NEWS OF THE WEEK.

THIS has perhaps been the most anxious week of the Parliamen- tary session. At the commencement, it was quite uncertain in what way the Commons would deal with the alterations in the Municipal Bill; while, up to last night, no one could surely pre- dict what would be the reception of the reamendcd bill in the House of Peers.

There was a strong muster of the Liberal Members in Downing Street on Monday, at the instance of Lord Jons: RUS- SELL. The intention of Ministers to accept some, and reject others of the amendments, was avowed. Several of the more earnest Reformers gave vent to their feelings of indignation at the contemptuous treatment of the National Representatives by the Oligarchy, and insisted on the prompt and unceremonious re- jection of all the material alterations in the bill. But it was urged that much, if not all, could be gained by taking a different course. Very intelligible intimations had been given by Lord LYNDHURST, and others of his set, that the Peers were prepared to back-out from some of their amendments. Sir ROBERT PEEL was sent for, it is believed, in order to construct a bridge over the gulf which separated the two Houses, and afford room for consul- tation and compromise. He certainly arrived in town very op- portunely. It is probable that Ministers ascertained, with toler- able accuracy, the maximum of meddling with their amended bill which the Lords would suffer, and came to the conclusion, that a Measure worth having might be secured after all. Mr. O'CosrsrEtt was of the same opinion ; and lent his powerful aid to Ministers at the meeting. It was finally resolved by the majority, to give way on certain points ; which were specified by Lord JOHN RUSSELL, in his opening speech on the same evening, in the House of Commons. A brief enumeration, first of the conceded points, secondly of those which were modified, and thirdly those on which the Commons refused to yield at all, will enable the reader to understand how the bill stood when it left the Representatives of the People for the second time, on Thurs- day night.

1. ALTERATIONS BY THE PEERS ACCEPTED BY THE COMMONS. Future freemen were allowed to retain the right of voting tor Members of Parliament.

The number of Councillors to be apportioned to the different wards in conformity with Lord EtLasiiiortouGa's very objection- able clause.

The licensing of alehouses to remain with the

Peace, instead being transferred to the Counei

Justie.'cs of the

was taken of this important alteration by 'rt. No notice

and the House seems to have aequies,:ea it, JOHN RUSSELL; ably, in silence, most unaccount- These are all the

to mat‘'.rial alterations of the Peers which the Commons allowed those which are

Ikpresautatir, Tr, pass without revision. Next in order are edified, and rendered less objectionable by our :s.

Aki'ERATIONSBY THE PEERS MODIFIED BY THE COMMONS.

The exclusive privileges of freemen which partake of the na- ture of property, were preserved to them by the Peers; but the Commons struck out of the clause the exemption from toll—in raany towns by far the most valuable of all. Instead of a third of the Town-Council being composed of Aldermen nominated for life, by the existing Aldermen, from among the members of their own body, the Town-Councillors chosen by the rate-payers are to elect from among themselves a third of their number for six years, one half of them to go out at the end of three years. The Peers Quieted that boroughs hating only 6000 inhabitants, [Lams EnteloN.] instead of 12,000, should be divided into two wards; but the Commons " split the difibrence," and made 9000 the smallest population divisible into wards.

The Revising Barristers, not the King's Commissioners, are to divide the boroughs into wards ; but their proceedings, according to a stipulation of' the Commons, must be revised by the Privy Council.

An important alteration was made in the Lords' qualification- clause, though the principle of qualification was conceded. The " Councillors List " was done away- with altogether, and with it that part of Lord DEVON'S amendment which required persons possessed of 1000/. in the first, and 500/. in the second class of towns, to be placed on the privileged list, in order to be eligible to the Council. It was agreed that the possession of 1000/. or 5001., or the circumstance of being rated at 30/. or 151. a year, according to the population of his place of resi- dence, should entitle a man to sit in the Council if elected. He would have to make a simple declaration that he pos- sessed the specified sum, if his qualification did not consist in his rating ; and, due notice being given, would have to prove that he still possessed the requisite property at any time during the continuance of his Councillorship, under a penalty of fifty pounds, to be sued for in a court of justice; the plaintiff being liable to the payment of all the expenses in ease he failed to prove a deficiency of property in the defendant Councillor.

The Peers had excluded the Dissenting members of the new Town-Councils from all share in the distribution of Ecclesiastical patronage : the Commons refused to sanction this exclusion, but provided that within a certain period all the Town-Councils should sell their Church property, under the direction of the Ecclesi- astical Commissioners, and invest the produce of the sale in Public Securities; the interest to be paid into the borough fund : and the Bishop of the diocese to have the disposal of the patronage during the interval between the election of the Councils and the sale of the property in question.

