NEWS OF THE WEEK.
Tun bill to suspend the right of habeas corpus in Ireland has passed in both Houses of Parliament without hinderance': the Commons passed it through all stages on Saturday, the Lords on Monday, and the Royal assent was given on Tuesday. This unhesitating promptitude signified the spirit with which the Representatives and Rulers of the English people are prepared to encounter rebellion. The statements of Ministers, setting forth the grounds of the measure, were received by both Houses as forms which it was very decorous. to observe, but still merely forms: the part of the Ministerial speeches which was felt not to be -supererogatory was that which accounted for the delay in advancing the measure—by the desire that the grounds for it should not only be in themselves unmistakeable, but also recog- nized' by universal public opinion in this country. Sir Robert Feel gave his fiat without any qualifying strictures on Ministers, even for the delay. Some dissentients of course were found. In the Commons, a few simple-minded persons did not see the ridi- culousness of talking at such a time about "remedial measures" ; and theamiable Mr. Sharman Crawford formally put a sentiment of that sort in the form of an amendment, which was seconded.by the atusing_ Tohia Reynolds. Mr. Feargns 0:Connor, too, va- poured about " separation.". In the House of Lords, the Earl of Ellenborough could not resist the opportunity of making himself cdnepicuous by some untimely criticisms. In both Houses, how- ever, these petty obstacles were overridden by an overwhelming and undivided majority. Cant and triviality were trampled down, as they always are in times of real action. The same good speed and peremptory advance which have marked the enactment ought to attend its execution. The stern reality of this measure affords a striking contrast with the explosion of the Repeal humbug in Parliament this week. Mr. John O'Connell had kept the adjourned debate on his motion for months on the Notice-paper; and in spite of the taunts of Sir Benjamin Hall, it had been postponed from time to time, until it was pushed off to this impossible season. The duty of putting it off had been shifted from Member to Member in the mover's absence, until at last, on Wednesday, it fell to Mr. Maxwell Fox to adjourn it sine die. At that stage, of the thirty- seven Irish Repeal Members, only seven thought it worth their while to attend. And so the farce is over. Mr. Grattan selected thevecasion to make a speech of sober manner but inflammatory insinuation, which the House ought not to have heard. In this country, indeed, excuses are made for Mr. Grattan ; but in Ire- land, where a lower standard of intellectual health prevails, he passes, as "Tom Steele " did, for a person in possession of all the usual faculties, and therefore quite qualified to be followed as a leader. At such a time, in some way or other, the mouths of in- cendiaries, whether innocent or malignant, should be stopped.
Sir William Molesworth has succeeded in making his long- announced motion on the expenditure and government of the Colonies. His speech was one of the ablest ever delivered in the House of Commons,—comprehensive in scope, clear in arrange- ment, close in texture, pregnant in illustrative facts. His theme was the existing system by which the Colonies are managed : to which he applied one test—the advantages derived, in proportion to the natural resources of the Colonies and the expenditure of the Mother-country. He separated the possessions subject to the Colonial Office into two classes—the "Colonies" which are valued as military posts, and the Colonies properly so called ; each class costing the Mother-country about two millions annu- ally. With the cost he compared the use made of the Colonies as outlets for emigration or markets for trade; he showed that to secure a favoured trade with the commercial Colonies we pay at the enormous rate of 30 per cent on the amount of the trade; and that we make no adequate use of the vast field for emigration. A large portion of the expense borne by the Colonies themselves, amounting also to about four millions annually, consists in the high salaries maintained for the purposes of the political patron- age enjoyed by the Imperial Government ; the rate of expense being greatest in those Colonies which have no representative in- stitutions to check the outlay of public money. He did not propose to abandon any of our settlements—except the Falkland Islands—but to effect various reductions, which would save about 2,000,0001. a year of direct Imperial outlay; to extend the utility of the Colonies by extending colonization ; and to compensate them for performing the duties of self-defence by allowing them a much more ample share of self-government. It has been ob- jected, that Sir William Molesworth took a view of Colonial rela- tions too purely utilitarian : but he had a right so to limit his view for the nonce, and to apply a test which a good system ought to stand. Perhaps he does share a common error in esti- mating the advantages which we derive from our Colonies too exclusively by the balance of trade over cost ; for it should be re- membered, that even without any profit to the state in that dis- tinct shape, the community derives advantage from the employ- ment in the subsistence for very many of its individual members, implied in all expenditure. But when Sir William showed that there is a far greater demand on our resources than there needs be, that we do not obtain all the returns for our money that we might, that bad management enhances the cost and waste by creating disaffection, and that the ratio of large cost and small profits might be inverted without sacrificing a single advantage honorary or substantial, his argument, although utilitarian in form, truly embraces the whole round of the Colonial question. In conclusion, he moved a resolution declaring the necessity of inquiry, with a view to reduced expenditure and better govern- ment.
Ministers—or rather, the Colonial Office—by the agency of Mr. Hawes, met this motion with an evasive assent: Mr. Hawes did not oppose it; he a°'reed with Sir William Molesworth's " prin- ciples,' but pretended that Government is already acting just on the same principles. He admits the necessity of reform, but insists that there is reform already—in fact, that the system is excellent, and most successful! This he endeavoured to make out by a speech of studied prevarication. Sir William Moles- worth a speech, however, is-40o eogent to be quite so easily, evaded : it has revived tiiiiihsterest in Colonial affairs, and the unfinished discussion stands adjourned till Tuesday the 8th of August. Mr. FIawes's speech has also created an unusual sous* tion ; but the feelings very generally avowed are quite opposip to those of admiration or respect. Mr. Charles Buller has introduced a measure to amend the levying of poor-rates, by substituting union charges for parochial charges in respect of removeable paupers, vagrants, and the cost of union establishments. The first of the three measures is embodied in Mr. Bodkin's Act, which expires and is to be renewed. Va- grants are properly chargeable on no particular parish, and the law which makes them so encourages frauds and paltry squabbles in the endeavour to pass off trampitr, paupers from one parish to another. The advantages derivable from the union workhouse, negative as well as positive, do not at all correspond with the number of paupers belonging to the parishes severally ; and therefore the present plan, which apportions the charge of each pariah according to the number of paupers sent in by each some years back, is quite fallacious. Mr. Buller's bill effects very obvious improvements, as far as it goes. It is, however, a serious inroad on the system of parochial liability.
