NEWS OF THE WEEK.
BOTH Houses of Parliament met last night ; and again adjourned till Monday, when it is likely the closing scene of the session will be formally enacted.
Our Foreign relations--incidentally introduced, but largely expa- tiated upon—and the winding up of the London Bridge dispute— formed the sublects of deliberation in the House of Lords.
A set of diplomatic papers having been laid on the table, the Mar- quis of CLANRICARDE could not refrain from observing, that in no part of Europe was England now so much respected as she had been a few years ago. Our conduct towards Portugal was his chief topic: we had, he thought, interfered too much already to act up rigidly to the principle of non-interference ; and therefore he wished to know whether we meant ultimately to recognize Don Miguel, and sanction the marriage of Donna Maria with the usurper of her throne, and the murderer of her friends? . With regard to Greece, it was disgraceful that we had not taken a more energetic part in her liberation; and as to South Ame- rica, we had not exercised our just influence in the new states, either for our own benefit or theirs.
The Earl of ABERDEEN replied, that neutrality—not affected, but real neutrality—had been, and was to be, the rule of conduct on the part of Britain towards Portugal. To this we were bound by existing treaties • and ij the fulfilment of one of these, we had obtained the reversal of a Iqtence against a British subject. As to the projected marriage, Brithin had nothing to do with it: if it was the wish of Don Pedro to unite his daughter with her uncle, we would not interfere with the arrangement either way. As to the Greek treaty, Ministers would endeavour to carry it into execution ; but they would hazard no opinion in regard to the result. As to the States of South America, they were involved in distress and anarchy ; but he did not think it our business to interfere to reconcile their quarrels.
Lord HOLLAND took up these topics, in a more developed argument. He seemed to think that Ministers had been deceived by Russia : con- trary to Lord Aberdeen's assertion in last session, the Emperor had gone to war with Turkey, and had not waved his belligerent rights as a maritime power. He considered the blockade of the Dardanelles, however, 'perfectly justifiable, on all the principles of blockade : it affected no ports which did not belong either to Turkey or Russia. Lord Holland next dwelt at great length on the affairs of Portugal. The doctrine of non-interference in regard to that country was non- sense,—all our transactions with Portugal had been a species of inter- ference; indeed both England and Austria had interfered when they placed Don Miguel in a situation to be able to effect his usurpations. He agreed with the Marquis of Clanricarde, that the line of policy latterly pursued by this country had led it to be much less respected abroad: it would be impossible to go into a coffee-house, from Naples to St. Petersburg, without coming to this conclusion. The Duke of WELLINGTON showed that England had not interfered in the internal affairs of Portugal, by force of arms, for more than a century and a half; and it was not our policy to force a monarch Upon the people of Portugal, as Lord Holland recommended, in op. position to the policy which he usually advocated. As the affair of Terceira had been alluded to by the Marquis of Clanricarde and Lord Holland in terms of severe condemnation, the . Duke of Wellington justified our conduct there, on the same grounds that Mr. Peel had E.reviously stated. In regard to this and every other part of their po- cy, Ministers expected that Parliament would give them:eredit for doing nothing inconsistent with the character of the country. Lord GODERICH thought, that the fact of Don Miguel having broken tog promise to act as Regent, and having seized the crown, furnished — with a right to interfere. Here the discussion ended. The Earl of LAUDERDALE laid on the table the report of the Com- mittee on the Bill for nroviding- Approaches to the New London Bridge. This fa and the tax orreoals to defray the expense which it went to authorise, has been closely sifted in the Committee, by Lords Durham: and Londonderry, and has been taken up with sufficient keen- ness on all sides. At length a compromise has been effected between the belligerent parties, rather than a victory given to any of them ; and the bill has been read a third time without amendment, as only the ex- pedient of a year. It appears, as well from a formal minute between the parties, signed in presence of Mr. Herries of the Treasury, as from what fell from Lord DURHAM, that by a bill to be brought in next Session, the management of the approaches to the Bridge is to be vested in the Lords of the Treasury, and the whole of the expenditure to be taken out of the hands of the City Magistrates ; and that certain specified portions of the City revenue (more than 30,000/. per annum) are to be made available to pay the interest of the money to be bor- rowed. The tax on coals, authorized by the present bill, which pro- duces 62,0001., is thus expected to be reduced one half. Lord DURHAM found it necessary to disclaim being actuated by any perso- nal or private interest in the opposition he had given to the bill. The Earl of MALMESBURY objected to the bill, chiefly because it levied duties on necessaries rather than on luxuries.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY withdrew his opposition for the same reasons as Lord Durham; and as the management was to be • taken out of the hands of the Corporation, some of the expense con- templated by that body might be saved. The-Duke of WELLINGTON observed, that as the Bridge was for the convenience of the public, it would not be fair to impose the whole expense of constructing it on the City of London. As, however, the parties had come to an arrange- ment which seemed satisfactory to themselves, he would not object to its being carried into effect with the consent of the Government ; for he thought it proper that the Treasury should have the control of the large expenditure which the approaches on the London side would cost, He was not so sanguine as Lord Londonderry as to the arrange- ments limiting the duration of the coal-duties.
The Bill was read a third time, and passed ; after this witty saying from Lord ELDON, that, as it was styled a" dead bill," he would not dissect and anatomize it in order to improve the science of legislation !
The principal subjects before the Commons were—Mr. Nash, and the public property managed by him ; and the Bill for Enclosing Hampstead Heath, which was quietly stealing its way through Parlia- ment, till an alarm was sounded, and an active local opposition was organized.
The last came on first. It having been moved that the report of the • Committee on the Hampstead Heath Bill should be brought up, Mr. GORDON led the opposition, by moving its postponement for three months. If Sir T. M. Wilson, the lord of the manor, had already the right to build there, let him exercise it ; but he protested against Par- liament granting facilities for so undesirable an object, as it tended to abridge the comforts and amusements of the poor. Mr. J. STEWART obServed that the late lord of the manor had only given the present lord a life interest in the estate ; evidently not intending that any part of the Heath should be appropriated as the bill proposed, otherwise he would have devised it in fee simple. Mr. PERCEVAL, who seems to be the father of the bill in the House of Commons. argued that there was not a syllable in it which enabled Sir T. M. Wilson to enclose any part of the Heath that was not already enclosed: he was willing that all the clauses affecting the Heath should be struck out. • Mr. BERNAL, Mr. LYTTLETON, and Sir JOSEPH YORKE, also opposed the bill. . Sir Joseph said that the metropolis was Llrge enough already : indeed, he believed that the Government looked with alarm at the daily increase of the people in London. The opposition being thus formidable, Mr. PERCEVAL withdrew the bill.
The report of the Committee appointed by the House to inquire into the conduct of Mr. Nash, the architect, as to his dealings with the pub lie property under his management, was brought up. It distinctly negatived the charges against Mr. Nash, and stated that there was not the slightest ground for impeaching his integrity. Colonel DAVIES made art elaborate statement to show that the re- port of the Committee—which, by the way, was composed chiefly of Ministerial members, who closely attended, while, four of the indepen- dent and unbiassed members had left town—was not in accordance with the evidence produced ; and he expressed his intention of again calling the notice of the House to the subject. Mr. F. PALMER thought it would be proper to do so, for the sake of all parties. Sir JOSEPH YORKE thought there were a great many com- pliments in the report, which appeared very like whitewashing.. Mr. Hums., Mr. WOOD, and Mr. PROTHEROE, agreed that it would be better to leave the subject till next session ; and the discussion was postponed.
