NEWS OF -THE WEEK.

THE Session of Parliament was opened on Thursday, with a Royal Speech, soon followed, we are happy to say, by a Tory de- feat. Sir ROBERT PEEL moved an Amendment to the Address, which was negatived by a majority of 284 to 243. Thus perish the hopes of the Opposition ! Behold the result of six months unwearied agitation, and the punishment of political fraud I It is in the House of Commons that the fate of parties is to be de- cided, and the PEEL House of Commons has again decreed the exclusion of PEEL from office.

The Speech seems to have been framed with a view to prevent

a collision on the first day of the session ; and there was not a single paragraph in that document which rendered it necessary for the Tories to reject or to alter it. As usual, it contained as- surances of the friendly disposition of Foreign Powers; and though an addition to the Navy Estimates was announced, this was declared by Ministers to be merely a precautionary step, with a view to maintain our relative position as a maritime power. We have no doubt that the real object is to have a check upon Russia --,to give greater weight to diplomatic representations. We trust that it is only in the way of negotiation that this country will in- terfere in the affairs of Eastern Europe. Nobody can tell where or how a war, once begun, shall end : it is like a fire, which may be kindled in a corner, but devastate a whole city before it can be extinguished. At the same time, a naval war with Russia is one to which a more speedy termination might be expected than with any other country with which there is a chance of quarrel. One fleet in the Baltic and another in the Euxine would crush the whole Rusiian navy without risk or much loss of time. But who can say that a general European war would not be brought on by a conflict between England and Russia single-banded ? The Tories did not object to this recommendation of an increase in our naval force, and merely criticized the other portions of the Speech which related to our Foreign policy, by way of showing their dislike to the establishment of a Liberal Government in Spain.

The Irish Church question was passed over in three lines of the

Speech, and was scarcely adverted to in the debates in either House. The promise to redress the grievances of Dissenters, the introduction of Poor-laws into Ireland, and the alteration of the English Tithe system, received but little more attention. It was against Irish Municipal Reform that the Tories made their stand. The Speech, and the Address which echoed it, mentioned that the House entertained a hope that the principles of the English and Irish Corporation Bills might be the basis of a similar measure for the amendment of the Irish Municipalities. The Tories, conscientious in their roguery, had no such hopes. They Loped that the principles of free representation and of vigilant popular control over the proceedings of local rulers, might not be found suitable to Ireland ; and they refused to concur in this part

of the Address.

In the House of Lords, the Duke of WELLINGTON moved an Amendment, that the Peers would remove every real evil, and im- prove the administration of justice, in the Irish Corporate towns ; and Ministers in that House accepted the Duke's proposition, though under protest, and with the declaration of Lord LANS-

siowNE that they should not abandon the application of the prin-

ciples of the English and Scotch Bills to Ireland, but would in- troduce a measure founded on those principles. Lord MELBOURNE said that the difference between the Address and, the Amend- ment was small and unimportant. We are surprised that Lord MELBOURNE should say or think so. The House of Commons thought differently ; and Lord MELBOURNE'S colleagues in that House very properly treated the proposition of Sir ROBERT PEEL, which was the same verbatim as that of the Duke of WELLING- TON, as a most material alteration of the Address, and one which, if accepted, would have the effect of persuading the Irish People that Parliament refused to legislate for them on the same Liberal princi- ples which were adopted in reference to English and Scotch affairs. Thus Ministers were placed in the awkward situation of treating

(LATEST EDITION.] the same Amendment as all-important, and one to be resisted to the utmost, in the House of Commons, which they accepted almost as a matter of course and without hesitation in the Lords.

We know very well, that the policy of shunning certain defeat, by a great majority, is to be urged in excuse for giving way in

the House of their enemies ; and we bear in mind the salvo of Lord LANSDOWNE, and his pledge not to abandon the principle of the English and Scotch Bills : but we think that the more wise as well as manly part would have been to stand by their own Address, and let their real position in the House of Peers (which their concession has not veiled or altered) be made conspicuous to the country at the very outset of the session. It is to the People of England, and their Representatives in the House of Commons, that Ministers have to look for support.

If the Ministers must suffer a little in public estimation by the inconsistency we have just admitted with our accustomed frank- ness, the-Tories on the other hand have betrayed a singular want

of judgment. They were under no necessity, on their own pro- fessed principles, of refusing to entertain a hope of being able to

treat Ireland in the same manner as England and Scotland, on the question of Municipal Reform. They incurred a needless ad- dition to their unpopularity by declaring that they had no such sympathy with Ireland. But the fact is, that their wily leader was deluded with the expectation, that as Ministers had given way in the Lords, they would damage themselves also in the Commons. and fall into the trap laid for them. It was not until

Mr. Whipper-in Ross informed Sir ROBERT PEEL (in the middle of his speech) of the proceedings in the House of Peers, that he

ventured to propose his amendment, on the paltry and false pre- tence that he would not pledge himself to " principles " which were not explained, and of which lie was ignorant. Truly did

