NEWS OF THE WEEK.

THE Government and their Liberal supporters have suffered a virtual defeat on the Church-rate question. The adjourned debate on Mr. RICE'S resolution commenced on Monday, and termi- nated on Thursday morning, in a division of 273 to 250—majo- rity for the abolition of Church-rates, only 23. Three Whigs, Mr. RIDLEY COLBORNE, Sir HEDWORTH WILLIAMSON, and Sir JOIIN ROTTESLEY, and ten Dnubtfuls or Nondescripts* voted against Ministers : they also suffered from the defection oiseveral Members who objected rather to the details than the principle of the measure. There were 40" pairs" on each side ; so that, reckon- ing the Tellers, 607 Members may be said to have recorded their opinions on one side and the other. With a majority of only 23 ins° large a House, the Ministers have butsemall encouragement to proceed with their bill.

The cause of this failure in the House of Commons, where a majority of 50 was expected—or given out as expected, by some of the convenient Whig whisperers—is not that the Church has become more popular, but that in providing a substitute ler the rates Ministers pressed upon the lessees of Church property more closely than those gentlemen like. If they bad been less tender of the Establishment, and Iffered a larger bribe to its lay tenants, their measure, like the Tithe Bill, would probably have passed as a very fair and reasonable adjustment of a difficult question. But Ministers preserved the Church harmless, and proposed to make the lessees give value for their possessions. No wonder that the country gentlemen were alarmed! Mr. PEMBER- TON hit the nail right on the head, when he significantly warned noblemen and gentlemen, that an inquisition into their title-deeds might probably discover strange flaws, and convert many a free- hold into a leasehold. It is no impossible, as he hinted, that a squire's dining-room may be on his own estate and his kitchen on Church-land, to the occupancy of which he has no valid title. Many uncomfortable feelings must have been roused by this sort of language; and ignorance ot the extent of the threatened evil no doubt augmented the uneasiness in a class of legislators. who, if not plunderers of the Church themselves, are descended from men who fattened on her spoils. It was curious to observe hoar the sympathies of the Opposition were t xcited in behalf of the lesi.ces,--who, indeed, were the parties most needing consolation ; for, as Sir JOHN CAMPBELL remarked, a new light. has been let in upon the value of Church property, and the ecclesiastics will arneely be content in future with 50 per cent, of the raekrent. Mr. FINLAISON will become a first-rate authority with Bishops and Deans. At the same time, the Church should be wary; seemg plainly, as she must, that it is not for her own sake that she is so strenuously supported. The present order of things is maititained because it is profitable to lords and gentlemen: de- prise lords and gentlemen of their plunder and pickings, you take nay the motive or their gainful godliness. Mother 'Church, by dividing the spoil, manages to keep a share: let her grasp the whole of it, and she will seem be str.pped to the back-lactic.

A list of Members of Parliameut, who either hold property on lease from the Church, or are iedirectly concerned in the preser- vation of the present system of individnul gain and public loss, veuld be an instructive document. We suspect that it would prove the ramifications of ecclesiastical interests to be far more exteusive and vigorous than is generally imagiued. The system on whieh the Church has conducted her worldly matters has been admirably calculated to give her a firm hold on men's selfish feel- ings. The power which she can exert, when pressed, is enor- mous. That power is directed against evrry attempt at efficient reform. The Church sets the mass of the people in the Three lialgsloms at defiance; and seem* resolved to risk even her

W. 'I% f7opeland, Sir J. Johnstone, Sir Chutes lemun, Lord George Lennon, lord a filer Lenin". Frederick North. sir Edmund Scut:, R. LI.Tuoueley. U. F. Young, Sir Osirskt Muggy, RUll Lord Dudley Stuart.

(LATEST EDITION.]

existence in defence of the abuses which must sootier or later bring abourher destruction.