Here ends the second division. We now come to the alterations of the Lords which the Commons rejected at once.

3. ALTERATIONS I3Y THE PEERS REJECTED BY THE COMMONS.

The whole body of Aldermen, whom the Lords retained in ex- istence, were again swept away.

The Town-Clerks wele not to hold their offices for life, in defi- ance of the Councils, but during the good pleasure of the latter. An exceedingly brief tenure was thus provided for nearly the whole squad.

Justices of the Peace, whom the Peers would have kept on for life, were to be stripped of their offices on the 1st of May 1836, according to the bill of the Commons ; and the privilege of nomi- nating Justices to be appointed by the Crown was again conferred on the Councils.

This concludes the important rejections: there were many other alterations, but we have noticed the chief.

It will be seen that, with one exception, the main principles of the bill we-re insisted on by Ministers and the House of Commons. The cominued exercise of the Parliamentary franchise by freemen 111r.erpetuity, is a nuisance and a blot which it was quite right to Wipe off. The Peers had their own reasons for preserving the race of venal voters,—reasons which are thoroughly understood; but as the freemen are not to have municipal votes, the retention of their Parliamentary suffrage cannot be said to interfere materially with the working of the new system. The reservation of the freemen's usurped right of property in common lands, &c. is an injustice to the rest of the community, and tends to keep up a privileged class amongst those who ought by law to be on a footing of perfect equality ; but the Commons rendered this clause much less objectionable, by striking out the exemption from toll,— which in Liverpool and other places was a source of constant heartburning, and extensive practical wrong. As the clause now stands, it cannot be looked upon as very injurious to the operation of the bill. The same may be said of the licensing of alehouses; for it must be remembered that the CommOns provided for the nomination of the licensing Justices by the Town-Councils. There is much that is very objectionable in the system of.appor- tioning the Town-Councillors to the different wards on.the prinelpie of a combined ratio of property and numbers ; a great improvement to have the Revising Barristers insteacrofthe sammatry Justices employed in the work of division into wards and the ap. portionment of Councillors. Besides, next year, a boundary bM must be passed for the boroughs whose boundaries are not Axed under the Reform Boundary Act, and then the whole matter must undergo revision, A more important concession is that of a mg a adult portion of the Council to sit for six instead of t yes, wJi the title of Aldermen. for all that appears publieiy, -It-Was a gratuitous concession, tot which Lord Joule Russiwraesigned 43

reason worth notice. Perhaps there was a secret understanding with the Tory leaders, who insisted on having something under the name of an Alderman—some odious, because distinct and privileged class—for the sake of creating ill-blood and discord in the Councils. If such was the object of Lord LYNDHURST and kis employers, we fear that they have partially obtained it.

We consider all these alterations as objectionable, and hurtful to the bill ; but we cannot say that they trench upon its principle or main provisions. Not so, however, with the qualification- clause. We always looked upon the rejection of the principle of qualification as most valuable, and praiseworthy in the Ministers: It was, we are persuaded, one chief cause of the satisfaction with which people in all quarters received the bill, that the hateful principle of qualification was nowhere to be found in it. But, thanks to the Peers, there it found its way at last. Their Lordships despised the old established custom of the country, and violated the right of Englishmen to be eligible to every office to which they were competent to elect others. Yes, the People must not forget that they owe this infringement of their rights and outrage on the law of the land to the "hereditary tribunes of the poor !" The Commons modified the qualification-clause in a variety of ways, and perhaps so as to render its operation all but nugatory; but the principle still remains in all its deformity. It is a satisfaction to know, that every Liberal Member who spoke on the point strongly denounced this part of the measure, and only let it pass, under protest, from the fear of endangering the total loss of the measure in the House of Peers.

The other concessions were of minor importance ; though in- jurious to the bill, they were not materially so.

The Peers, as we have stated, received the bill, thus modified, from the Commons on Thursday ; and last night they took the amendments into their by no. means gracious consideration. To several of them they gave a sulky and grumbling assent; but re- fused to allow the Town-Councils the power of nominating Justices of the Peace, by a majority of 144 to 82; and reenacted that boroughs with only 6000 inhabitants should be divided into wards, by a vote of 79 to 33. They also made an effort in fa- vour of the Town-Clerks; but were warned by Lord CANTER- BURY, that they had better content themselves with the assurance that these worthy functionaries should be amply compensated for the loss which they would sustain by dismissal from office. Perhaps, too, their Lordships felt conscious that they had already made no small progress in Toryfying the bill. The division of the small boroughs into wards was palpably intended to make them rotten, and would have that effect. No reason what- ever was assigned for the change. No reason that can be publicly avowed exists. But the Peers well knew, that to cor- rupt and intimidate a constituency, it is necessary to cut it up into " fractional morsels." They took from the Councils the privilege of nominating Justices, with the intention, we fully believe, of securing to themselves the appointment of a thousand or more ready tools, scattered all over the country. Their obstinacy in adhering to this alteration, is a proof that they meditate another attack on the Cabinet. They would not give Lord MELBOURNE the power of selecting the new Justices. No —they have resolved to use it themselves, for the purpose of riveting their own control over the People. The Chronicle re- minds us of the influehce which Tory Justices, newly appointed, having authority to license alehouses, must exercise at an election. Thus we see how these two alterations hang together : the whole scheme of corruption and intimidation is palpable.

