consequently held on the 23rd, at which the following resolution,
moved by Mr. Bright, was adopted:—

That this meeting regrets extremely that Lord John Russell
has declined to receive the deputation appointed at the late
conference, and cannot but regard the reason assigned as evasive
and unsatisfactory. That on a question of an improved representation,
the opinions of a deputation appointed at a conference
representing to a large extent the feelings of the population of
the most populous counties in the United Kingdom, cannot be
without influence, and have a strong claim on the respectful
consideration of the Government; and this meeting expresses
its apprehension that the course taken by the Minister is not
calculated to increase the confidence of the Reformers of the
United Kingdom in his intention to bring forward a substantial
measure of Parliamentary reform.

The St. Alban's Bribery Commission re-assembled
on the 1st inst., in pursuance of their adjournment for
the purpose of terminating the enquiry.—The Hon. F.
Craven, and Mr. G. W. Repton, the sitting member for
the borough, were examined. Mr. Craven stated that he
was a candidate for the borough in 1847, and spent only
between £600 and £1000; but the smallness of the sum
was easily accounted for—he remained at the bottom of
the poll. It was suggested that he should buy about
one hundred votes, but he would not consent. He had
a shrewd suspicion that there was bribery going on—
on his own, as well as on the other side; but he had no
personal cognisance of the fact. Mr. Repton said that
he had represented the borough since 1841. His election
in 1841 cost between £3000 and £4000. He only knew
the fact lately, through incidentally examining an old
banking book; for the matter was arranged without his
knowledge by members of his family. Mr. Rumball, a
former mayor of the town, requested to be allowed to
put in a written communication stating facts respecting
the hiding away of witnesses from the parliamentary
inquiry last session. The letter referred to the detention
of Atkins, Lynes, Haywood, and Brandon, by Edwards;
and Mr. Rumball particularly demanded that a certificate
of indemnity should be withheld from Mr. Edwards.
Mr. Gresham, one of the solicitor witnesses, also begged
to show cause why Mr. Edwards should have no certificate.
As Mr. Gresham stepped out of the witness-box,
the mob in court jeered at him, and Edwards joined in
the laughter. Mr. Gresham observed to Edwards,
"Here is your rough committee at work!" Edwards,
enraged at this taunt, jumped up, seized his horse-whip,
and, holding it threateningly over the solicitor, exclaimed,
"How dare you say that, sir?" Mr. Gresham, with
great coolness, addressed the commissioners, and said,
"I beg you to take notice that I am assaulted."
Perceiving his error, Mr. Edwards dropped the whip. Mr.
Gresham took it up, held it up to the commissioners,
and said again, "This is what he was going to assault
me with." Mr. Edwards then dragged the whip from
Mr. Gresham, and shouted, "How dare you speak as
you did?" Commissioner Forsyth, at this juncture,
interposed, with an "Order, order!" and a horse-
whipping in open court was prevented.—In the meantime
Mr. Fitzgerald, the secretary of the commission,
had been busy in a room adjacent, granting certificates
to the witnesses which had been reported worthy of
them by the commissioners. Some of the townsmen,
finding themselves rejected, hurried into the chief court,
and pleaded earnestly for the refused document. The
first who appeared was a poor old man, apparently a
labourer: he had strenuously denied on a former day
Edwards's allegation against him—that he took £5 for
his vote. "The vote," he said, "was never mentioned!"
and he therefore refused to admit that he had considered
the bribe as a bribe. He was now asked, did he
confess that he had regarded the money as for his vote?
"Yes, I suppose it was!" "Then why did you not
say so last time?" "Why, the vote was never mentioned
by Ed'ards!" "But, did you not in your conscience
know that the money was to secure your vote?" "Yes,
I did; I suppose I did!" "Then," said the chief
commissioner, passing sentence, "you stated a falsehood
when you were before us formerly; and to grant you
a certificate that you have spoken the truth would be
in us to commit a crime something like your own. You
must abide the result." The succeeding case was that
of a musician. Edwards had stated that he had received
£5 for his vote. When called in his turn, he denied
that the £5 was for his vote—it was for music—three
gongs, worth 10s. This story he adhered to with
pertinacious obstinacy; and the consequence was that
the certificate was now refused to him. He came to
express his compunction to the commissioners, and to
beg that they would relent. He had not known how
to answer, when he was under examination. He had
not intended to tell an untruth, and he was very sorry.
"Did you, then, tell us false?" "Yes, I did!" "Then
you cannot have your certificate. You set a bad
example; and must abide by what you have done."
There were some other similar incidents: the commissioners
adhere to their rule firmly.—The commissioners
afterwards stated, that in the cases of those engaged
directly by the candidates, such as Low, Blagg, and
Edwards, certificates would be granted at some subsequent
time.—The enquiry was then nominally adjourned
to the 25th of January; but it was understood that the
commissioners would not sit again.

Lord Palmerston has resigned his Office of Secretary
of State for Foreign Affairs, and is succeeded by Lord
Granville. Lord Stanley of Alderly, the Under-
Secretary for Foreign affairs, has also resigned.

NARRATIVE OF LAW AND CRIME.

THE Court of Exchequer, on the 1st inst., gave judgment
in the case of the Queen v. Messrs. Bradbury and
Evans, the printers of this publication, "The
Household Narrative of Current Events." It will be
remembered that proceedings were taken in the above
court, at the instance of the Crown, with the view of
making "The Household Narrative" liable for the
newspaper stamp-duty, under the Act 6 & 7 Will. IV.,
c. 76. The question depended on the interpretation
given to the schedule at the end of that act. The
schedule gave definitions of the publications in the
United Kingdom liable to the newspaper stamp, to the
following effect: 1. Any paper containing public news,
intelligence, or occurrences; 2. also, any paper printed
weekly or oftener, or at intervals not exceeding twenty-
six days, containing only or principally advertisements;
3. and also, any paper containing any public news,
intelligence, or occurrences, or any remarks or
observations thereon, published periodically, or in parts or
numbers, at intervals not exceeding twenty-six days,
where any of such parts or numbers shall not exceed
two sheets, or where the price shall not exceed sixpence.
—The case was argued last term, but judgment was
postponed in consequence of the judges being equally
divided in opinion. The judges now delivered their
opinions seriatim.—Mr. Baron Martin said, that the
question submitted to the court was, whether the
publication before them was to be deemed a publication
liable to stamp duty within the meaning of the several
acts of parliament, and was subject to the same stamp
as in the case of a newspaper? On the argument on
behalf of the Crown, the Attorney-General had
contended that, as the publication contained more recent
information than that which was limited by the statute,
viz., news of less than twenty-six days old, it should be
liable to the stamp duty; and should be held to be a
newspaper, as it contained public news of current and
recent events. It appeared, however, to him (Mr.
Baron Martin), upon a careful examination of the various
acts of parliament downwards, from the statute of Anne,
which first imposed the stamp duty, that the publication
in question did not come within the meaning of those
acts as a newspaper. There was nothing in those
statutes which made it necessary that a publication,
published at intervals of more than twenty-six days, or
within a calendar month, should be subject to the stamp
duty. Now "The Household Narrative" did not, in his
opinion, come within the meaning of the term newspaper,
according to the spirit of the act of parliament.—Mr.
Baron Platt concurred in this opinion. The publication
in question contained accounts of the proceedings in
parliament, and in the courts of law, and of other
events of public interest; it was published at intervals
exceeding twenty-six days, on a surface not exceeding
two sheets, of a size twenty-one inches long by seventeen