NEWS OF THE WEEK.

Tina has been a week of much speaking and some important divisions in the House of Commons.

Circumstance. s had conspired to fix peculiar interest on the trial of strength on Mr. GROTE'S motion for leave to introduce a Ballot BBL It was understood that persons connected with the Govern- rat had, for the first time, obtained permission to vote with the Member for London. Other Whigs, it was hoped, would follow their example ; and an increase of numbers, to the extent of thirty or forty, was anticipated by the sanguine. Moreover, the elo- quence of official gentlemen, in addition to their votes, was to be exerted in favour of the Ballot. Such were the expectations— what is the result ? The motion is rejected by a majority of 335 to 217.* Last year the numbers were 317 and 200 : so that the gain is only 17—overbalanced by 18 additional votes, brought up by the enemy from his numerous corps of reserve. Four Cabinet Ministers voted against Mr. GROTE, and only one, Mr. POULETT THOMSON, with him ; while two staid away. No Minister opened his lips in support of the motion ; but Lord JOHN RUSSELL and Lord Howsex spoke strenuously on the other side. Altogether, seventeen members of Government and the Household, besides Mr. BERNAL, were found in the minority, and twelve joined the Tory- Whig majority. These numbers speak for themselves, and destroy the illusion that by "opening the question" Ministers have as yet rendered any essential sA-vice to the Ballot.

And there is unexceptionable testimony that such was not their Intention. Lord Homes( protested that he would resign his scat in the Cabinet if be could suppose that the chance of carrying the Ballot was improved by making it an "open question :" on the con- trary, he delivered his deliberate opinion, that by so doing, Minis- ters contributed a greater chance of effectual resistance. Mr. GROTE took down this strange confession, and in his reply used it as ?roof that little gratitude wasdue to Ministers for their concession. Lord Howsex, finding that he had made an imprudent disclosure, attempted some sort of explanation—very ill received on all sides of the House—by which he certainly did not improve his position, but he asked to be understood as speaking for himself alone : those of his colleagues who supported the Ballot, considered, no doubt, that an advantage was secured by making it "open," and only those who were hostile to it supposed that its chance of suc- cess was lessened by that course. Very well : then, as only one Cabinet Minister voted with Mr. GROTE, and four against him, it follows that the members of the Cabinet who " opened the ques- tion" with the view of injuring it, are a majority of four to one against him who would have promoted its success. Such, as it re- rds the Cabinet, is the result of that change in the Melbourne- Whig tactics which Liberals have trumpeted and Tories decried So vehemently. We now know, what before was only surmised, that the cause of the Ballot is maintained in the Cabinet by POIJLETT THOMSON so/us.

Mr. GROTE'S speech, which gave the tone to the discussion, was admired for skilful adaptation to the newest aspect of the case. Mr. GROTE did not weary his audience with a repetition of fami- liar arguments, but directed attention to events, past, present, and expected, which rendered it peculiarly desirable to press the ques- tion at present. Ile laid much stress, as he fairly might, on the fact, that while nobody denies the existence and enormity of in-

timidation and corruption, except the Ballot no remedy has been .suggested in the slightest degree available for its purpose ; there- fore they who oppose the Ballot virtually decree the continuance of bribery and coercion of voters. This charge fills with peculiar severity upon the Government,—whose chief use and function is toprotect the people in the exercise of their lawful rights ; and so far from its being a merit in any Minister not to resist the attempt Of the constituencies to obtain freedom from annoyance and injury in the discharge of electoral duties, he is in the highest degree culpable who Ms to assist them to that end.

Lord WORSLEY seconded the motion ; and performed his task in

* Tellers included. a style of agreeable story-telling, rather than of close argumentation.

