from first to last one single formal denunciation of the idea. Nevertheless, and this is still more remarkable, not one speaker was found even to mention the still more statesmanlike proposal, advocated by SirJames Graham,—that of endowing the Catholic Church only, as the creed of the majority, and leaving the Protestant churches, like the Nonconformist bodies, to rely upon the people. That policy, which in a generation would make Protestantism the popular, and Catholicism the suspected creed, was never once alluded to. It is, of course, as hopeless as the recall of the past, but their Lordships are not always deterred by that consideration.

The Peers are very strong upon "amendments," but they have not apparently made up their minds as to what amendments they will ask for. As far as we can perceive their drift, they intend to ask for the glebe-houses, without mortgages,—offering, perhaps, in return, though they do not say so, manses for the Catholic priesthood,—all private gifts to the Church since 1560, instead of 1660, a change which Mr. Gladstone says would be matter of form, and a sum of money as a nest-egg for a future Sustentation Fund. In their own dialect, they call this compensation for the vested interests of the Protestant congregations, but they do not give any estimate of the sum they want, which is very material to the issue. Mr. Disraeli, when making that demand, asked that the Church should be re-endowed ; but Lord Salisbury will, we presume, be more practical than that. It is, however, upon that point that the struggle will come.

The aristocratic world, and still more the would-be aristocratic world, have been in a fidget all the week over a letter of Mr. right's. He had been asked to a meeting at Birmingham called

to support the Government against the Lords, and declined to gobut said he thought the Lords not very wise, recommended them) not to compel people to inquire how the nation was to get on with a majority of 100 in one House opposed by a majority of 100 in another, but trusted in the ability; and the goodness of not a few Peers to prevent a collision. A more moderate and sensible letter —we have elsewhere given the ipsissima verba,—never was Written.

but flunkeyism took the alarm, pseudo-Liberal journals held tip their hands in horror, the Lords are thin-skinned

parchment, he

on Thursday Lord Cairns tried to make capital out of the incident Analyzing the letter as if it had been written on

declared it to mean that. the Lords were fools who ought to be coerced, and asked whether Government approved or endorsed it. Lord Granville, of course, said no, stated that he was authorizsd by Mr. Bright to express regret for any offence given to the House, and tried to show that the Peers had said quite as hard things of the Cabinet. He would for his part rather be accused of foolishness than of theft. He was, however, repeatedly interrupted, the Lords evidently thinking it quite impertinent in Mr. Bright to have an opinion about their conduct at all, and shivering partly with rage and partly with fear at any attack, however imaginary, on their independence. Olympus quivering under a sarcasm from Prometheus, bound though the Titan be, that is about the position, and it does not tempt one to believe in the reality of the Deities' pretensions. Serenity is the first attribute of power.

There was a mass-meeting in Manchester on this day week against the Irish Church Bill, apparently called to hear Mr. Gladstone denominated Judas Iscariot by a concurrent testimony of various speakers. One of them said he was worse, as he had exhibited no remorse, i. e., we suppose not yet hanged himself. Lord Claud Hamilton the younger,—not he whom Mr. Gladstone calls his noble friend,—who addressed the meeting, did not go quite so far as this. He only said that Mr. Gladstone justified the grant to Maynooth on the ground of the rich endowments of Trinity College, Dublin, the turn of which for disendowment he intimated, "with that grim horrible countenance of his, that sinister expression which overshadows his countenance whenever he alludes to any of the Protestant institutions of the country,"— would come soon. Mass-meetings called to hear Mr. Gladstone identified with Judas Iscariot, and to listen to coarse caricatures of his expression of face from young Orange lords, are not the sort of demonstration that means business. These are the debaucheries of politics, indulged in for the pleasure of strong sensations, after which come depression and blue devils.

Dr. Jebb, a respectable parson and member of the English Church Convocation, appears to be one of those political grogdrinkers. In the meeting of Convocation on Wednesday, speaking on the question of the Irish Church, he said he was going to restrain himself, or else his language would be actionable. He then proceeded to say that Mr. Gladstone had "forfeited the respect of the country, and was not one to be trusted with a single thing where the interests of two parties were concerned." He then went on to say that "all who supported the Bill should be cut off from private friendships," that "he himself would not act with men who supported the Bill, for those who supported the Bill could not have a spark of honesty or principle "; but here he was called to order by the Prolocutor, and succumbed. Poor Dr. Jebb I Even those of his friends who are to be cut off from his private friendship will doubtless continue to believe him a man of honesty and principle, and, probably, even a man of strong affections and disaffections,—but will they not recognize with mild gratitude the gulf now yawning between them as a dispensation of Providence which it would be almost impious to attempt to bridge ?

