NEWS OF THE WEEK.

MINISTERS put the constancy of their supporters to a severe trial on Tuesday night, when they summoned them to vote in opposi- tion to Mr. HARVEY'S motion for an inquiry into the state of the Pension List. It was a question with almost every Member who voted at all, whether he should vote for or against the well-known wishes-of those who returned him to Parliament. Ministers and The Country are directly at issue on this point. The Country in- sists upon the abolition of all unmerited pensions ; Ministers insist on retaining every one. It is gratifying to find that, notwith- standing the support which they received from the Conservatives, who voted, consistently, in defence of their avowed principles and practice, Ministers sustained a virtual defeat. There was a clear majority of the Reformers of the House against them. The Con- servative Opposition turned the scale in their favour, and gave; them a miserable majority of 8 in a House of 376 Members.

Many will ask, what could have induced the Ministers to drag their grumbling partisans through the mire, to take up so unpo- pular and untenable a position as that which they occupied in this debate? The pretences advanced by Lord ALTHORP, Mr. SPRIND RICE, and Mr. STANLEY, though coming with a sufficiently good grace from Sir ROBERT PEEL, were evidently put forth by them merely for the occasion. It was plain that some influence, not avowed, but all-powerful, was at work. This influence, we can inform our readers, was that of the King. Minister's have entered into a compact with their Sovereign to defend his Pension List at all hazards. Their continuance in office depends upon their per- formance of this promise. On almost every other question they are at liberty to act as they list ; but on this they have no choice. WILLIAM the Fourth will not allow his Pension List to be meddled with. Is not this a proud position for Earl GREY and his Whig associates to occupy?

After the vote of Tuesday night, we think it must be evi- dent to Ministers that the revision of the Pension List must be conceded. They must be held, we should suppose, to have re- deemed their pledge to the King. They certainly fought their losing battle manfully, and with skill. Mr. STANLEY more es- pecially deserves credit for the talent he displayed in the defence of his bad cause. But Mr. STANLEY and his colleagues will dis- cover that they have made a false step at the beginning of the session; and that they have lost ground with the Nation, which they could ill spare, and which no degree of Court fa`vour will enable them to recover. They have not got rid of the question after all. Mr. HARVEY has announced that be will soon again bring forward a similar motion ; and if he does not keep his word, there are many others eager to take his place.

This was only the first defeat (for it certainly amounts to one) Which the Ministers sustained during the week. Last night, they were destined to encounter two additional shocks. In the first place, the Marquis of CHANDOS succeeded, in opposition to Lori ALTHORP and Mr. STANLEY, in procuring a minority of 202 Members against 206, in favour of a resolution pledging the House to take into especial consideration the burdens of the agricultural interest, in any remission of taxes which the state Of the finances would permit. This resolution was moved as an amendment to the motion that the Speaker should leave the chair on the House going into a Committee of Supply. It therefore had a very intelligible meaning ; and the numbers on the division must have convinced Lord ALTHORP, that the landed interest are

determined to struggle hard for the surplus which he has promised to apply to the reduction of the Assessed Taxes. This is precisely

the state of things, the occurrence of which we long ago antici- pated. In May last,* we warned the Ministers of the necessity of revising our whole financial system, on liberal and comprehensive principles, in order to avert a financial crisis. It was not, as we assured Lord ALTHORP, " by peddling here, and pottering there," that any extensive benefit or real relief could be given to the peo- ple. But Ministers, in their wisdom, determined to " rub on ;" and vainly thought that they could play off one interest against another, and adjust the balance of parties so adroitly as to prevent the necessity of doing any thing on a bold and decided scale. The vote of last night must have proved that their system of management is not fitted for the present times. What then ought they to do ? To resign ? By no means. To patch up an alliance with Sir ROBERT PEEL and the " Moderate" Tories of the Red-tape school ? This would not mend their situation, even in the House of Commons, for a month together; while it would irreparably damage their character in the country. No—the duty of Ministers is plainly to commence, before it is too late, an examination into the Esti- mates for the year, with a view to diminish them by millions, The Country cannot see the necessity, and will not pay the cost much longer, of our huge military establishments. Extensive reductions arc demanded ; and for this reason, any alliance with Sir ROBERT PEEL and his friends, who must be utterly opposed to all such measures, is not to be thought of.

