them wholly ineffectual for the accomplishment of his
avowed object. He moved that the bills be read a
second time that day six months.—Mr. CAIRNS suggested
that without summarily rejecting the bills, they should
be held over until the promised report of the
commissioners was laid before parliament.—Mr. Malins
defended the bills.—Mr. KEOGH moved the adjournment
of the debate, which was agreed to, for a month.

On Friday, May 4, Mr. DISRAELI complained that
an unusually long period was allowed to elapse before
the state papers relating to the Vienna Conferences
were laid before parliament. Referring to former
precedents, he observed that the papers relating to Lord
Malmesbury's mission in 1796 were laid on the table
even before the return of the envoy. Similar punctuality
might, he urged, have been observed in the present
instance, if government had shown due diligence, or had
not been reluctant to afford information on a topic which
absorbed public interest at the present moment.—Lord
PALMERSTON submitted that the precedent of 1795
related to a transaction in which the attainment of
peace had long been known to be hopeless. Declaring
that the government in their treatment of this affair
had been actuated solely by motives of public duty, he
intimated that the delay in communicating the papers
in question to the legislature had arisen from a wish not
to throw further difficulties in the way of negotiations
which were not yet wholly terminated.

The debate on the second reading of the Tenant's
Compensation (Ireland) Bill was resumed and
concluded. The discussion chiefly dealt with the
retrospective compensation–clause, to which there was some
opposition. It was supported by Mr. HORSMAN and
Lord PALMERSTON, and the second reading was carried
by 163 to 50.

On Monday, May 7, Mr. DISRAELI returned to
the question of the Vienna Protocols, and asked the
government if they were yet ready?—Sir G. GREY
said he knew the foreign secretary was busy preparing
the protocols for publication, and they would be
laid before the house on a very early day.—Mr.
DISRAELI said he would to–morrow ask the government
to fix the day when they should be laid before
the house; and if that day was not soon, he would
ask the house to express an opinion on the subject.—
Later in the evening Lord PALMERSTON stated that the
protocols would be laid before the house on the following
day. The reason why they had not yet been presented
was, he said, on account of the temporary illness of "the
person whose duty it was to prepare the translations of
the protocols."

On the third reading of the Newspaper Stamp Duty Bill,
Mr. HADFIELD complained of the limitation of fifteen
days, beyond which stamped newspapers could not pass
through the post.—The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
thought fifteen days was sufficiently wide; though,
if the house wished it, he would not object to extend
the period to thirty days. He might add, that as soon
as this law passed, it was the intention of the government
to establish a cheap postage for printed matter
generally.—Mr. BRIGHT objected to the retransmission
of newspapers altogether; and he hoped, further, that
the government would soon consider the question of the
newspaper stamp with a view to its abolition, as it was
a great hardship on those papermakers who lived at a
distance from the places where papers were stamped.—
Mr. CALEY strongly advocated the retransmission of
newspapers, as tending to a great diffusion of knowledge.
He had opposed the second reading because, though he
believed it would diffuse a great blessing through the
country, still he could not consent to purchase that
blessing at the expense of existing interests. He was
in favour of a copyright in news, and in favour of
transmitting the largest–sized newspapers through the
post, and he now gave notice that if newspapers of six
ounces weight were not allowed to go through the post
for a penny, he would divide the house against the third
reading.—Mr. DUFFY reminded the house that, in the
case of monthly mails to the colonies, thirteen daily
newspapers would be excluded from the colonies
altogether. He was, therefore, against the limitation
altogether—at least a month ought to be allowed for the
retransmission.—The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
had no objection to make the fortnight limitation apply
exclusively to the united kingdom.—Mr. VANSITTART
moved that the bill should be read a third time that day
six months. He could not find that anybody thoroughly
liked this bill except Mr. M. Gibson, and nobody in the
country wished for it, while the revenue to be lost was
much more than the country could afford.—Mr.
LABOUCHERE said he had voted against the second reading
of the bill purely on financial grounds, and now that the
budget had been laid before them he would certainly
vote for the third reading. He was favourable to the
privilege of retransmitting newspapers as a measure
likely to encourage the best and ablest papers.—Mr.
WHITESIDE had intended to move a clause allowing a
newspaper of six ounces in weight to go through the
post for a penny. He wanted to know where it had
been proved that the post–office would have more
difficulty in carrying six ounces than four. He believed the
great object of the present limitation to four ounces was
to injure a particular journal. As he saw the Chancellor
of the Exchequer would not agree to the amendment he
proposed, he had no alternative but to oppose the bill.
—Lord PALMERSTON here stated that the Speaker was
labouring under indisposition, and suggested that the
bill should at once be read a third time—that the
amendments to be discussed on the question that the
bill do pass be adjourned to a future day—and that the
house should now go into committee on the spirit duties
bill.—Mr. DISRAELI said there could be but one feeling
of sympathy for the speaker, but he thought it would be
better that the debate should be adjourned.—Lord
Palmerston assented to this, and the debate was
adjourned till Friday.

On Wednesday, May 9, Mr. HEADLAM moved the
second reading of the Illegal Marriages (Scotland) Bill.
The measure, he contended, would define and enforce
the law on a point where its existing uncertainties and
inefficiency gave scope for very serious consequences.—
Mr. ELLIOTT moved as an amendment that the second
reading should be deferred for six months.—Lord
DUNCAN opposed the bill, which he believed would
throw the whole marriage law in Scotland into confusion.
—The house divided—for the second reading,
40; for the amendment, 143. The bill was consequently
rejected.

The debate on the second reading of the Marriage
Law Amendment Bill was then resumed by Sir W.
HEATHCOTE, who believed that the scriptural authority
against marriage within the contemplated degrees of
affinity was undoubted, and argued if any doubt existed,
it should be resolved in favour of the existing law.—
Mr. PHINN supported the bill, urging, among other
arguments, that marriage had ceased to be considered a
question appertaining only to the ecclesiastical law.—
Mr. R. PALMER apprehended that the measure would
sap the foundations of morality in this country. It
contravened, moreover, as he contended, the decision of the
learned divines by whom the thirty–nine articles of the
English church were framed.—Mr. Lowe defended the
measure, which was condemned by Mr. Gladstone and
Mr. Spooner, who reiterated the arguments against it
derived, according to their interpretation, from the
authority of scripture and the cannon-law.—Mr. Cobden
having spoken in favour of the bill, a division was
called, on which there appeared—for the measure, 165;
against, 157: majority in favour of the bill, 8. The
bill was then read a second time.

On Thursday, May 10, Sir E. PERRY, in moving for
a select committee to consider how the Army of India
may be made most available for the War in Europe,
and to inquire into the steps necessary to be taken if it
should be deemed expedient to constitute the army of
the East India Company a royal army, stated the reasons
which had induced him to forego his intention of moving
for a royal commission. If the war was to last, he
affirmed that we must look to our Indian army as the
source of our military reinforcements, and he entered
into details respecting the strength of that army, which
(including the Queen's European troops), amounted to
457,000 men, its organisation, and efficiency. What use,
he asked, had been made of this fine army? None
whatever. The services of Indian officers were available,
who would have attracted a corps d'armée of 25,000