Speeches of commonplace were delivered by Mr. GASKELL and Mr. MILNES,—who seemed to think that Mr. GROTE had only sur- vived to be smashed by the thunders of their eloquence ; but the House, the while, paid little attention to the orators. Very different was Mr. MACAULAY'S reception. When he rose to speak from a bench behind Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S seat, Members crowded into the side-galleries and paid him the compliment of eager attention. Mr. MACAULAY for some time sustained the inte- rest his reappearance in the House had excited. His voice is not pleasing, but a rapid flow of words and great energy of expression distinguish his elocution. It would not be easy, perhaps, to point out an original idea in his speech ; but it was au elaborate composition, in which illustrations from history, well chosen for effect in the House of Commons, and pleasing imagery, helped to conceal much that was poor in conception and stale in the materials. Mr. MACAULAY Will often pour forth brilliant orations of the essay genus ; but he has much to acquire before he can shine as a useful debater. Though flatteringly received, and possessing at first com- plete mastery of the House, he lost possession of it before he was nearly ready to sit down ; and seemed so much disconcerted with some rude calls of " Question" from the Tory benches, as to re- gain the thread of his discourse with difficulty, instead of turning the interruption to profit, as O'Connism., SHEIL, PEEL, STANLEY, or even the often-hesitating JOHN RUSSELL would have done. After his recent declarations at Edinburgh, it is scarcely necessary to add that Mr. MACAULAY supported Mr. GROTE'S motion—subject to the condition that he would not support the bill itself unless it satisfied him.

Lord Joins RUSSELL, as if stimulated by Mr. MAcAtiLAr's vigo- rous efforts for the Ballot, spoke with unusual energy against it. He dwelt much on the common but not consistent objections, that, inasmuch as it encouraged falsehood, the secret vote was immoral; and that the honest nature of Englishmen, prompting them in de- fiance of consequences, to tell the truth, would render all con- trivances of secrecy ineffectual to save the electors.

By adopting this line of argument, Lord JOHN became exposed to a raking fire from Mr. SIIEIL ; who reminded the Home Secre- tary, that in the programme of the Reform Bill, drawn up by him- self and his coadjutors, Lords DintnAm and DUNCANNON and Sir JAMES GRAHAM, the Ballot was included. Then came the crush- ing questions—if the Ballot is immoral, why did you recommend it ? has the principle of morality varied since 1831? Sir JAMES GRAHAM in a clever speech, containing numerous hard hits against his old friends,—though, not having, like Lord JOHN, received the Royal permission to disclose official secrets, he would "explain nothing, admit nothing, deny nothing,"—contrived to let the House know, that he had opposed the introduction of Ballot, on the occasion alluded to by Mr. Stonr.. No doubt, in his capacity as a member of the Committee, Sir JAmEs signed the document submitted to the Cabinet, in which the Ballot was introduced ; and this circumstance has been quoted against him as evidence of duplicity : but common fairness suggests that his signature only sanctioned the measure as a whole, not each and every provision, any more than the report of a Select Committee binds the members to concurrence in all the opinions and recom- mendations of the majority therein expressed.

The only remarkable portion of Lord llovvicit's speech we have already noticed.

Sir ROBERT PEEL'S, which was the last except Mr. CourrE's reply, was not brilliant ; but contained some forcible and just ob- servations on the dereliction of its proper functions implied in the adoption of" open questions" by a Government, and the extreme inconvenience which the practice generally occasions. The House of Commons seldom or never comes with credit out of struggles for " privilege." Its conduct in the quarrel with the Court of Queen's Bench, in the matter of STOCKDALE and HAN- SARD, IRIS not contributed to the recovery of any portion of lost dignity. It is impossible to read a most able speech delivered by Mr. Sergeant WILDE in the discussion of the question on Monday, without a very strong impression, if not thorough conviction, that, as far as usage and analogy go, the House is right, and the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench illegal. This is the opinion not only of professional lawyers—Sir JOHN CAMPBELL, Mr. Sergeant WILDE, Sir EDWARD SUGDEN, Sir STEPHEN LUSHINGTON—hut

of all the leading Members, Conservative as I.