After the resolution of Lord CHANDOS was disposed of, in the manner we have mentioned, Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL'S motion for discharging the order for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into Baron SMITH'S conduct, came under discussion. Here Ministers were left in an actual minority; the numbers being— for the motion 161, and against it 155. Thus, the House of Com- mons, before the session is three weeks old, has followed the precedent which the present Ministers created in the affair of the Malt-tax, and rescinded its decision of last week. This cannot re- dound to its credit with the country ; and the motive which is said to have influenced many Members to turn their backs on Ministers—namely, reluctance to be associated with Mr. O'CON- NELL even in a good cause—is still less worthy of praise. It is indeed quite disgraceful that the decisions of the High Court of Parliament should be influenced by the manner in which Mr. O'CoNNELL, or any other individual, would be affected by them. Our readers will remember, that we foretold that the majority of the House of Commons would not be so easily led in the present as in the last session. Do not the proceedings of the week prove that this opinion was formed on sufficient grounds ?

The Navy Estimates were brought forward by Sir JAMES GRAHAM on Monday. As compared with last year, they present a reduction of 181,0001. Thus, since his accession to office, Sir JAMES has managed to lessen the expense of his department by nearly 1,200,0001. This is something like vigour in prosecuting the work of retrenchment. In other respects, this department exhibits the marks of discreet management. In the system of promotion a new rule has been adopted, by which only one va- cancy in three is filled up. This will in time greatly lessen the expense of the Navy Deadweight. The number of 'seamen is re- duced by 500; but 1,000 boys are taken into the service, to be brought up as seamen. It is hoped that this plan will enable us to dispense with the practice of impressment. Mr. HUME did not shine in discussing these Estimates. He moved to reduce the number of seamen to be voted for the service of the year, from 27,500 to 25,000; but had little to say in support of his motion, except that, from 1817 to 1822, the number of men was only 20,000; and it was rejected by 196 to 20. The amendment wanted breadth and importance; it was not made to rest on any

clear and specific ground. Upon the principle of bringing our Naval force to what it was at the conclusion of the war, Mr. HUME should have endeavoured to reduce the number of seamen by 60pri'

or 7000.' At length a tolerably feasible plan for the final adjustmeillt4 • Spectator, No, 253; art. "Financial State of the Country." See ale) KIP,40 (Nov. 9) art. "Compromise with Tax. receivers." the Irish Tithe system has been brought forward, by that clever man of business Mr. Secretary LITTLETON. It is proposed, that

after the 1st of November next, a land-tax in lieu of tithes shall be collected by the Commissioners it the Land Revenue from all persons now liable to pay tithes. This land-tax may be redeemed during a period of five years, by any person having a substantial interest in the estate on which it is levied. Whatever portion of it remains unredeemed at the expiration of the five years, is to be converted into rent charges; • which may be brought into the market and be bought and sold like any other securities. The money paid in redemption of the land-tax, or the rent charges, is to be placed at the disposal of the National Debt Commissioners, and is to bear interest at the rate of somewhat loss than 3 per cent. This money is to be drawn out from time to time and in- vested in land, for the benefit of the tithe-owner ; for every 100/. of tithe, land worth 801. being given in exchange. When once the land shall have been purchased, and conveyed to the tithe- owner, the Government ceases to have any thing to do with it. During the five years which will elapse while the redemption of the land-tax is going on, the Clergy and other titheowners are to receive the amount due to them as at present settled under the late Composition Act, subject to a deduction for the expense of collection, from the Commissioners -of the Land Revenue ; who will require a warrant, stating the sum to be paid, under the seal of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.

