there was not even the allegation that revenue was the
object. With regard to the equivalent, as it was called,
of free transmission through the post, it should be
remembered that the tax was charged on 80 million
copies, while only 33 million passed through the post—
and, if the stamp were removed, arrangements might be
made for the conveyance of these 33 million at a much
less charge than was now paid. After demonstrating
the uncertainty of the law by the example of the
prosecution against the "Household Narrative," commenting
on the impropriety of making excise-officers censors of
the press, and animadverting on the injustice of exempting
what are called class newspapers from the tax, while
general newspapers were liable, he concluded by moving
the resolution against the paper duty—Mr. EWART
seconded the motion, and quoted the opinions of Mr.
Knight and the Messrs. Chambers, the publishers, as to
the evil effects of the paper duty.—The CHANCELLOR of
the EXCHEQUER was not aware that the injurious effect of
the excise laws was greater in the case of paper than in
that of soap, and other exciseable articles. Considering
the question in a financial point of view—in which only
he was at liberty to regard it—he did not feel justified in
acceding to the motion. The united amount of the
three taxes was considerable; but he admitted that the
advertisement tax offered a subject for consideration,
and that the newspaper duty also stood on a somewhat
different footing from the paper duty. He reminded
the house that the policy of the country had been, of
late years, not to increase indirect taxation. One great
source of indirect taxation—the Customs—had been
seriously interfered with already; the other great source
—the Excise—was now attacked, and a committee,
up-stairs, was at the present moment assailing the
great sources of direct taxation. What could be
more unwise—what more dangerous to the financial
position of the country—than that they should go on
diminishing the sources of indirect taxation, before they
had settled the principles on which direct taxation was
for the future to stand? He justified his vote in favour
of Mr. Gibson's previous motion, by the circumstances
of the time when it was brought forward. The present
proposal would involve a sacrifice of revenue to the
extent of a million-and-a-half; and, intending, as he
did, to make his financial exposition on Friday in the
next week, he wished, in doing so, to be left unfettered
to deal with all taxes as he thought the interests of the
country required.—Messrs. WAKLEY and COBDEN
suggested that the debate should be adjourned until after
the financial statement.—Mr. GIBSON, understanding
that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised to
consider the question of the newspaper stamp and the
advertisement duty, consented to the adjournment.—The
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER disclaimed having
given any promise to give any peculiar consideration to
those taxes beyond all others. The debate was then
adjourned to Wednesday, the 12th of May.

On Friday the 23d, on the question of the second
reading of the Militia Bill, Sir DE LACY EVANS moved
its second reading in three months. He objected to the
bill, as a militia bill; but if we were to have such a
bill, he would, he said, infinitely prefer that of the late
government. The inefficient force raised by this bill, he
contended, so far from increasing, would diminish the
means of national defence, which would be better
provided for by withdrawing troops from the colonies and
concentrating our military resources at home. He
entered into professional details with the view of
showing the risks and impediments that would be
encountered by an invading force, and suggested that
we might, therefore, at least wait until a new parliament
assembled.—Mr. RICH seconded the amendment.—Sir
J. Walsh, Mr. Newdegate, and Sir J. Pakington
supported the bill; Mr. F. Peel and Sir R. Peel
supported the amendment.—Lord J. Russell said, it was
because he thought the country required more defence
that he was unable to consent to the second reading of
this bill, which he believed would prove an utter
delusion. If, according to the opinions of all professional
men, the means of warfare had improved, it was
not sufficient to recur to what had been done in former
wars, and to our immunity from attack fifty years ago.
All these precedents failed; and then the question was,
what measures should be taken to meet any possible
attack, for which 41,000 infantry in England and Ireland
were not, in his opinion, a sufficient force. Lord John
then instituted a comparison between the bill of the
late government, which tempered, with every practicable
alleviation, the condition of compulsion, with the
present measure, which appealed solely to mercenary
motives; and he asked whether a force so raised was
one upon which the country could rely? The bill
consisted of two parts—one, that of bounties, would be
inefficient; the other, which adopted the ballot, would
be oppressive, and interfere with the industry of the
country. Speaking for himself alone, he should not
recommend a large increase of our standing army; but
there were other measures which had been suggested
that evening whereby a large force might be raised for
defence, including the organisation of the pensioners, a
small amount of embodied militia, and a draught of
6,000 or 7,000 men from the colonies. He had, upon
the whole, come to the conclusion, believing that the
measure would be totally futile, and not provide a good
and sufficient defence to the country, to vote for the
amendment.—Lord PALMERSTON had hoped that, as
the main principle of this measure had been admitted
on both sides of the house, it would have been discussed
solely with reference to the defence and security of the
realm, and that no party feelings would have mixed
themselves up with the discussion. It was with pain,
therefore, he had witnessed the line which Lord J.
Russell and those who acted with him had thought it
their duty to take on this occasion. Great misapprehension,
he observed, prevailed with regard to the
position of the country in reference to its defence. It
was impossible to reckon with confidence upon the non-
occurrence of some unforeseen event which might
require the country to resist or submit to injury. Some
said, "Why alarm yourselves with the fear of
invasion?" But circumstances had in the last few years
materially changed; the facilities for invasion had
increased, and our force, regulars and pensioners, was
insufficient to meet such an emergency. There were
two ways in which this deficiency might be made good
—one by adding materially to our standing army, to
which he entirely objected—for 8,000 regulars would
cost as much as 80,000 militia; the other by a militia
force. He was of opinion that this measure was a good
one. What was the difference between it and the
measure which the late government had made a vital
question? In the latter compulsory service was the
rule, and voluntary service the exception; in the present
measure voluntary service was the rule, and compulsory
service the exception—so that the reason why the late
government opposed this bill must be because it was not
compulsory enough. He believed that by voluntary
enlistment as many men could be got as would be
wanted, and that they would not be backward in obeying
the call of their country in time of need. He, therefore,
looked upon this measure as calculated to do an
essential good to the country; but if he thought that, in
some points, it might be improved, that was no reason
why he should oppose the second reading.—The debate
was then adjourned.

On Monday the 26th, the adjourned debate on the
Militia Bill was concluded. The principal speakers in
favour of the Bill were Lord Seymour, Colonel Lindsay,
Mr. Cardwell, Mr. M. Milnes, Mr. S. Herbert, and
Mr. Walpole; against it, Mr. Ellice, Admiral Berkeley,
Mr. M. Gibson, and Mr. Roebuck. On a division the
second reading was carried by 315 to 165.

PROGRESS OF BUSINESS.

House of Lords.—March 29th.—Law of Wills Amendment Bill
read a third time, and passed.—Proclamation of Assembling
Parliament Bill passed through committee.

30th.—Ministerial Explanations.

April 1st.—Administration of Justice in Lunacy Bill read a
first time.

2nd.—East India Company's Charter Renewal.—Select
Committee granted to Lord Derby.

5th.—War with Ava—Lord Ellenborough's motion for papers
agreed to.

6th.—House adjourned to the 19th.

19th.—Masters in Chancery Abolition Bill introduced.—
Mutiny Bills read a third time, and passed.