the New Three per Cents., on the ground that the
interest might have been reduced without notice, he
replied that he was not sanguine as to the possibility,
in the lifetime of the present generation, of reducing the
interest of the Three per Cent. stocks; but, if the
government should have a surplus revenue, it could go
into the market and buy its own perpetual annuities.—
The discussion then took the form of a debate when the
house is in committee, questions being put and
explanations given, fresh topics arising as each resolution was
read. The report was ultimately agreed to.

On the order for going into committee upon the
Newspaper Stamp Duties Bill, Mr. COWAN and Mr.
BARROW offered some suggestions in favour of the
repeal of the restrictions upon the number of sheets and
the dimensions of newspapers or other periodical
publications; and of the conveyance of all printed matter
through the post-office at the rate of 1/2d. for every two
ounces.—The house then went into committee on the
bill.—On the second clause, enacting that periodical
publications printed on paper stamped for denoting the
rate of duty now imposed on newspapers shall be
entitled to transmission and re-transmission by the post,
Mr. COLLIER moved to amend the clause by the insertion
of words enacting that, instead of 1d., a duty of
1/2d. be imposed, and that 1/2d. be paid on each transmission
by the post of all periodical publications.—The
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, this bill was limited
to the removal of the difficulties which had arisen in the
enforcement of the law, the object of the government
being to make no further alterations than were necessary
to accomplish that end. The great objection to the
measure on the second reading was, that it would
endanger a large amount of revenue. Since then a
further question had arisen as to the reduction of the
duty of 1d. to 1/2d., which, it had been contended, would
increase the revenue. It was possible, he observed,
that this expectation might be realised: but it was
founded upon most uncertain data, and the government
felt bound to adhere to their original proposition. He
pointed out certain practical difficulties in the way of
Mr. Collier's proposal, which he opposed.—The amendment
was withdrawn, and the clause agreed to.—On the
4th clause, authorising the registration of periodical
publications, if desired, in the same manner as
newspapers are now required to be, Mr. WHITESIDE proposed
to make registration compulsory.—The CHANCELLOR of
the EXCHEQUER had no objection to postpone the
clauses relating to registration and securities, in order
to reconsider the whole subject, and to reframe the
clauses.—The 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th clauses were
accordingly postponed. The other clauses in the bill
were agreed to, and the chairman was ordered to report
progress, the consideration of the new clauses being
deferred until the committee sat again, on Monday next.

On the motion of Mr. Bentinck, Captain Gladstone,
after some opposition, was named a member of Mr.
Roebuck's Committee.

On Tuesday, April, 24th, Mr. HEYWOOD introduced
the subject of National Education. He moved a resolution,
pledging the house to resolve itself into a
committee to consider such clauses of the Act of Uniformity
of 1662 as impose religious tests limiting the advantages
of academical, or grammar, or free school education; and
so much of any regulations of national institutions, either
in England or Ireland, as impose religious tests as
conditions or qualifications for any advantages connected
with education in the English or Irish universities or
public schools. He dwelt upon the injurious effects of
these restrictions, the removal of which, he believed,
would be of great national advantage, by bringing
forward a large number of able men capable of rendering
efficient services to the state.—The motion was seconded
by Sir E. Perry.—Lord PALMERSTON observed that
the motion divided itself into two distinct propositions
—one, the consideration of those parts of the act which
required religious tests for schoolmasters and tutors in
private families; the other would go to disturb the
settlement made last year with regard to the university
of Oxford. As to the first he had no hesitation in going
along with Mr. Heywood; he thought those obsolete
provisions might with great advantage be swept away.
In respect to the second proposition, he was of opinion
that it would not be right for parliament to interfere
and disturb the settlement of last year until some
practical experience had been had of its working, and he was
not disposed to go along with Mr. Heywood in that part
of his motion. Nevertheless, he should not oppose the
resolution, but his acquiescence must not commit him
to its full extent, but the government would be at full
liberty to object to any part of the proposed arrangement.
—Mr. GLADSTONE considered the declaration of
the noble lord to be quite fair and satisfactory; but he
was disposed to urge upon Mr. Heywood the expediency
of limiting his motion, as suggested, forthwith. So far
as regarded the university of Oxford, after the settlement
of last year, he should feel it to be his duty to
resist, in every stage, any attempt to interfere with that
settlement. Acts of Parliament unsettling old institutions
should be rare; a very strong case was required
for such interference. He again recommended Mr.
Heywood to accede to the suggestion of Lord Palmerston.
—Lord J. MANNERS remarked that Lord Palmerston
had not referred to a third and very important part of
the motion, relating to endowed grammar schools.
After some further discussion—Mr. HEYWOOD offered to
expunge all the words of his motion after "religious
tests," and, objections being made to this amendment,
as rendering the motion more vague and objectionable,
he proposed to include the succeeding words, down to
"free school education;" but, the house refusing him
permission to withdraw the motion for the purpose of
introducing it in an amended form, it was lost
altogether.

Mr. PELLATT moved a long series of returns, under
no fewer than twenty-two heads, relating to appointments,
informations, cases, memorials, briefs, reports,
&c., connected with the Charity Commission.—The
ATTORNEY-GENERAL characterised the motion as an
extraordinary one, and the mover as the puppet of a
discontented solicitor, commenting upon the covert insinuations
and the groundless imputations conveyed in certain
parts of the motion. The greater part of the returns,
he observed, were already on the table of the house, and
the rest would be so voluminous that their preparation
would be costly. After a remark by Mr. G. H.
Vernon, the motion was withdrawn.

Mr. H. BAILLIE called attention to the system under
which the Post-Office is administered, and moved that
the orders given by the treasury to the post-master-
general in the year 1848, to establish a post-office
communication at the expense of his department between
the islands of North and South Uist, Harris, and Barra,
be carried into effect without delay. At the close of his
speech the house was counted out at a few minutes
after seven o'clock.

On Wednesday, April 25th, the question of the
second reading of the Marriage Law Amendment Bill
gave rise to a debate of considerable interest. Mr.
WALPOLE, in moving to defer the second reading for
six months, observed that the bill, which would
materially affect, religiously, morally, and socially,
some of the closest relations of life, proposed to introduce
a law or custom entirely new to this country; and
those who proposed the change should assign strong,
cogent, and irresistible reasons for it. Was the change
really called for? By the people of Scotland (which
was excluded from the bill) it was regarded with
horror. The great bulk of the people of Ireland,
protestants and Roman catholics, disliked such marriages
as the bill would legalise. In England the great majority
of the laity and clergy thought them wrong, and 11,000 of
the women of England had petitioned against a change
of the law. The reasons alleged for it might be classed,
he said, under two heads: it was argued, first, that the
present prohibition imposed an undue restraint upon
natural sympathy or religious freedom; secondly, that,
by the continuance of the law as it stood, a widower was
deprived of the opportunity of providing the best
guardian for his orphan family. His general answers
to these arguments were—that nothing could be an
undue restraint upon religious liberty which was
consistent with the feelings of moral purity or the injunctions
of religious truth; and that, agreeing that generally the
aunt was the best guardian of an orphan family, it was
for that reason he would not turn her into a bad