NEWS OF THE WEEK.

MINISTERS have passed the brief recess in agreeable relaxation at Woburn and Pansanger—undisturbed by RORRUCE.'s sarcasms and STA.N.LEY'S scowls. But Easter, though a period of Parlia- mentary and official leisure, is by no means a season of general tranquillity and social enjoyment. On the contrary, parochial elections, often the most bitterly contested of any, throw England into a ferment in Easter week. Churchwardens, Vestry Clerks, and Guardians of the Poor, are all chosen about this time ; and both in the metropolis and the provinces, it would seem that party-spirit was never more excited than in the local struggles which have taken place during the last few days. Churches have been the scenes of riot, and clergymen the genii of discord. In some parishes the church candidates have succeeded ; in more, if we are not mistaken, the Dissenting, or at any rate the non-paying party, has prevailed. But whether defeated or successful, the fact that the Church is compelled almost everywhere to fight for what was once considered her indisputable right, proves that a change has taken place in public opinion, which must ultimately prove fatal to her supremacy over other religious sects. All govern- ment, said Hume, is founded on opinion ; and the remark is especially true as regards spiritual domination. The Tories may as well desist from boasting of their success at single Parliamentary elections. Within a short time they have been beaten in Longford, Carlow, Dungarvan, and Anglesea; and this week we have to record their defeat at Warwick. The contest for a successor to Mr. CANNING, who was returned on the GREVIL Lit and Tory interest, commenced on Tuesday, and, thanks to Mr. HOWARD ELPHINSTONE'S excellent bill, was terminated the same day,—in the return of the Liberal Mr. COLLINS, by a majoi ity of' 457 to 422 over his Tory antagonist, Mr. Sergeant ADAMS. The tactics pursued by the Opposition at this election were worthy of a reckless and dishonest faction. Mr. ADAMS de- voted the greater part of his speech from the hustings to an attack on the Poor-law, which the leaders and the very great ma- jority of his own party efficiently support; and which, were Sir ROBERT PEEL in power, and Mr. ADAMS, where he is not likely to be, in Parliament, would undoubtedly be maintained in all its esseutial purity by that learned person himself. To show off the indecency of this conduct in perfect keeping, both the proposer and seconder of Mr. ADAMS are supporters of the Poor-law; the first being Chairman of the Warwick Unian, and the second a Guardian of the Poor, and the author of a pamphlet in praise of the new law. But dishonesty did not succeed at Warwick. The electors despised and rejected hint whom it was intended to serve.

Let us turn now to Sheffield ; where advocacy and approbation of the Poor-law was supposed to be so unpopular, that Mr. WARD was advised to touch most cautiously upon the subject in his com- munication with the constituency which will send him to Parlia- ment on the first opportunity. Mr. WARD did not follow this advice. Ile took a course more consistent with his feelings and his character. He frankly avowed himself an admirer of the Poor-saw ; and, so far from giving offence, he gained the good-will even of those whom his arguments did not convince, by the open, fearless, confiding manner in which he announced his convic- tions and determination. On other points, Mr. WARD disdained to shrink foam an expression of his opinions or a defence of his conduct. He exposed the bad principle and the iniquitous working of Sir ANDREW AGNEW'S Sabbath Bill so effectually, that we doubt whether another petition in its favour can be ant Up in Sheffield. On the question of Suffrage-extension, Mr. WARD was equally explicit, so far as opposition to th . wishes of a considerable portion of the Sheffield mutation w .6 concerned; for he not only declared that be could not look forward to the time when it would be safe to concede universal suffrage, but that, With their present notions of the just reward of labour and rights g property, the working classes could hardly be intrusted even

with household suffrage. You must, be said, be better educated before you have the political power you seek. This did not by any means satisfy the non-electors ; who wished to know what

