NEWS OF THE WEEK.

Two grand battles, and a skirmish of question and answer be- tween the Whig and the Tory leaders-both "cunning of fence "- form the chief topics in the Parliamentary record of the week. The fret discussion, on the Spanish policy of Ministers, had an abrupt and ludicrous termination. The second, on Slavery, is not com- pleted at the time we write, and may be prolonged into the ensu- ing week. It relates to the only question on which the British public exhibit any thing like deep and general interest-the actual condition and the future emancipation of the Negro Ap- prentices in the West Indies.

Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND, on Thursday, moved in the Com- mons a resolution, in conformity with the bill produced by Lord BROUGHAM in the House of Peers, for the abolition of the ap- prenticeship of the " prtedial" or farm Negroes, on the 1st of August 1838, the day on which the non-preadial or domestic ser- vants will become entitled to entire freedom. By the Emancipa- tion Act, the former class of labourers are to continue in their state of partial bondage till the let of August 1840. Mr. PEASE, in a speech of much feeling, seconded Sir Geintee STRICItc,AND' motion. Sir Caoitou Gaay (lolivered an e *borate reply,

AIM asa ainenchnenl, the second reading of Lord GLeatst.o's bill for enforcing the execution of the Emancipation Act. In the House of Peers, the same subject was discussed at length, on the presentation of petitions by the Bishop of EXETER, the Duke of WELLINGTON, Lords ST. VINCENT, SEAFORD, MELBOURNE, and Baounaam. Therefore, although the debate in the Commons was adjourned, we may safely assume that the case of both parties has been laid before Parliament and the country.

The assailants, or Emancipationists, allege that the slave- owners have not fulfilled the condition on which they obtained the grant of twenty millions, and the privilege of retaining the ser- vices of tic Negroes under the apprenticeship system for a period of six sears. The Negroes, it is said, have been fed and clothed badly-flogged, even women, unmercifully-deprived of their stipulatcd hours of rest and recreation-over-worked-and when sick, treated with cruelty instead of kindness. In support of these allegations, numerous facts On indisputable testimony are adduced. On the other hand, it is asserted that the instances of cruelty are rare, and the general conduct of the planters humane. There are despatches of Governors and Special Magistrates in the Colonies in support of these assertions. But the instances of in- dividual cruelty are sufficiently numerous to destroy the general defence set up for the planters ; and there is besides, the fact that the Legislative bodies of the two great colonies of Jamaica and Guiana have obstinately refused to enforce the more humane Provisions of the Abolition Act. On this point, therefore, it ap- Pears that the apology for the planters breaks down. And as re- gards the question of equity between the two parties, this is the principal point. To say that it is unjust to punish the merciful planter for the sins of his hard and selfish brother' is beside the question; which, like all others submitted to the Legislature for ot decision, and having a national and general bearing, must be dealt with largely, and without reference to individual cases.

A claim to a legal and " vested interest" in the labour of the

co apprentices is put forth by the planters : to abolish the appren- ticeship, would be equivalent to the spoliation of private property, held under an act of Parliament. This is met by the reply,

• that every act of Parliament is passed subject to repeal ; and that

the property in question was granted on conditions, which have Sot been fulfilled. With respect to property in slaves, the t of 1833 was a warning that the Imperial Legislature would not treat it as of the same description and entitled to the same • protection as the land which these 'slaves cultivated. Apart from the consideration of the slave question, many will agree with the Marquis of GLANR1CARDEr who refused to look upon any act of Parliament as a contract with individuals. seeing that it might become an imperative duty in the Legislature, whose duty it is to make laws for a country, to repeal the laws-to violate the supposed contracts.

It will be difficult to maintain the legal right of the planters to retain their property in the apprentices labour ; it will be still more difficult to make good their equitable claim, for they have not entitled themselves to indulgence by their conduct to the Negro population since 1833. But there are other questions involved in that of abolishing the apprenticeship next August. Some have supposed, that when absolutely manumitted, a Black man will be on a par, as respects political and social rights, with the richest planter of Jamaica or Demerara. Is be to be allowed the full exercise of those rights ? Will he be armed and enrolled in the militia-eligible to be put on juries to Aecide on, matters affecting the life and property of a White Man; perchance his former master ? will "universal suffrage" be established, and a Negro be allowed to vote for members of the Legislature, and be eligible himself ? These questions press for answers. For, be it re- membered, the non-priedials, the domestic Negroes-of whom there are 50,000 in Jamaica alone-will be completely free in four months from the present time. It is a more serious question. however, whether the body, by far the most numerous, the prcedials, shall be at once placed on a par with their present masters. These are the considerations which ought to make the stoutest advocate for the speedy abolition of the apprenticeship move with caution. At the same time, it is probable that the attempt to keep one, and that the largest portion of the Black population, under the yoke of apprenticeship, while another and the lesser is absolutely free, may be attended with great danger-may, indeed, be impossible. Perhaps the safest course would be to abandon the apprenticeship entirely on the 1st of August, and take a year to consider dili- gently the laws and regulations under which the Colonial popula- tion should exercise political and civic privileges. The difficulties with which this subject is surrounded are ag- gravated by, if they are not entirely owing to, the inability and negligence of the Queen's Ministers, especially the Colonial Se- retary. Nothing, seems to have been done in preparation for a

witila Was decreed nearly five years ago, to take effect p:srtl IR fOut' months from this duty, and altogether in two years more. Admitting that the demand for the total abolition of the Apprenticeship were sudden and unexpected, (which it is not,) the expiry of the non-preedial term of apprenticeship was fixed to take place in August next, and ought to have been provided for. Yet, even now, the Colonial Secretary is unable to produce mea- sures for regulating the new state of society, and guarding against the evils a hich may arise out of it. Whatever may be the result of the present discussion, one conviction of the gross indolence or incapacity of our rulers must force itself upon every mind, not impervious to 4(111e-though, of course, a majority of the House of Commons will vole that Lord GLENELG has been vigilant, well- informed, and sagacious; and that so have been all his colleagues.