The Bishop of Ely has presented to the Upper House of Convocation a petition signed by High, Low, and Broad Churchmen, praying that some modification might be made in the Athanasian Creed. Better abolish it altogether. The damnatory clauses are of course the main difficulty ; but the theology is bad, too, and as different from that of the Nicene Creed on one side, as is the Arian theology on the other.

Mr. Forster's Education Bill passed through Committee on Monday night amidst much cheering, and will now, after the report and its third reading, which are little beyond matters of form, go to the Lords. For some reasons it would be almost better the Lords should let off their surplus steam in the rejection of the Irish Church Bill, and then we should be nearly sure to have two most important bills sent from

the Commons,—the University Test Bill, and this Endowed Schools' Bill,—passed by them in the reaction. But, in any ease, we hope they will accept this very wise and statesmanlike measure, which has now received the assent of nearly all the most weighty Conservative statesmen in the Lower House. Mr. Forster has managed the discussions in Committee,—both the Select Committee and the Committee of the whole House,—with consummate skill, conceding whatever he could to his opponents, but nothing which was really essential to the strong working of a very strong measure. The Conservatives themselves on Monday might were warm in his praise.

The Emperor has apparently decided to maintain the status quo. One M. Mackau, an official candidate, has been directed to write a letter, or to believe he has written a letter, to which the Emperor has replied. The letter is not published, but the reply is, and inns as follows :—" You express a desire that my Government may be strong enough to resist the aggressive attacks of some parties, and to give to liberty durable securities by causing it to rest on power firmly and vigilantly exercised. You add, with reason, that the concession of a principle or the sacrifice of individuals is always ineffectual in the face of popular movements, and that a Government which respects itself ought to yield neither to pressure, to excitement, nor to revolt. This opinion is mine." Certainly, and the words too, if style is any proof of authorship.

M. de Persigny has addressed a letter to M. Emile 011ivier which has been published, the writer says without his consent, but -he certainly leaves M. 011ivier free to do as he will with his letter. Its drift is that the Government should be more severe, that its agents are too indifferent, that France wants to establish liberty 4' the inflexible severity of Brutes, the terrible courage of Publicola ;" that M. Gambetta, for instance, ought not "to have been permitted to brave the Empire under the very eyes of the law," or the public meetings to have "outraged the Sovereign, religion, the family, and property." The Emperor should summon to his aide a new generation, "young, strong, intelligent, above all, courageous and convinced." ]be letter is important if the writer were in communication with the Emperor, if not, it is a mere opinion that M. 011ivier would manage better than M. Rouher, which is doubtful.

Mr. Hussey Vivian stated on Tuesday that the Coal Commission had completely examined the Bristol, Gloucestershire, and Somersetshire coal-field, and their report was most satisfactory. Only one-fortieth of this district, on the least favourable computation, had been exhausted, and the supply from this source alone was practically inexhaustible, even if the nation consumed one hundred millions of tons a year. The remaining coal-fields will probably be found to be as well filled, and, it is believed, the report will show coal enough "for all time." Mr. Vivian did not, however, give the information most needed,—the probable price at which this supply could be raised. Price is everything to this question, for at 208. extra per ton we could barrow from the coal-fields of the world.

A telegram of the 22nd May from Melbourne reports that the members mentioned elsewhere as expelled from the Assembly of Victoria for giving and taking bribes for votes within the Chamber, have been re-elected by their constituents. The knot of squatters who furnished the money have been committed to gaol for breach of privilege, but released by the Judges. Parliament intends to appeal to the Privy Council in defence of its privileges ; but we want to know why, instead of wasting time in that fashion, it does not make bribe-taking or giving, a legal offence, to be tried before the ordinary tribunals, the Attorney-General prosecuting?