" education" would, in Mr. WARD'S opinion, qualify them to exer- cise the rights of citizenship. We suspect that the man who

put this question to Mr. WARD, is already qualified to choose between a foolish and a discreet, an honest and a knavish candi- date, whatever rent he may pay for his humble dwelling. With respect to the suffrage, it may be remarked that, in prin- ciple and ultimately, we must look forward to its extension to all

males arrived at what are called years of discretion, of sound mind, and left at large by the law. The adoption of Mr. WARD'S test- knowledge—will bring us to this ; for the degree of education necessary to enable an elector to perform his duties will soon be attainable by all,unless the standard be raised high enough to dis- franchise an immense majority of the existing electoral body. It appears to us that Mr. WARD has adopted a principle which will inevitably carry him much further than he supposes. The " economical " opinions professed by a certain portion of the working classes, are sufficiently absurd; and we have heard from tlitse who know more Of them than ourselves, that one of their notions of justice is, that every man who labours for a given number of hours is entitled to an exactly equal recompense, inde- pendently of the nature or the amount of the produce of his labour,—thus, for instance, putting the skilful tailor. and the botcher exactly on a par, and degrading Mr. CLEAVE or Ilk. LovErr to the level of the least-instructed member of the Working Men's Association. But such opinions as these cannot be held by many. Circumstances and the common sense of mankind Will soon correct them.

Mr. WARD holds a somewhat different faith, and considers such opinions dangerous. Perhaps the great majority of the Liberal Members of Parliament agree with Mr. WARD; but we suspect that few would have the courage, if candidates for Sheffield, to pro- claim unreservedly, in the midst of the masses, as be did, the conviction that the masses are unfit to possess the franchise. Such, however, was the hold which his frankness gave Mr. WARD upon his catechists and auditory at Sheffield, that he evidently lost no ground in their estimation even by this unpalatable ex- pression of his sentiments. The choice of the leading Liberals was confirmed by the multitude, both electors and non-electors; and we may look upon Mr. WARD as the certain " proximate " Member for Sheffield. The whole affair seems to have been managed with discretion and good faith most creditable to the parties concerned.

Yorkshire has been the scene of another Liberal demonstration. On Monday, Sir WILLIAM Moetswowns was introduced in per- son to the electors of Leeds ; and received a requisition signed by upwards of 1700 voters, to become a candidate, in conjunction with Mr. RAINES, for the representation of that to xi). It is said that the return of both the Liberal candidates is secured, come the election when it may. Of course there was a dinner, at which Sir WILLIAM and Mr. RAINES were the guests and the chief orators. The speech of Sir WILLIAM MOLESWORTH has attracted much attention, from an apparent discrepancy between the sentiments he avowed at the dinner and those which formed the staple of his manifesto in the last number of the London and Westminster Review. Some Downing Street journalists say that Sir WILLIAM has backed out of his Ultra-Radicalism, and, like a sensible nian, has become an admirer and supporter of the Administration. When all the circumstances are considered, we suspect it will appear that these gentlemen are thankful for a small matter. The Leeds dinner was intended to cement the union between the two sections of the Liberals in Leeds ; Mr. RAINES being the representative of the Whigs, and Sir WILLiAm MoLsswoRris of the Radicals. It was therefore the cue of both parties to avoid points of difference, and to put prominently for- ward whatever they were best agreed upon. Mr. RAINES, in ac- cordance with this policy, while he eulogized Ministers to please the Whigs, made a declaration in favour of the Ballot and the Voluntary principle as his contribution towards Radicalism. Sir WILLIAM MOLESWORTH, with a disposition to reciptoctty—no doubt strengthened by the suspicion, for he could scarcely have the knowledge, that he was in an assembly where Wing:sisal predominated—found that Mr. RAINES had said nothing about the MELBOURNE Ministry which was not true, and which in sub- stance he i.a.1 not before said himself. He could, and accordingly did, truly say, that the present is the best Ministry the country has had for litany a long series of years; and that, taking Minis- ters "upon the whole," they had " acted up to their professions." But as tho-u piofessions" were never very magnificent,—as his admission that Ministers had acted up to them was guaided and qualified by Sir WILLIAM,—as a denunciation of the Canada Coercion Bill concluded his speech, and was by far the most energetic portion of it,—we think that "on the whole." the crumb of comfort which Sir WILLIAM dropped, and which the Ministerial journalists have so eagerly snatched at, was dry and hard as well as diminutive.

