NEWS OF THE WEEK.

Two subjects have chiefly engrossed the attention of Parliament this week. First, the formation of a competent and trustworthy tribunal for the adjudication of controverted elections. Second, Lord DURHAM'S mission to Canada, and especially the means to be placed at his personal disposal for the performance of the duties he has undertaken. The Tories took an active part in the discussion on the consti- tution of Election Committees. The recent decisions of' these tribunals have been so adverse to the Opposition, that the necessity of some improvement is manifest to them. On the other hand, it is instructive to observe how lukewarm the Liberals have gene- rally become on this subject. They left Sir ROBERT PEEL, Sir WILLIAM FoLLErr, and Lord STANLEY to take the lead in the debate. Mr. CHARLES BULLER offered but a slipshod defence of his bill; which he may be said to have virtually abandoned, by agreeing to put off its further consideration till the 11th of May, when be expects to be voyaging to Canada with Lord DURHAM. Lord Jowi RUSSELL threw cold water on every proposition of amendment ; though admitting the necessity of a change. Mr. O'CosisniLL alone on the Ministerial side exhibited something like earnestness; he stiffly adhered to his own scheme.

It may be useful to give the outlines of tho several plans now before the House.

Sir ROBERT PEEL proposes, that at the commencement of every session, the Speaker shall nominate a General Committee of Elec- tions, to consist of four or six persons. This Committee, under the obligation of an oath, (the virtue of an oath !) should appoint as many Committees as there are petitions ; each Committee to consist of five or seven Members; the mode of selection to be either by ballot out of a gross number, or by a distinct appoint- ment, in the first instance, of Members to each Committee : per- haps it might be desirable to name eleven or thirteen Members, giving each party liberty to strike till the number be reduced to five or seven. It was important, Sir ROBERT thought, to give the Committees the aid of an assessor, who might either act as Chair- man, with equal authority to the Members, and a casting-vote in addition, (in which case the number of Members must be even— four or six,) or the Committee being composed of an unequal num- ber, the assessor might merely act as an adviser. Sir ROBRRT would riot have a permanent staff of assessors, but would empower the General Committee to select barristers to act in that capacity as their services were required, and who would be paid liberally ac- cording to the time employed. He was averse to any court of appeal.

Mr. O'CoresiELL's scheme is, that the Speaker should name a Committee of five Members to determine the issues, to be tried between the parties, before courts of justice as near as possible to the places where the facts arose. He would also simplify the law; and thus leave Committees small opportunity for unfair de- cisions. A more thorough sifting of the whole subject than has Yet been made, Mr. O'Coersmee considers absolutely necessary to useful legislation ; and with this view, he moved that Mr. BuL- lari's Bill be referred to a Select Committee, with instruction to examine the state of the law and suggest improvement.

Lord STANLEY contended, that the uncertainty of the law, arising from various contradictory decisions, was the main cause of the complaints against Election Committees ; and he will move on Tuesday next, that a Committee be appointed to collate those de- cisions and suggest a declaratory law. With respect to the con- stitution of Committees, Lord STANLEY did not express himself very precisely ; but he is in favour of appointing assessors, with authority to lay down the law and sum up the facts. O'CosiwEra.'s motion for referring Mr. BULLER'S bill to a l'°Intaittee, was negatived, by 80 to 57. Sir ROBERT PEEL is to .elrink in a bill, embodying his suggestions, on the 11th of May. It is expected that Lord STANLEY "S Committee, to be named on

Tuesday, will he engaged in an attempt to simplify the law, while Sir ROBERT'S bill for improving the tribunals is in progress. Such is the actual state of the question.