We have not often felt much commiseration for the Pope, but we confess that Dr. Cunning's threat to attend the General Council and prove to him how wrong he is, fills 113 with a certain -commiseration for him, should he not be able to ward off this calamity. It is asserted that Dr. Cumming is to prove to the Pope, —if allowed to attend the Council,—that the questions on which Protestants differ are "like the clouds which float above and darken, it is true, the light slightly as they pass, but that the great truths on which they are at one are like the stars, far beyond the clouds, shining in their original and undimmed splendour." It would be very pleasant to hear such a thesis made oat, if it were only true, which it isn't. But to hear Dr. Cumming prove a falsehood with much expenditure of breath is too melancholy a fate even for a Pope, and we earnestly advise Cardinal Antonelli to hint to Dr. Cumming that if he comes within 666 miles of Rome,

he will be identified by Catholics with the false prophet or one of the frogs, and be in danger of his life. For our parts, we see as yet little real agreement in the Roman Church, and less in the Protestant,—though some signs of a growing disposition in both to agree that Dr. Cumming talks very fast about what he does not in the least understand.

There has been a great effort in this Irish Church debate to make out that the Roman Catholics really like the Established Church, or, at all events, do not think it any grievance, or ask for Its removal. Lord Harrowby quoted a letter of the late Mr. Dillon's to the Tablet, to this effect, and the drift of Dr. Bernard's (Bishop of Tuam's) representations on Thursday night went to prove that the Catholics down in his part of Ireland fondly love the Protestant Church, if not that they are almost likely to be alienated by its disestablishment and disendowment. In fact, however, we believe that the Catholic Press is as united as possible on the point and the Catholic people too. The Tablet, which is in new hands, and very much more ably conducted than at the time of Mr. Dillon's letter, is as firm on the subject as possible, and speaks with authority as to the unanimity of Catholic opinion in Ireland. Dr. Bernard is a kindly old gentleman, and we dare say the Catholic Irish are as polite to him as possible, even beyond the borders of strict truth. Clearly it is more likely an Irishman should draw the long-bow in his own peculiarly gracious way to please an old friend, than that ho should love an institution which represents, as Napoleon says, "a memory and a defeat,"— the memory in this case the worse of the two.

According to a telegram from the Times' correspondent in America, Mr. Motley is not empowered to propose any settlement of the Alabama claims, but to express the wish of his Government to see the dispute settled on terms honourable and satisfactory to both nations. "He is also instructed to state that the Neutrality proclamation is not in itself a cause for demanding compensation, or a separate ground of complaint, but that taken in connection with subsequent acts, it was unfriendly, as showing a feeling of. hostility to America during the late war, and resulting in losses requiring reparation." If this account be true, we fear we are not very far towards an agreement. The British Government may fairly reply that it regrets the escape of the Alabama, and would regard it, taken alone, as an unfriendly act ; but that it appeals to the issue of the Neutrality proclamation under the circumstances under which it was actually iseued,—at the special instigation of English Northerners,—as disproving finally any unfriendly intention in that act, and reducing the claim definitively to a question of administrative negligence at most.

The Registrar-General reports that one death in every 28 in England is by violence. In the five years ending December 31, 1867, 83,853 violent deaths were recorded, of which 28,114 were from fractures and other mechanical injuries ; 14,942 from chemical injuries, such as poisoning, burning, or scalding ; 23,828 from drowning or suffocation ; 4,175 from railway accidents ; and 5,898 from accidents in mines. These numbers are not large, leas than the loss in many a campaign, but it is strange to hear that 800 children are burnt to death, and 600 scalded to death every year in Great Britain. Who would have thought that the childish temptation to play with the kettle would have perceptibly increased mortality?

Sir G. Grey, late Governor of New Zealand ; the Hon. Charles Clifford, late Speaker of the House of Representatives ; Mr. Sewell, late Colonial Secretary of the colony ; Major Atkinson, late Minister of Colonial Defence ; and Mr. J. Logan Campbell, late Member of the Executive Council, have drawn up a very weighty memorial against the statements of the last despatch of Lord Granville's to New Zealand, of which we have twice had occasion to speak in the gravest language of regret. The memorial states that many of the assertions of Lord Granville's despatch are absolutely unfounded,—especially it asserts that the colonists never requested to have the obligations arising out of the relations to the natives transferred to them, but utterly declined them ; and finally, it states that the despatch itself, being published, as it will be, in the colony simultaneously with the withdrawal of the last regiment, will be considered by the natives as a signal for insurrection against a body of settlers formally rebuked and abandoned by the Minister of their Queen. The despatch will, say the memorialists, alienate the affections of Her Majesty's loyal subjects, and tend to drive the colony out of the Empire. That this will be its unhappy tendency we have already twine indicated our deep conviction.