Now the question arises, how should the Commons deal with these alterations ? We say, in regard to the division of the small boroughs into wards, that if the question is again to beopened up, our Representatives should insist on the original clause being re- stored to the bill—that boroughs with a less population than 12,000 shall not be divided. If they are precluded by the forms of the House from doing this, they must at all events adhere firmly to their amendment. They have advanced solid, unanswerable reasons, against the minute division of boroughs : no attempt has been made to reply to their arguments. The rejection of their second proposition was a piece of lordly insolence ; and the tone of the Tory orators last night proves that every advantage, however un- fair, will be taken of the disposition to yield. With regard to the Justices of the Peace, we also call upon our Representatives to take their stand. The Justices once appointed, the mischief is done. This is a damage not to be repaired next session. There- fore, it is necessary, unless the bill is to be made a Tory engine, now to resist the Lords on this point. The bill must again come before the House of Commons—on Monday.

From a discussion which occurred in the House of Peers on Thursday, it would seem that their Lordships are beginning to feel uncomfortable under the prospect of another winter in Ireland with the Tithe question unsettled. Lord LYNDHURST, the Duke of WELLINGTON, Lord WICKLOW, Lord FARNHAM, and the whole clique, protested that they were quite free from blame in the matter ; and that Lord MELBOURNE was the guilty party. The cool impudence of this never was exceeded. Lord MELBOURNE' gave their Lordships to understand that they could not and should not shift from their own shoulders to his the blame due to their fac- tious rejection of the Irish Tithe bill. Lord BROUGHAM, with an affectation of contemptuous pity, declared that he was much con- cerned to see their Lordships so distressed; that he was very sorry for them—very ; but lie could not help them in their difficulty they might strive to case their consciences by imputing to others. the consequences of their own misconduct, but the attempt never would succeed. In the mean while, for their comfort, they will learn to-day that Mr. HENRY Gasrrate (who made an example of Sir HENRY HARDINGE, in a "collision' on the Tithe Instalment Bill, the other evening) gave notice last nrfett of a motion for next session, "to abolish Tithes in Ireland, in name and in substance."

The other exploits of their Lordships consisted in the rejection of the Dublin Police Bill, and the Irish Registration Bill, because Mr. O'Cosnexu. supported them both ; the Bribery Witnesses Indemnity Bill, because it arose out of the "inquisitorial pro- ceedings" of the Bribery Committees ; and the Music Licensing Bill, because, forsooth, the proprietors of Covent Garden Theatre said that to play a fiddle in a public-house was an infringement of their patent. This was a sufficient reason for the " hereditary tri- bunes of the poor" to deprive the inhabitants of London and its environs of a source of innocent recreation, which is open to all in every other part of the Three Kingdoms.

The House of Commons has at length discovered, that after the Estimates are voted its power to stop or limit the Supplies is at an end; and that the Appropriation Act is, as we explained a fort- night ago, only an order on the Treasury to pay over to certain departments the sums already placed at the disposal of those de- partments by the House of Commons. No reason was assigned why the House could not give orders for appropriating a proportion only of the sums in the Treasury; but it was admitted, that even if the Appropriation Act was not passed, Government had a suffi- cient sum in Exchequer Bills at its disposal to go on with during the recess. Under these circumstances, Mr. HUME withdrew his opposition to the third reading of the bill ; and it passed without a division. Our Representatives have seen the folly of relying on one of the fictions of the Constitution; and next session they will be the better prepared to act on the good old rule of Redress of Grievances before Supply. After the Estimates are voted, the Minister laughs at the idea of being short of cash. It is said that it is contrary to precedent to refuse the Supplies, because the House is at war with the Lords, not with the Crown. Granted; but, on the supposition that this is a question of stopping the Supplies,—which it is not,—we ask if the power is not avail- able for the protection of the Commons against any party, or all parties ? If so, it ought to be used against the Peers as well as the Crown, if the Commons should find occasion for so exer- cising it.