NEWS OF THE WEEK.

THE third reading of Lord BROUGHAM'S Canada Indemnity Bill, in the House of Lords, was signalized by the introduction of a

question which had not even been alluded to in the previous de-

bates. The Lord Chief Justice pronounced the DURHAM Ordi- nances "perfectly indefensible "—the " most rash and imprudent

proceedings lie had ever heard of," and a " violation of first prin- ciples :" but LorirDENsrate would not agree that men who had violated the law should be protected from the consequences, and he would not deprive the parties wronged of any remedy which the law entitled them to. If it were made out that the State benefited by the illegal acts for which injured individuals de- manded compensation, let the State reimburse its officers—not

shelter them by bills of indemnity, which defrauded the injured while they protected the wrongdoer. Lord DENMAN merits re- spect and commendation for reminding Parliament of a just prin- ciple, which by common consent appeared to have been kept out of sight. The bill was passed about six o'clock on Monday evening, and sent to the Commons; who, accommodating and submissive, ',Aid base patiently expeciin,. it for an hour or two. They had nothing to do but abide the pleasifre of the Leeds. Great was their di,- may when the word mime from the Upper House, " Brougham is ap again !"—he might speak for a couple of hours !—and in pro- portion was their relief when the bill made its appearance, and Lord JOHN RUSSELL hastened to propose that the standing orders should be suspended, and the bill passed through the first and second stages without discussion. Mr. LEADER very coolly asked, whether as a matter of course such a measure was to be passed without alteration ? Lord JOHN looked disconcerted—it seemed as if that was a point which had never occurred to him : he had not even read the bill, which he moved through its principal stages with such summary haste, and could not say whether it required amendment or not.

There was a full discussion on Tuesday, however, on the motion to" commit" the bill. And then it appeared that Ministers had re- solved to make a show of standing for the legality of the ordinances in every point except the insignificant and subordinate one respect- ing Bei muda. The first intention, no doubt, was to hurry the bill through the House of Commons with a3 little debate as possible ;

but now, the dread of DURHAM, whom MELBOURNE bad sacri-

ficed to save himself, came vividly before them; and it was

deemed advisable to" talk big," and get up something like a rally in behalf of the damaged Governor. So Lord JOHN. RUSSELL and Sir JOHN CAMPBELL stoutly maintained the right of the Governor and his Council to proscribe untried individuals, and the humanity, justice, and legality of the ordinances which the Pre- mier had agreed to disallow. But here came the pinching ques- tion: if the ordinances are legal in all but a minor and insignifi- cant point—if they are discreet. humane, efficacious, and popular, es you say they are—why do you stigmatize by disallowing them ? No reply was forthcoming to this demand ; but the Attorney- General strove mightily to mystify the real question, and to lay perchance the foundation of an apology for slipping away from and evading the Premier's pledge to disallow the ordinances. Then came IVI:. HAWES, the zealous representative of his timber- dealing constituents in Lambeth : he considered Mr. LEADER'S

indignant denunciatio:.