But it is said that the Leeds speech was very different from the

London and Westminster manifesto. In tone it was; in sub- stance much about the same. The manifesto concluded with an admission that the MELBOURNE Ministry was the " most enlight-

ened and most well-intentioned Administration which has go- verned this country for many a long day," and that the writer " sincerely wished to see them in office." This is the amount of

what Sir WILLIAM said at Leeds about Ministers. The tone,

however, of other parts of the speech exhibited a more placable and kindly feeling towards Ministers than the manifesto. This is true ; and it is quite natural that it should be so. The position of Sir WILLIAM, and of the party with whom he acts, has materially

changed since the close of last year. Then, it was the aim of the Independent Reformers to urge Ministers to adopt the " open question " policy. The effort failed. The Ministers were obsti- nate, and there was no longer any use in endeavouring to push them forward. Hostility to Ministers was never professed, and is not felt, by the Independent Members. So far from it, their wish was to see them gain popularity and strength in the country by abjuring Whig-Toryism. When, therefore, it became evident that Ministers would not, as a party, be saved,—that no good effect could he produced by harping on their misconduct and mistakes,— Sir WILLIAM MOLESWORTH, and others who think with him, desisted from their attacks on the Ministry ; went a step beyond the advocacy of the "open question" policy ; and, while they resolved to give Ministers praise and credit for the good they might perform, and to support them in office against the Tories for the sake of that good, they took up an independent position, and brought forward their own questions; the result of which

policy has been, the repeated exhibition of Ministers in reliance on the Tories, and deserted by all but a small section of the Libe- rals. It is obvious that the pursuance of this plan does not re- quire anything like incessant attack upon Ministers ; nor does it preclude the bestowal of praise when the Ministerial measures

deserve it, or the support of Lord MELBOURNE against the Tories

and the Court, or the unqualified avowal that the present is the best Ministry the country has had for many a long day. It is the

best in spite of itself; the next Tory Ministry will be the best of its kind the country ever had ; the one after that better still : in short, we live in days of political progression—we are in the year of our Lord 1837.

"On the whole," then, we conceive that Sir WILLIAM MOLES- WORTH has been guilty of no decided or palpable inconsistency

but he would have acted more wisely if he had abstained from remarks liable to misrepresentation, and requiring so much expla- nation to put them in their proper light before the public. It will soon be seen whether the Downing Street reading of his conduct, or ours, is the truer.

While parties in England have been on the qui rive, Mr. °toll:sem. has been giving a fillip to the National Associators in Dublin, who in his absence think it prudent to lie by. There was a numerous meeting of the Association on Monday, and Mr. O'CONNELL delivered a speech on a great variety of subjects. He appears to think that the English Church-rate question will push that of Irish tithes into the next session—or the next Parliament ; and that Ministers have enough to do without meddling with the latter. The opinion of the Spectator, to the same effect, was expressed so long agoas the 30th July 1836, and was repeated and enforced before the meeting of Parliament. What use is there in devoting nights and days to a rifacimento of the nonsense, misrepresentation, and personalities, which every- body was sick of in the discussion of the Irish Corporation Bill? The very same material will form the staple of nine out of ten tithe speeches ; and then, every hour the question recurs—" Where is the good of all this?" The Peers will kick out such a bill as the Commons must carry ; and there is nothing dignified or useful in providing them with foot-balls. Let the Irish Church bear the brunt of a few more winters, and then perhaps she will listen, and compel her precious friends to listen, to reason. There will be no more Million Loans,