NEWS OF THE WEEK.

PARLIAMENT—at least the House of Commons—has this week sat more than its average number of hours ; but it is questionable whe- ther it has got through more than the average amount of business. The leading subjects have been—in the Lords, Post-office espion- age and Irish workhouses ; in the Commons, the former topic, the Corn-law, the Sugar-duties, and the Bank Charter.

The Corn debate occupied two nights. It was opened by Mr. VILLIERS with a motion for a Committee of the whole House to -consider a series of resolutions, starting with the census, and de- claring that the Corn-law ought to be repealed forthwith, as tend- ing to restrict the supply of food for an increasing population. This was, met by. Mr. FERRAND with a counter-motion, that the lloude resolve into Committee for the purpose of expressing its approbation of the Corn-law, and of the peculiar views respecting machinery `entertained by Mr. FERRAND. Mr. GLADSTONE lost no time in elbowing out. Mr. FERRAND'S amendment, by moving a -direct negative upon the original motion ; and upon this ground 4he parties joined issue. In pqint of matter, the debate presented little or no novelty. An able 'speech from Lord Howica, boldly grappling with the Condition-of-England question, and giving utter- ance to views characterized at once by deep insight and humane feel- ing, was the only exception. It was principally as illustrative of the relative positions of the parties in Parliament that the long debate possessed any interest. Lord JOHN RUSSELL, professing a belief that the "total and immediate" repeal which Mr. Vimrosas sought would be productive of much distress and danger, and also that it was inadmissible to bring forward the question of protection without stating the whole of the case, declined to vote with Mr. VILLIERS, and could not vote with Mr. GLADSTONE. Lord JOHN made 'no allusion to the votes of the Leaguers against him last week when the Sugar-duties were under discussion ; but the emptiness of the bench generally occupied by the Whig leaders of Opposition was remarkable, and frequently alluded to. Sir Rosser PEEL took -occasion to record his approval of the principle of protection for agriculture. The tone of his speech was conciliatory to his own party ; calculated to leave the impression, that having obtained a victory over them the week before, he was contented with the reality of triumph, and wisely dispensed with its display. The tone of the Pro-Corn-law majority was (with the exception of Mr. GLAD- STONE'S disclaimer of Mr. FERRAND'S irrelevant attack upon ma- chinery) uniform : the party appeared united in its opinions on this point. On the side of the assailants of the Corn-law there was more discrepancy. Even of those who, unlike Lord JOHN RUSSELL, re- mained to vote, several (as Messrs. HUTT and E. ELLICE, Captains BERKELEY and LAYARD) explained that their vote was only in favour of going into Committee—that they were not prepared to vote for the " total and immediate" repeal of the Corn-law. The result was a division in which 124 voted for Mr. Viroonas's motion and -328 against it. In point of numbers merely, there is no falling-off here. The division of 1843 was 125 to 381; of 1842, 90 to 393. But neither is there any advance ; and for the Corn-law question not to advance, is to retrograde. From the general tone of the speakers against Mr. VILLIERS'S motion this seemed to be their impression. They treated the League and its cause with less of ceremony, and perhaps with less of vehement bitterness, than in former years. They mustered in less strength than formerly. They bad, in short, the appearance of recovering from their apprehensions of the League. And Lord JOHN Russimes fighting shy of Mr. VILLIERS'S motion seemed to say that he was of their opinion—that the Corn-law question was not making such progress as to render it worth his notice. From these premises it would be a false con- clusion to infer that the cause of Corn-law repeal is losing hold on the country. On the contrary, it is, as part of the great system of Free. -trade opinions, steadily advancing. But the debate seems to indicate that the League have not been recently so successful as

i

before in impressing people with a belief in their efficiency as the instruments for bringing about free trade.

The Sugar-duties Bill was read a third time, and passed. The debate, or rather speechifying conversation, was a mere appendix to the discussions of last week—a general taking up of odds and ends. The House of Commons does not record writ- ten protests ; honourable Members therefore embraced the op- portunity of speaking their last thoughts, to be recorded in the newspapers. Lord JOHN RUSSELL broke a lance against Sir HOWARD DOUGLAS for his see-saw voting ; and Sir ROBERT PEEL

magnanimously extended the shield of his protection over Sir How- AIM. Mr. MANGLES made an onslaught upon the Colonial Office ;

declaring that no advantage to Colonial interests could be ex- pected " until a great moral ploughshare should be driven through it." It is to be feared that were the experiment tried, the soil would be found unfit for tillage. The Post-office espionage question was resumed by the Com- mons on a petition from a new complainant—Mr. STOLZBERG, a Pole : Mr. DUNCOMBE moved for a Committee to inquire what let- ters had been opened or detained at the Post-office since January last, and what warrants issued by the Secretary of State for such opening and detention. To the Peers the Earl of RADNOR simply addressed a renewal of his former motion for the Secretary's war- rants. In both Houses, Ministers intrenched themselves behind technical defences. Sir JAMES GRAHAM alleged that a court of law is the proper place for his accusers to attack him, and expressed his willingness to meet them there. Sir ROBERT PEEL objected to the form of the motion : " If the House thought the power ought to be abolished, let it be extinguished upon a motion of which due notice was given." Lord STANLEY pleaded the Government's

responsibility, as the thing which fettered Ministers, and " pre-

eluded them from stating the facts and entering into the circum- stances of the case "! Lord HADDINGTON maintained that "no Parliamentary ground" had been shown for interference. And

even the Duke of WELLINGTON deigned for a moment to quibble about want of proof that any letters had been opened. All this

evasion only shows that Ministers are conscious they have got a nasty case in hand ; that they would rather evade the charge than defend the practice. No wonder; for it is a practice very alit%

to English principles and sentiments. Mr. MACAULAY was justified

in saying, that if there is any difference betweeu the forcible ab- straction of letters from a man's writing-desk and the opening of the same letters by the Post-office functionaries to whom it has been in- trusted for safe delivery, the balance is against the Post-office people, who to espionage add breach of trust, fraud, and forgery in simulating the violated seals. Ministers, by this time, can scarcely fail to be aware of the strength and universality of this feeling. The comparative narrowness of the majority which saved them front Mr. Dor:cosines Committee of inquiry (206 to 162) was a warning hint ; and the pertinacity with which the attack upon them on this ground is kept up out of doors corroborates it. In extreme cases—when war or revolution, foreign levy or

domestic treason, is impending—extreme measures must be resorted to. But these are cases of the suspension of all law. English mo-

rality, English confidence, English love of fair play, is opposed to the notion of a Government's getting possession of men's letters, under the pretext of forwarding them safely and expeditiously, and availing itself of the trust reposed in its integrity to ferret out their secrets. If the practice is to be continued, the extent to which it may be carried—the mode of its operation—must be de- fined : it must be done frankly anti avowedly. But it is difficult to prescribe limits to so insidious an agency. Perhaps toe Duke of WELLINGTON'S impatient exclamation expressed the truest course as well as the shortest—if you disapprove of the practice, " repeal the law." Let the Duke take counsel from the excellent Lord DENMAN. The Bank Bill is moving steadily through Committee, amid all kinds of desultory critical remarks, which scarcely impede its pro- gress, and are not likely to modify its form.

Lord CLANRICARDE s natural history of Irish workhouses was a fresh illustration of the unsuitableness of the Irish Poor-law to the circumstances of the Irish people.