It will be observed that none of these propositions go the length of removing the jurisdiction from the House; although their authors not only insist upon the present, but admit the prospective incompetency of Members, even under the im- proved system, to discharge the duties imposed on them, by going out of the House to the Bar for persons to instruct them and guide their decisions. It is not easy to believe that any recasting of materials so intrinsically bad will form a sound tribunal. The original sin of party bias will stick to Mem- bers; and no juggling between the Speaker and two sets of Committees—the responsibility of the highest being lost in the delegations—will get rid of it. The difficulty of obtaining an im- partial tribunal out of the House appears also, if not insurmount- able, yet practically very great. In this dilemma, men truly de- sirous of fair dealing are thrown back upon the conviction, that the most effective remedy would be the easiest—diminish the matter of contests, by repealing the property qualification for Members, simplifying the franchise, settling all questions of title before the election, and protecting the vote by secrecy. These changes would leave the election tribunals, in whatever way con- stituted, little to decide upon except the formalities of a return---- which would rarely be disputed. The debate and division on the mission to Canada have excited unusual interest, and formed the almost single topic of conversa- tion and discussion since Wednesday morning.

The Marquis of CHANDOS moved resolutions implying suspi- cion that Lord DURHAM'S outlay would be extravagant, and refer• ring to Lord GOSIPORD'S expenditure—somewhat above 12,0001.— as the limit which Lord DURHAM ought not to pass. The debate on this motion displayed more acrimony and party.spirit than any previous conflict of the session. When the Canadian consti- tution was to be destroyed, there was wonderful unanimity ! Costly armaments for the military subjugation of the Colonists were eagerly sanctioned by Liberal and 'Tory, the Minister and the Opposition. The few who ventured to raise their voices on the other side, encountered chilling silence or angry shouts. What a contrast to the agreement of the Factions then, was exhibited on Tuesday night, when the subject was—two or four secre- taries, a few thousands more or less to defray the cost of art arduous mission! Now, captious wrangling and mutual crimina- tion prevailed. Spiteful aocusations were bandied about, and old offences raked up. The Tory leader seemed to have partially changed his tactics. The prospect, or rather to him the risk, of the necessity of taking office, having disappeared for the present, he seems to have no objection to indulge the party feelings of his reckless fol- lowers, by a aystem of more active warfare. Could Lord DURUM( be driven to abandon his thankless undertaking, two points would be gained,—the gratification of many Tories, to whom Lord DURHAM is odious; and the embarrassment of the Ministry, by the overthrow of a scheme which at once helped them out of an ugly scrape, relieved them of the immediate consequences of misgo- vernment in Canada, and removed a troublesome censor, if not a dangerous rival, to a distant scene. Success was almost within the Tory clutches. On a division, Lord CHA.NDOS'S resolutions were negatived by the bare majority of 160 to 158. Too much has been made of the smallness of the majority, which was plainly the result of accident : at the same time, a defeat would have been a very distressing accident to the "Reform" Govern- ment.

The arguments urged in defence of the resolutions were chiefly the following. The House of Commons, as guardian of the publics purse, had an undoubted right, not to impugn the exercise of the Royal prerogative in the appointment of Lord DURHAM, but to inquire into and consider the cost of' his mission, the expense of his outfit and establishment. To Parliament the Treasury was responsible. But had the Treasury exercised any control over Lord DURHAM? None whatever : it was manifest from Lord GLENELo's letter soliciting information, that the Lord High Commissioner and Governor-General might be as magnificent as suited his inclinations, at the public expense ; and it was repeatedly insinuated that those inclinations were the re- verse of moderate. Five secretaries—a chief, a military, two assistants, and a private secretary—a legal adviser, and four aides-de-camp, were far more than necessary for service, and only required for show. And it was assumed that this display would not please, but disgust, a people who rose in rebellion rather than concede a moderate civil list to their Sovereign. Unneces- sary display at the national cost bad been severely stigmatized-by Lord DURHAM himself, when MT. CANNING'S embassy to &fishers was discussed in the House of Commons ; and somaiipliatfe passages from Mr. LAMBTON'S speech on that occasion wite,etuote4.

by the Marquis of CHANLOS. As a e ntrast to the prodigality of the Whigs, the expense of Lord AMHERST'S proposed mission to Canada was adduced by Sir Roemer PEEL. The cases, he ad- mitted, were not completely analogous—for Lord AMHERST bad only to deal with Lower Canada, not with the entire British pos- sessions—but they were nearly so; and the expense of Lord

Ammntsfs simple establishment of a secretary and his clerk was estimated at only 1,0001. The argumenta ad homines were

forcibly put to the Radical professors of economy, especially by Sir ROBERT PEEL to Mr. Huum—who, in sooth, had no reply to offer of the slightest value.