O'CONNELL tell the uncandid, and in this instance not even plausible, Leader of the Opposition, that he must have been aware of the principles of which he pleaded ignorance, and must have expected that notice of the Municipal Bill in the King's Speech, though he professed to be taken by surprise. The result, however, is, that the Tories, under PEEL'S leadership, have declared war against Ireland : they have refused even to express a hope that Ireland is to receive those benefits of the Constitution which have been granted to England and Scotland. They could not have been beaten on more unpopular ground. From the proceedings of Thursday, it would appear that PEEL, after long wavering, has committed himself with the Orange- Tories. They are welcome to him, and we trust will find means to hold him fast. He it. dangerous in pretended neutrality, and as a false ally of Ministers against the earnest Reformers; but as a Tory, fighting under his party colours, he is harmless. His display on Thursday night was very contemptible. His carefully. revised* speech reads well enough ; but it was delivered without animation, and elicited very meagre applause from his dispirited and suspicious party. He looked rather like a harassed Minister at the close of the session, than a triumphant leader of Opposition at the opening of the Parliamentary campaign. Lord STANLEY cut a sorry figure as PEELS lieutenant, repeat- ing his captain's stale clap-traps. His speech was a most bald and poor affair—spiteful, but void of argument. He also ob- jected to pledge himself to entertain a hope that equal justice might be dune to Ireland. Lord JOHN RUSSELL, Lord HOWICK, and Lord PALMERSTON, were the Ministerial orators. All three avowed truly Liberal principles, without reserve. Lord JOHN RUSSELL never appeared to better advantage. His voice was distinct, and his manner spirited. It was evident from the tone of his first three sentences that he was going to stand by his guns, and reject all terms of capitulation. There was no wavering or trimming; the sponsor of the Reform Act on this occasion proved himself worthy to lead the Liberal majority. Lord Howicn's speech was chiefly remark- able for the exposure of Sir ROBERT PEEL'S masked attack on O'CONNELL. He would not allow Sir ROBERT to escape chastise- ment because his taunts were only implied. We think that Lord Howlett is the right sort of person to deal with Sir ROBERT PEEL. Nothing could be more effective than his demonstration of the absurdity and injustice of maltreating Ireland from apprehension of or enmity to O'CONNELL,— with whom, by the way, Lord Howlett declared that he never could be on terms of personal friendship, on account of the harsh things he had said of his father. Nobody will blame Lord Howicu for this; although many may think that O'CONNELL had too much ground for the severity of his invective against Earl GREY. Mr. WARD distinguished himself by perhaps the most effective speech (but one) which the debate produced. He took advantage of the philippic of Mr. HARDY, who had spoken out his fear and hatred of 01:0NNELL, to taunt the Tories with their affected mode- • We have followei the favourable and Battering v.r.iou of tee Mining .1,J.t.

ration in the House, as contrasted with their braggart and abusive tone when there are none at hand to take them to task for their insolence. The Opposition did their utmost to put Mr. WARD down by clamour; but he stood unmoved and cool, resolved that they should hear the disagreeable tenths he had to tell, Mr. WARD is not an old Member of the House, but if' he had possessed the experience of fifty sessions he could not have shown more self- command and determination.

But O'CoNNzeis was the grand speech of the night. It is vain to attempt an adequate description of its effect. He kept the House in a constant state of excitement, with his pathos, ridicule, argument, and invective, by turns. You might see the Members, especially the Irish ones, on the Ministerial side of the House, half rising from their seats as they cheered him, apparently in an ecstacy of delight. O'CONNELL himself seemed to feel con- scious of augmented power and popularity. He disdained to deny, with feigned humility, that the influence he possessed was as extensive as his enemies attributed to him ; and he openly and repeatedly threatened the Tories with the use of that influence to the uttermost to compel JUSTICE for his country—equal laws—a real Union—let them refuse this at their peril Such is O'CoNsiste's position in the House of Commons after six months' incessant efforts to pull him down, by means never before resorted to in party warfare. He has returned to England more popular and formidable than ever.

The division of Thursday night has not surprised us ; for, as our readers know, we have always calculated on a working Ministerial majority in the present House of Commons. But it is most amusing to read the excuses of the Tory journals for the de- feat of their party. The snow-storm in the country is quite a god- send to them. Of course only Tory Members have been prevented from coming to town by the state of the roads. To be sure, there were seven Liberal Members who arrived just as the door closed previous to the division ; but n'importe,as FRANCIS BURDETT say s— the snow-storm, and nothing else, occasioned the defeat of the "na- tional party I" However, we have a curiosity to know where the ZOO Cor.;ervative Mar:hers, wlioLe arrival In tev. the Standard an- nounced a few days ago, have contrived to hide themselves? The Standard declares that the "absentees shall smart for it:" the editor of that journal has got an enormous rod in pickle for them. Let him flog away—he will never whip in a majority of Tories. The Ministers may go on with this House of Commons as long as they persevere in a Liberal and honest course. The Waverers are beginning to sneak over to our side, where their votes must be taken as a set-off against the disrepute of being connected with such time-servers. The "Derby Dilly " does not carry even

six insides ;" and " the last rose of summer " is half inclined to bestow its fragrance once more on the Liberal parterre. It is therefore useless to torment the gamblers, dandies, and fox- bunters : they can gain nothing by attendance on their Parlia- mentary duties.