Lord ELIOT'S motion, condemnatory of the Spanish policy of Ministers, occupied the Commons on Tuesday. A more weari- some set of speeches it never was our lot to wade through. They all lacked earnestness, to say nothing of novelty in fact or rea- soning. Even Mr. SHELL, though straining at antithesis and brilliancy, rose no higher than a commonplace dealer-out if party hits and tinselled declamation. Early in the evening, Sir ROBERT PEEL announced that it was to be an adjourned debate ; so it was not expected that any of the" great guns" would be discharged till the following night. Luckily, a sudden termination was put to the sham fight. On Wednesday, the House being thin and idle, the real business of the evening was got through or put aside, in order to make way for the adjourned debate, with inure speed than usual. Mr. A BERCROM BY suddenly called upon Mem- bers to speak on Lord ELIOT'S resolution. The Tory gentleman, who had been engaged by Sir ROBERT PEEL to reply to Mr. Seam, was either absent or sulky. Nobody would say a word, A division took place ; and the Tory resolution was negatived, by 70 to 62. Amidst laughter, grumbling, and confusion, Lord MAHON attempted to renew the debate by reproducing Lord ELIOT'S resolution with a alight verbal change; but the majority, glad to be released, would not permit any thing so disorderly, and the House adjourned.

This ridiculous upshot of the Tory assault was not out of keeping with the real nature of the movement. The avowed object was to prevent the renewal of the suspension of the Fo- reign Enlistment Act, and to enforce this by the failure of the British military interference in the Spanish quarrel Nobody supposes that the slightest intention exists o other General EVANS with another Legion to Sp was no necessity for the motion. But it was Ministry by the debate-not to turn than The effect, however, has been to make the Tories themselves ridiculous ; and such, we hope, will always be the result of their sham attacks on the Whigs.

It has been seen that on questions of Colonial and Foreign policy, the Tory Opposition will not enter into serious conflict with Ministers, this session. A Very curious and amusing conversa-

tion between Lord JOHN. RUSSELL and Sir ROBERT PEEL, quoted fully in a subsequent page, will satisfy the reader that neither will the Church question produce earnest collision. Lord JOHN asked Sir ROBERT, what he would do with the Irish Municipal Bill ? Sir ROBERT travelled about and about the subject for some time, and then said, what will you do with the Church ?—tell me that first. Whereupon Lord Jostrt palavered on the mischief of a perpetual discrepancy between Lords and Commons, and his anxious desire to "settle" the Irish Tithe question ; for which purpose, he intended to propose a plan, laid down in a series of re- solutions, on the 30th of April next. He read the said resolutions ; from which it appears that Ministers have adopted a scheme much resembling that suggested by Mr. O'Corrreehr. in the au- tumn. The tithe-composition Lord JOHN would convert into a rent-charge at the rate of 70/. for every 100/.; the rent-charge he would empower the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to redeem or pur- chase at the expiration of existing interests, or before with the consent of the parties, with money supplied from the Consolidated Feud, at the rate of sixteen years' purchase on the original tithe- composition ; until such purchase be made, (and afterwards also, we presume, though that is not expressly stated in the resolu- tions,) the clergymen to be paid from the Consolidated Fund ; the money arising from the rent-charges to be "appropriated by law to certain local charges, now defrayed out of the Consolidated Fund, and to education ; the (uncomputed) surplus to form part of the Consolidated Fund ;" further provision to be made for the better dis- tribution of ecclesiastical revenues, and the performance of ecclesi- astical duties. The main features of the scheme arc, to make the clergy stipendiaries on the Consolidated Fund, and to convert the tithe-tax into a police-rate.

Having listened, gravely as beseems him, to the Ministerial ex- posé, Sir ROBERT PEEL said that he would propose to defer the Committee on the Municipal Bill till after a vote of the House on the Tithe resolutions. Further he would not disclose his plan of action.

We shall not insult the understanding of the Ministers by supposing that they bring forward their new Tithe scheme with any expectation of carrying it. For it comprises almost all that was objectionable to the Tories in former plans, with wanton aggravations—wanton because insincere : it makes the Church dependent for support on an annual vote of the House of Com- mons, depriving the clergy of their vested interest in land, the most secure of all descriptions of property ; it empowers the Minister of the day, through persons named by him, to dispose of the entire revenues of the Establishment, imposing such duties,`■ and granting such pay, as he may think fit; and it authorizes the application of an assumed surplus to purposes not ecclesias- tical, or even educational. Why is this scheme proposed? Simply for a party pretext—to keep up a species of &Greece between Whigs and Tories, as an excuse, a salvo, to the corrupt and the credulous for supporting the former against the latter.

How will the Tories deal with this new scheme ? Probably after the old fashion. Defeated in the Commons, they may leave to the Lords the easy task of rejecting the bill. The Tories have perhaps a majority on the Church question ; but their sound policy, for permanence, is to eschew dike, which they cannot yet hold. Were a bill such as they could vote for sent down by the Peers, it might be carried in the Commons,—not, indeed, with the good-will of Ministers, who wish to retain the Irish Church question as a "rail of partition," though a flimsy one, between the Tories and Downing Street.