resolution, to which he ought not to pledge the house,
observing, that the resolution was not in the abstract;
it asserted two facts,—that the law was ill-defined, and
that, such as it was, the executive did not enforce
it impartially; and the meaning of the resolution was,
that in the opinion of the house, the government ought
to deal with the question, and bring in a measure to
define the law, and instruct their officers to administer
it with impartiality. Mr. Gibson pointed out the legal
perplexities and anomalies which surround the question
as to what a newspaper was, and insisted upon the
hardship resulting from the conflicting opinions upon
this point of courts of law and the Board of Inland
Revenue, which refused to be bound prospectively by
judicial decisions. He contended that it was public
policy, if observations and discussions of facts were
allowed to be circulated free of stamp duty, to permit
the circulation of the records of the facts themselves, so
that facts might correct erroneous theories. After
mentioning specific cases of the uncertainty of the law,
he adduced other instances in support of his allegation
that the law was unequally enforced; that it was put
in motion, not against the powerful London publisher,
but against the little proprietor of a small paper in
some provincial town. Lastly, he impugned the
manner in which the security law was administered,
arguing that, while it was applied to publications not
within the purview of that law, those against which it
was expressly directed were suffered to escape. All he
asked, he said, was that the law might be made clear
and be enforced with justice.—The motion was seconded
by Mr. KINNAIRD. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said,
he did not much quarrel with the resolution; he was
disposed to concur with Mr. Gibson, that the law on
the subject of periodical publications required revision
and amendment, and that it had been unequally, though
not arbitrarily, enforced. He explained what was the
principle upon which the law was administered, and
showed that that principle had been acted upon in
some of the cases referred to by Mr. Gibson, although
he did not think the law as to what was a newspaper—
namely, a publication containing public news, intelligence,
or occurrences—was ill-defined, or that it had
been partially or arbitrarily enforced. Believing that
there were portions of the law which required amendment
(to which he was prepared to give his best
attention), he could not go the full length of the
resolution, and therefore, without meaning any
disrespect to Mr. Gibson, he moved the previous
question.—Mr. EWART spoke in favour of the
resolution, regarding the subject, connected with that of
self-education, as one of vital importance.—Mr.
HUME thought the effect of the course pursued in
the government prosecutions was to keep the people
ignorant, and to foster crime. The press laws ought
to be entirely repealed.—The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
objected to the resolution, that it implied a reproach
upon the public authorities. The law, he
admitted, had been unequally enforced, but this
was only through a desire to administer it according to
its spirit, not according to its letter, and this relaxation
had led to many of the existing difficulties. The whole
subject would receive the earliest and most careful
attention, to see whether the law could be better applied.
It was not possible to invent a definition clearer than
the present, which had been adopted since the act 10th
of Anne.—Sir J. SHELLEY supported the resolution.—
Mr. CROSSLEY suggested that the newspaper stamp
should be taken off, and a penny stamp on bankers'
checks substituted.—Mr. BRIGHT observed, that the
resolution was of a very innocent character. The
difference between Mr. Gibson and the Attorney-
General was upon the term "ill-defined;" but the
law was so uncertain that it could not be enforced, and
hundreds of thousands of pounds were lost for this very
reason. It was not asked that the stamp duty on
newspapers should be abandoned, but, if it were repealed, he
contended that, by the substitution of a postage-stamp
of equal amount, there would be no sacrifice of revenue,
through the impulse given to publication. He fortified
his argument by the exhibition of various journals,
English, American, and Australian, and strongly
insisted upon the policy, on the highest moral grounds, of
facilitating the access of the labouring classes to
newspapers, by abolishing the stamp duty.—Lord PALMERSTON
said, as to the general scope of the resolution,
there seemed to be no fundamental difference of opinion.
It was admitted that the law required consideration and
revision; but the resolution contained assertions upon
which a difference of opinion might be entertained—
namely, that the law was ill-defined and had been
unequally enforced, and it might be inferred that a charge
of partiality, though not meant, was implied If Mr.
Gibson would alter the terms of his resolution, so as
merely to affirm that the law demanded the early
consideration of parliament with a view to its revision, he
would not object to it.—Mr. GIBSON declined to alter
the terms of the resolution; whereupon Lord PALMERSTON
said, if it were distinctly understood that no charge
of partiality against the Board of Inland Revenue was
implied, he did not think the difference material.—Mr.
GIBSON disavowed such a charge, accusing, he said, only
the system; and, the amendment being withdrawn, the
resolution was agreed to.

Mr. BLAND moved for leave to bring in a bill for a
better and more general mode of Taking the Average
Price of Corn and other Agricultural Produce in
Ireland; and a bill to provide for the annual variation of
Rentcharge in Lieu of Tithes in Ireland, with reference
to the averages of the then next preceding seven years.
—After some remarks by Sir J. YOUNG and other hon.
members, leave was given to introduce both bills.

Mr. MALINS moved for leave to bring in a bill To
Enable Married Women to Dispose of Interests in
Personal Estate, explaining the state of the law which
rendered this alteration desirable, in order to avoid
practical evils.—The object of the bill was to extend to
married women the same power of dealing with personal
estate as with real estate.—The motion was seconded
by Mr. L. KING.—The SOLICITOR-GENERAL approved
the object of the bill, and leave was given.

Mr. HUME moved for a select committee to inquire
into and report upon the state of the present public
Registry of the Prerogative Court, used as a testamentary
office, and whether a better office can be established for
the keeping and preservation of wills, suggesting that
the present provisions for the custody of wills were
altogether inadequate.—The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said,
the subject was one of paramount importance, and
concurred in the motion, which was agreed to.

The Industrial and Provident Societies Bill was read
a second time.

The house then went into committee upon the
Manning the Navy Bill.

On Wednesday, May 17, on the motion for the second
reading of the Capitular Estates Bill, Lord A. VANE
opposed it, and moved the adjournment of the debate,
on the ground that no leading member of the government
was then present. He thought that the church
must be the best judge of its own interests, and that if
the house sanctioned the principle of such a bill, the
time might come when a measure would be proposed
for secularising church property.—Mr. G. BUTT seconded
the motion, though approving of the principle of the
bill, which he did not think would lessen the utility
of the dignitaries of the church.—Mr. DRUMMOND said
that the remedy proposed by the bill was utterly to
destroy the cathedral establishments, and to turn the
cathedrals into parish churches. The true reform would
have been to increase the number of bishops as population
increased.—Mr. HADFIELD thought that the
property of the church of England had been its great
bane.—Mr. WALPOLE concurred in the proposal for
adjournment. The bill affected a most important
question, and he thought that further information was
desirable. He pointed out various inconsistencies in
the details of the measure.—Lord J. RUSSELL saw force
in the reasons urged for the adjournment, to which he
should be glad if the mover of the bill, Lord Blandford,
assented, satisfied with having brought the matter
under discussion, and convinced that the subject was
too important to be allowed to drop, and that the
government would feel obliged, with full information
before them, to introduce such measures as were
consistent with the improvement of the revenues of the
church, and at the same time with principles which