Such are the principal features of Mr. LITTLETON'S plan ; the object of which is the preservation of !tithe property solely, without reference to the future appropriation of it. Mr. LITTLE- TON admitted in the plainest terms, that Parliament had the right to appropriate Church property, by a future legislative act, in any way and for any purpose that miglit be deemed right. But he truly said, that it was the duty of Parliament to realize that pro- perty, which, if it did not belong to the Church, at least belonged to the State. This being the fact, the Irish Members, with Mr. O'CONNELL at their head, spoke very much beside the purpose when they declaimed about the iniquity of maintaining the Irish Church Establishment, and declared that "appropriation was every thing." The object of the proposed measure is to save some- thing to be appropriated in future—to snatch from the gripe of greedy landlords a national fund which is fast disappearing, and which, but for some similar enactment, would soon be swallowed up in rent.

We have only one additional remark at present to make upon Mr. LITTLETON s plan. We du not see the great advantage that is to be derived from an investment of the proceeds of the re- deemed land-tax and rent-charges in land. Why not suffer them to remain in the Funds ? The legal expenses of investment, which are to be borne by the tithe-owner, must be very consider- able, and ought to be saved if possible. It may be said that land offers a better security than the Funds. But this we doubt. Be- fore affairs in this country have arrived at such a state of revolution that the national faith is no longer kept with the public creditor, the security of land, and especially of Church lands, will be little worth.

The establishment of Poor-laws is not among the remedial measures which Ministers contemplate for Ireland. Lord AL- THORP on Tuesday expressed himself in a manner to leave no doubt on this point. He said that his mind was not made up on the subject, and that the information possessed by Government fell very far short of sufficient to convince him of the benefit of in- troducing Poor-laa s into Ireland. This is good news for the Irish landholders, who will continue to draw rents of from 4/. to 10/. per acre from their property. How the English and Scotch rate- payers will like it, is another matter. It is plain, however, that if they mean to obtain relief from the increasing burden of support- ing the Irish paupers, they must exert themselves vigorously, as Government will not move in the affair till pushed: A conversation on the subject of the Corn-laws occurred in the Flouse of Commons on Thursday, which was not remarkable for eliciting any new arguments or particulatly bright ideas ; but for the declaration of Mr. O'CONNELL, that he was an advocate for their repeal; while Mr. FINN and other Irish Members, devoted adherents generally of the Agitator, avowed themselves utterly op- posed to an alteration of the present system. Excepting the two Members for Dublin, Messrs. O'CONNELL and RUTHVEN, the whole Irish Representative body was asserted to be in favour of the Bread-monopoly ; and that great political economist Mr. FERGUS O'CONNOR declared, that to talk of affording cheap bread to the poor, might be a good clap-trap, but that to repeal the Corn- laws was not the way to make bread cheap. Fortunately these Irish gentlemen are not famous for holding long to the same opinions on any subject : we therefore, perhaps, ought to rejoice that at present they are playing the game of the English Landed Aristocracy ; it being all the more likely, that before the session is over, we shall find them ranged on the side of the great mass of the People.

Mr. O'CONNELL has taken the amendment of the Libel Law out of the hands of Sir FRANCIS VINCENT. We hope that the cause will not suffer by the exchange. Mr. O'CONNELL has cer- tainly the advantage of legal knowledge ; but we doubt whether his advocacy of the question will give if a better chance of success in the House of Commons, than if it had remained under the care ef Sir Fasascis ; whose bill of last session was in the main a very good one. As we have not yet had an opportunity of seeing Mr. O'CottNELes, it would be premature to offer an opinion upon it.

Its leading provisions, as briefly described in his speech on Tues- day, when he obtained leave to bring it in, seem for the most part unobjectionable. Has Mr. Orowsnsia. sufficient steadiness to carry through his measure to completion? We can promise that both he and the Government will be watched.