That the House of Commons had a right to examine into the expense of Lord DURHAM'S establishment, will not be disputed : Ministers themselves admitted it, when they applied for the return on which Lord CHANDOS based his motion. That it was a per- fectly proper subject for discussion—that the qualifications of' the Taffies who, though named by Lord DURHAM, are to be paid by

the public, should be ascertained and considered—who can gain- say ? Nothing could be more futile than the attempt to scout the motion out of the House by designating it as" paltry;' and (Mr. HUME'S reason for deserting his old flag) that" the Tories" in office used to disregard economy. The motives of its authors and supporters may have been questionable—were probably fac- tious; but it is a new and unsound doctrine that motions of this description cannot with decency be brought forward by any political party, in an assembly professing to represent the People of England.

No satisfying answer was given to the charge—such as it was —of neglect of duty in leaving Lord DURHAM to fix the number and expense of his establishment as he list, without supervision by the Government. In fact, it might seem from the humble tone of Lord GLENELG'S note, soliciting information, that Minis- ters were afraid to interfere with the Governor-General. Well— the Government was negligent; but to pass from forms to essen- tials, did the proposed establishment exceed a fair and reasonable limit ? Here, on a close examination of circumstances, it appears to us that the Tory charge broke down. A Chief Secretary, (who ought to be a person of weight, sobriety, versed in affairs, and conciliatory in his demeanour,) must be indispensable to a person inthe capacity Lord DURHAM has to act in. It is easy to conceive that his office would be no sinecure; and for a qualified person, 15001. a year, according to the English scale of reward for public service, is not over-much. A Military Secretary also, to an inex- perienced Commander-in-chief, who, though he will not actually lead armies, may have yet something to do with military operations, appears necessary ; and he is only to have 7001. a year. The two Assistant Secretaries are simply clerks, with 300/. a year each ; and the Private Secretary has no salary. The appointment of Legal Adviser was vehemently attacked as needless, because there are already Law Officers of the Crown in Canada : but can they be trusted ? Is it not highly probable—with respect to the At- torney-General is it not certain—that they are partisans, sus- pected and hated by the great majority of the Canadians, and probably hating them in return ? Such persons are not qualified to give Lord DURHAM the legal assistance he may need ; and therefore the objection to the appointment of a separate and con- fidential Legal Adviser falls to the ground. At first sight the mention of "four Aides-de-camp" for a civil officer, seems ab- surd; but scarcely so when it is explained that the Governor- General must hold frequent communications with the British Am- bassador at Washington, and the Governors of Upper Canada, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland ; and that the habits of precision and activity, usually possessed by military men, give a reasonable probability that the Aides-de-eamp will be found more useful to Lord DURHAM in this department than any other agents he could employ, and nut more expensive. So much for the details before the public. It does not appear yet that the entire cost of the establishment will even reach Lord GOSFORD'S. The analogy of Lord AMHERST'S was confessedly imperfect. Again, nothing in the shape of a precedent for limit- ing, beforehand, the cost of a special mission, was produced ; while Lord JOHN RUSSELL proved by reference to the expenses of Lord CASTLEREAGH atVientia, Sir CHARLES STUART at Lisbon, and other Tory Ambassadors intrusted with extraordinary duties, that the sums spent varied from 11,000/. to 24.000e—in short, that there was no limit. Why an exception should be made against Lord Du it- HAM--Why he should be controlled and curtailed in defiance of precedent—no reason was offered.

Upon the whole, there appears no fair ground for finding fault

with the expenses of Lord DURHAM'S mission, SO far as they me known by anticipation. It is Mune that he should have the aid

he deems necessary for the effectual performance of the business he hap engaged in, or that he should give up the appointment. On this question of expense we have little anxiety. Our misgiv- ings are us to the amount of substantial power he will be per-

mitted to exercise—not that it will be too large, but too limited— that lie will be clogged, hindered, and obstructed, by those he leaves behind him in Downing Street. Carte blanche for the ex- penses of his household is a small matter ; ample authority to fulfil the great objects of his mission is what we desiderate for the Governor-General—our fear is that he will fail for want of that.