It appears certain that the established pract opt..he has been, not to interfere with questions of9ntAry. vilege, but to dismiss them as beyond the tion. At present we are not inquiring whe the'llouSe of. :7

Commons ought to possess any privilege of i.'Atii ;pro- ceedings, not common to the whole public, b 'CrPtinc.1

to established usage such privilege can be Sc 4d

and, with the authorities cited on Monday' utzz, it is difficult to arrive at tiny other conclusion.

though in the beginning of the affair the House took high ground, and solemnly recorded its resolution to defend its privileges from all attack, a majority of 184 to 166 voted to succumb to the Queen's Bench, and not to interrupt the proceedings against HAN- SARD. The only set-off against this act of submission, is a reso- lution to take the subject into further consideration when a com- plete report shall have been, presented from the Privilege Com- mittee.

There is but one solution of this shyness of Members to enter into a contest with the Courts—a consciousness that they do not possess the respect, and cannot rely upon the support, of the country It is by no means certain that the People would take part with tbeir Representatives against the Judges; especially when the next step in the proceeding would be so strong a measure as punishment of a Sheriff for executing the writ of the Court at Westminster. Such an act would indecorously jar against the public feeling of deference to the administration of the law.

In support of the second Jamaica Bill, Ministers on Wednesday could only Bluster the narrow majority of ten ; the numbers being 269 and 259. The bill was taken to the Lords on Thursday, and read a first time: and The motion for the second reading is fixed for Friday next. Whence it would seem, that Ministers think the ad- ditional five votes over the majority for the first bill, a justification for persevering with the second ; although, when they resigned on the first bill, they expressly declared that a much larger majority than usually. supported them was requisite to give a measure of that description a fair chance of successful operation in the colony. Nobody expects the bill to pass the Lords. . The Jamaica majority of ten dwindled to five on the Education question. The debate, begun on Friday last, was resumed on Wednesday, and adjourned to Thursday ; when it terminated at 'a late hour, in the rejection of Lord 'STANLEY'S motion for an address to rescind the Order in Council appointing the Educa- tional Committee, by a vote of 282 to 277. The House went into Committee, and Lord Jolts Russell. desired to press the grant of inones t once ; but Sir ROBERT PEEL protested against further 'proceeding at miff-twist two in the morning, and it was agreed to postpone the vote in Conunit'irre" ts" Monday next. The majority may be kept together, or it may melt away': in the former event, as the Lords cannot interfere, Ministers will succeed in carrying one measure opposed by the Tories. The educational discussion has served to put the Tories still more in the wrong on this question. Their principle, that the State ought not to encourage education except in conformity and con- nexion with the doctrines id" the Establishment, is absolutely incom- patible with the general instruction of the people ; and to pretend that it is the principle of the Constitution, and hitherto sanctioned by Parliament, is absurd, in the face of the notorious filet, that a va- riety of religions are supported by the Government in various parts of the British dominions. This Was Well put to MP. GLADSTONE, late and perhaps "proximate" Under Secretary of the Colonies, by Mr. SPRING RICE. A sober and well-reasoned speech from Mr. DISRAELI, directed chiefly against the centralizing system as ap- plied to popular education—a clever and cutting exposure of some Conservative absurdities on this question by Mr. Ginsox—a re- markably temperate defence of the scheme, and disavowal of

bigotry on the part of the Roman Catholics, by Mr. O'Cies-- _

an earnest appeal, couched in polishedeus- in a manner well calcole.' tseascology, and delivered an impressl- to soothe asperity, by Mr. WYSE- .3! warning of danger from neglect to educate the uiseontented multitude, by Mr. CHARLES BULLER — and a plausible, one-sided view of the subject, by Sir ROBERT PEEL, who took care to speak last—may be pointed out as the more im- portant products of the ample discussion which the question has now undergone. After all, one is tempted to ask, what is the

cause of such a commotion ? Turning from the Government pro- position, after viewing its diminutive proportions, to the ponderous masses of printed oratory which cumber the double-sheeted daily papers, the reader might well exclaim, " This is really much ado about nothing."