The three nights discussion was, on the whole, soporific. Sir ROBERT PEEL opened it with a carefully-prepared speech, moderate in tone and language. His part, as we have often remarked, is to do that mildly which Lord LYNDHURST enacts with the air of a bravo, reckless of future consequences and caring only for the point in view. Sir ROBERT aimed at damaging the Government plan, by an elaborate dissection of the financial portion of it. Some of the blunders he fell into, while performing this operation, are noticed in a subsequent page. They were of a kind to demon- strate his unfitness for ever again undertaking the office of Chan- cellor of the Exchequer. They passed, however, with very little notice in the course of the debate; and it was truly remarked by several Opposition orators who followed him, that his speech was " unanswered." No doubt, Mr. SPRING RICE was aware of the power he possessed to make a slashing reply ; but, fortunately for PEEL, be could not do this without increasing the alarm of the lessees, already aware that it was at their expense that the State was to be protected from loss. Thus the Chancellor of the Exchequer was crippled, and PEEL got off. Lord STANLEY, who, for a lord, is apt to he " ungenteel:' quoted an American Joe Miller about gin, to match the "thimble. rig ;" which seems to have greatly edified his admirers in default of reasoning. He was more successful in a petulant but vigorous assault on Sir John CAMPBELL, who had charged him with incon- sistency. STANLEY said lie could prove that he was not incon- sistent: he tried, and failed. But be had terribly the advantage of the Attorney-General, when he contrasted his own fearless votes and speeches with the trimming conduct of that canny Scot; who, only a few nights before, dared not vote with Ministers on the Ballot, and had not the courage to oppose them on behalf of his constituents.

Lord JOHN ItussELL's effort is praised by his followers as one of the best on their side. That is not saying much, however. He made a lame attempt to reconcile his declaration of last year, that the churches tnust be repaired at the expense of the nation, with the better proposition of the present session to lay that bur- den entirely on the revenues of the Establishment. He also ad- mitted that be advocates in Parliament measures which lie op- poses els.ewhere. The Church Cotninissioners, lie said, made " an utensil" of him. Why did he let them ? We have now the dis- tinct avowal of a Cabinet. Minister, that he is the tool of men who treat him as a vile thing. The lawyers in this debate, FOLLETT, PEMBERTON, CAMPBELL, LAW, and LusittarGroN, spoke as they almost invariably do, upon technicalities and quibbles. They are shrewd men, cunning rnen, fit to suggest doubts, and quote authorities to be answered b■ counter- authorities, and opinions to be set at nought by counter-opinions of their own sometimes ; but ae for an enlarged view of any sub- ject, or a satisfactory solution of any difficulty, we might as well expect to find philosophy in a KNATCHBULL or statesmanship in a KNIGHTLEY. Thee cannot even tell us what the law is any given point,—though, perhaps, that is not their fault. seeing how acts of Parliament and the decisions of the Courts contradict each other.

An overwhelming mass of ignorance and selfishness has crushe& another attempt to relieve the country from the accursed. Corn-laws. Having the precedence for his motion on Thursday evening, Mr. CLAY, in an elaborate speech, which proved the ne- cessity of the entire abolition of the tax on foreign corn, if it proved any thing, moved that the House should go into Corn- mittee, with the view of substituting a small fixed duty-5v. a quarter—fir the present prohibitory duty. Mr. CLAY was sup- ported by Sir WILLIAM MOLESWORTH. Mr. EWART, Mr. VILLIERS, Mr. HARVEY, Mr. GUEST, Utul Mr. HUME ; who advocated the tsuse oh' the public Realest the monopolists, with spirit awl per- severance. They might as well have addressed their arguinents to Lord SPENCER'S bullueke. The" breeches-pocket" gentiemen first tried to count out the House; then to put down the speakers with clamour; and finally negatived the !notion, by a vote of 223 to 89. Levi HOWICK, Mr. POULETT THOMSON, Sir H E Mitt' i' NELL, Sir GEORGE GREY, Mr. 1.141041C 14 ERE, Mr. JOHN PARKER, Lord MORPETIL Mr. J. A. thruway, Sir ROBERT Ito-FE, Mr. WILLIAM COWPER, all connected with the Government, veteti wills Mr. CLAY: Mr. SPRING Rice, to save the appearance of a Ministerial defeat perhaps, sided with the Bread-tux eeatry. The most striking and pithy commentary on the proceerlinss of our Legislature on this subject, may be found in the acsouot ,of the foreign core averages, published every week in the Times. There it will be seen, that the price of " the stuff of life' in Londe!' is 70 per cent dearer than at Paris, Amsterdatn, Hautherg, and Stettin. How long will the working classes, with whom bread is the chief necessary and by far the greatest article of eunsumption,