of the ordinances, and of a certain letter * • The following extracts front the letter alluded to first appeared in the illorn- is9 Chronicle, and formed part of an article which attempted to defend Lord DURHAM'S ordinances, by misrepresent tog their actual purport. "I enclose you our first great act—about the misoners. t w ill t tea jyitkp2!stitiitionalAati d s rot' t_..,..g1_..ig.,_Dy&jij,11YLg.,...„.,„n"' put nu one to des mnspeffM—m ts, you will see, not ttitrerely occ0111Hanied by mea- sures-se s nerery for recut ity. The rest are merely baull'hed we confiscate no pro- Petty, We were obliged to include a great many in our pn;visiou, in conformity to a ['Debit rule Lind down in each case, whom we du not WWI and di, not intend to treat so ••2111Y. This is rather an advantage as it will enable us lipmetb,:elP to bring the Plidiesing power into operation, not the t.,4,4.44.,.„ or ,,,,,„;,r,,,,;.%reofavitli the Juries. The lega gui t o t ese men was aquiltal was equally clear. The ignorant Canadians would have said either that their leauere in the revolt were right all :dung, or that the Government had not dared to punish. The Bri- tish party would have said that our trial hail been a mere mockery of just ice, and that we bad let their guilty enemies loose on them by a trick. Our present act does some- thing like substantial jestice: it will do good to both parties and num why corrupt tge.ereat judicial institutions of the country. The prisoners petitioned to be disposea or without triaL7 It is a question whether the writer or the publisher of such a letter was guil y of the greater indiscretion : perhaps the writer was, for Mr. BuLLER must have known the eagerness with which some persons display any thing like "exclu- sive" information, and that his letter was certain to find its way into the news- papers. glorifying the same, from Mr. Secretary CH ARLES BULLP.R, as in '5 very bad taste." To disprove Mr. LEA DER 'S facts,or set them aside by argument, was probably beyond the power of the clever Member for Lambeth ; but it is easy as well as elegant to appeal to " taste;' where every man can have his own standard. We presume that Mr. HAWES would be one of the last men in Parliament to pre- tend that the Canada Coercion Act set Lord D_uku est above the aw or em xower d him to abolish trial by 'ur o Did Mr. HawEs tt anti o u suppose. w such ewer ? But unless it does, Loid DURHAM'S ordinances are ego The speakers against the ordinances, besides Mr. LEADER, wl.o singly but resolutely stood up for the Canadians, were Lord STAN- LEY, Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT, and Sir CHARLES GREY. No oppo- sition was given to the bill in committee ; but on Wednesday, when the question of the third reading came on, several Mernbe turned restive; and Lord JOHN RUSSELL, who had been super- cilious rather than dignified when questioned by Mr. LEADER as to the treatment of the persons illegally proscribed in the o;c1:1 nances, was compelled to lay aside " Ercles' vein," and entreat Members to allow the bill to pass. Dr. LUSHINGTON talked as if he held a brief from Ministers, and tried to create the impres- sion that the question was of great legal difficulty : even Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT, he had observed, spoke very cautiously, and would not commit himself. It appears to us that Sir WILLIAM was sufficiently decided on the illegality of the proceedings ; but at any rate, he was clearer on one side than Dr. LUSHINGTON on the other; for the Doctor, with a manifest inclination to do his best for the ordinances, completely avoided the utterance of a direct opinion in their favour.

The bill was passed, and became law; and there is a distinct pledge from Lord MELBOURNE that the ordinances in tofu shall be disallowed. Will they be revived in al: ther re, ? The cha- racter of the Whig Government does not forbid I .1 suspicion of such trickery, if any thing is to be gaine• by it. 'though Minis- ters, wever, may be ready enough to ort so onworthily, lard re, we apprehend, will be no party to the fraud. And .41w seoula be, would the attempt be safe in i'lanads ? But if there

is re soioh design, what is the motive fur . the ;neinuatioua to that effect that we see in Government newspapera

The Irish Tithe Bill, as altered by the Lords, as accepted by the Commons on Monday. The Tory vicoary on this measure is complete.

The Registration of Electors Bill was thrown out by the Com- mons, on Wednesday ; as Lord LYNDHURST would not recede from his amendment, which abolished the right of trustees to vote in virtue of trust property of which they had not the rents and profits for their own use, Lord BROUGHAM and SirJonor CAMPBELL, respectively, threw out each other's bills for remedying blunders in the Trading Com- panies and Imprisonment for Debt Acts.

The Parliament was prorogued on Thursday, by the Queen in person. The session's proceedings supplied no materials for re- lieving the Speech from the commonplace character of royal ad- dresses. The Queen regrets the continuance of the civil war in

Spain, but rejoices that this country is at peace with foreign powers. She mentions that the Canadian disturbances have been promptly repressed, and tropes that constitutional go- vernment will soon be restored in the colony. The progress of Negro Emancipation is also gratifying. The mitigation of the law of Imprisonment for Debt, the regulation of Pluralism in the Church, and the Irish measures on Tithes and Pauperism, are briefly noticed with commendation : but her Majesty over- flows with gratitude for her thumping Civil List—she " cannot sufficiently thank " the Commons. Finally, the Queen finds it unnecessary to remind lords and gentlemen of their duties in their " respective counties ;" but her Majesty expresses a " humble hope" that Providence will " watch over us all.'