endure this grievous and cruel burden, by which most are injured, while few gain?

It is proposed by Ministers to resume the debate on the Canada Resolutions next Tuesday : but Mr. ROKBUCK—R person not to be wheedled or thrust asidn—has a motion on the subject of Local Courts, which he declares shall have the precedence to which it is entitled on that night.by its position on the Notice-paper. So it is more than probable that the Resolutions will not be passed before Easter. In the mean while, as Lord ABERDEEN told Lord GLENELO on Thursday, Ministers and their majority have passed some of the resolutions without the evidence which they deter- mined, in effect, to be necessary in order to ascertain whether those resolutions were politic and just or the reverse.. We advise Mr. HARVEY, if he thinks it worth his while, to take a partner and recommence Parliamentary business. The Standing Order which was passed for the purpose of excluding him from that branch of his professional employments, is really a farce. Mr. FRESHFIELD, Member for Penryn, has a son, who transacts Parliamentary business; and because his father declares, no doubt truly, that the young gentleman has all the profits of the conduct of Private Bills through the House, it was resolved on Wednesday, almost by common consent, not to trouble his father on the subject. In the profits of the general business of the house of FRESHFIELD the sire participates. In consequence of the whole profits of the Parliamentary business being given up to the son, does the father take unto himself a larger proportion of the gains of the general business ? He might do it in perfect consistency with the Parliamentary resolution, and his own state- ment in the House of Commons. Th6 proves that nothing is more easy than to evade the Standing Order; and when it is notorious that, every day, Members vote on questions in which they have a direct pecuniary interest—on questions relating to trade, the affairs of the Bank, of the East India Company, and for or against certain taxes—that the Speaker depends upon the majority for the receipt of so many thousands a year, and the Chairman of the Committees for so many hundreds—while nobody whispers a syllable against the independence and honesty of all these parties,—it does seem both unjust and ridiculous to prevent a solicitor from publicly and openly supporting a bill in a Com- mittee " up stairs," because he is a Member of the House. It is underhand influence which the public need to be guarded against; but against this the Standing Order of the House offers no protection.

Mr. " 1-lead-money" HARDY has introduced a bill into the House of Commons for the prevention of bribery at elections.

This is the wonderful measure which was to supersede the Ballot —though it does not in uny way deal with an evil more formi- dable than bribery—intimidation. And the clause on which Mr. HARDY mainly relies for preventing bribery, is one which pre- scribes that every Member-shall swear that he has not purchased votes in any way, and will not hereafter pay or promise to pay any money for votes. It is, moreover, proposed that an Election Corn- ' tnitee shall have the power to examine any person whom they choose to call upon to give evidence. There is nothing in this act which would give additional security against the operations

of the Carlton Club. At the next election, Mr. BORTHWICK, or Mr. Twiss, or Mr. CHARLTON, may be usefully engaged at Nor-

wich, Bristol, and Ipswich, while the Carlton Club emissaries are

actively engaged in securiag the returns of those gentlemen re- sportively for Evesham, Bridport, and Ludlow, with—not their money—but Carlton Club money. Besides, that is a poor security whieh can only be obtained at the expense of an Election Com- mittee. The wit of Haanv has not yet devised a substitute fir the Ballot.