It may be expected that we should advert in conclusion, as to a subject not disconnected from these,
to the results arrived at by that Parliamentary Committee on Newspaper Stamps for whose existence
we are ourselves in some degree responsible. But there are reasons which limit our remarks for the present to a
mere statement of the substance of their conclusions. Our readers are aware that a question involving
the existence of the Household Narrative as an unstamped journal has been lately very learnedly argued
before the Court of Exchequer; but they may not have observed an intimation since thrown out by
Mr. Baron Parke to the effect that the opinion of the court is divided in the case, and that judgment
cannot therefore be given till after the long vacation. In other words the law imposing a tax on newspapers,
or rather the law which should define the conditions that constitute a newspaper, is so complicated and
contradictory as to be, for the present, insoluble and inexplicable to the learned and accomplished
lawyers who sit in the Exchequer. In such circumstances, not without some show of reason, the
Parliamentary Committee come forward to recommend a thorough solution by the simple process of
abolishing the stamp altogether. This recommendation they accompany by others, which would substitute
a postage for newspapers and all other printed matter, not exceeding a penny for a weight equal to that of
the largest newspaper existing; and which would at the same time concede to the original publisher of
intelligence, a certain short privilege of copyright. The latter suggestion is manifestly a most just and reasonable
one, yet it would probably be the most difficult to carry into effect. The whole question is now ripe,
however, for the full and fair consideration which it is to be hoped will be given to it in the next session of
Parliament. It is one that requires, and will repay, very patient and deliberate handling.

NARRATIVE OF PARLIAMENT AND
POLITICS.

In the House of Lords on Thursday, June 26th, the
Lord CHANCELLOR moved the second reading of the
Charitable Trusts Bill, and explained the details of
the measure, which, he said would be attended with
great benefit to the public. Lord Brougham, Lord Stanley,
and the Earl of Chichester expressed their satisfaction
with the measure, and the bill was read a second time.

On Friday, June 27, Lord BROUGHAM intimated to
the Earl of Ellenborough that there would be no objection
to the production of the papers connected with the
Case of Jotee Persaud, and requested the postponement
of the discussion until they were laid on the
table. Lord Ellenborough assented.

On Monday, June 30th, the Marquis of LONDONDERRY,
pursuant to notice, put a question to her
Majesty's government, asking whether they had
received any communication from our ambassador at
Constantinople respecting negotiations that were now
going on for the Liberation of Abd-el-Kader, and his
transmission to Turkey; and whether the government
would use their good offices in conjunction with Turkey,
to alleviate the imprisonment of that illustrious warrior?
—The Marquis of Lansdowne said that the government
had no official information on the subject, nor had
they any claim to interfere in the question, though, of
course, they, in common with their lordships, would
rejoice to hear that the French government found it
consistent with their duty either to release that eminent
warrior, or to mitigate the evils of his detention.

On Thursday, July 3, Lord BROUGHAM asked whether
it was intended to introduce any bill similar to that
brought forward by Lord Cottenham last year for the
purpose of Abolishing certain legal Offices, and amongst
them that of Chief Registrar in the Court of Bankruptcy.
The bill had been stigmatised in the House of Commons
as a job, and rejected; but he could only say he wished
there were more such jobs.—The Lord CHANCELLOR
said that the facts stated by Lord Brougham were correct.
There could be no doubt that great inconvenience had
been caused by the rejection of Lord Cottenham's bill,
to remedy which it would he necessary to bring in a
fresh bill. The noble lord then proceeded to give a
sketch of the duties of his secretaries, and of the time
and trouble he had bestowed on the office he now filled.
Much remained to be done in the way of law reform,
but it was only those who were ignorant of the evils
caused by alterations made by rash hands who
under-rated what had been already effected. It was most
unjust to attack him for not desiring reform, for he had
been a reformer before reform was in fashion, and he
would not cease to be one now.—Lord BROUGHAM, in a
speech at some length, warmly repudiated the imputation
of rashness cast upon him by the Lord Chancellor,
who protested that that he had not used the words
"rash hands" with reference to his noble friend.
After some further explanations the matter dropped.

On Friday, July 4, Lord BEAUMONT moved the second
reading of the Purchase of Lands Facilitation (Ireland)
Bill, the object of which, he said, was to empower
trustees in Ireland who were granting money on estates
to purchase those estates when brought into the
Encumbered Estates Court.—The Lord CHANCELLOR
opposed the motion on the ground, mainly, that on the
one hand the bill would relieve trustees from breaches
of trust, and on the other enable them to extend them.
After a brief debate the bill was rejected, three peers
voting for the second reading, while sixteen voted adversely.

On Monday, July 7, the Ecclesiastical Titles
Assumption Bill was read a first time, and the second reading
was appointed for Monday the 21st.

On Tuesday, July 8, the Expenses of Prosecutions
Bill was read a third time and passed; but from the
prevalence of private conversation in the house the fact
was not noticed, till Lord CAMPBELL stopped a discussion
on the bill, which was still proceeding after it had
passed. This gave rise to an amusing scene, the effect
of which was heightened by the Lord CHANCELLOR
addressing the house from the woolsack, when he was
called on by Lord BROUGHAM to come into the house
before he addressed it.—The Lord Chancellor
confirmed the fact of the bill having passed, and exhorted
their lordships to be more attentive.

The Lodging Houses Bill was read a second time, on
the motion of the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, who, in a
speech of great length, detailed to the house the
wretched condition of the dwellings of the poor, and
explained the object of the bill, which was to improve
not only the physical but the moral and religious
condition of the labouring classes.—The bill received
unanimous support and approbation from the Marquis
of Normanby, Lord Kinnaird, and the Earl of
Harrowby, who suggested that whenever a bill came
before them for the widening of streets and the
improvement of neighbourhoods, care should always be
taken to insert a clause providing for the accommodation
of the displaced population in the manner contemplated
by this bill; a suggestion to which, as well as to the
general approbation expressed of the bill, the Marquis
of Lansdowne cordially assented.

On Thursday, July 10, Lord BROUGHAM announced
his intention not to proceed any further during the
present session with his two bills for the extension of
the jurisdiction of County Courts.

On Friday, July 11, Lord BROUGHAM presented a
petition from Mr. Paxton for the Preservation of the
Crystal Palace as a winter garden, and supported its
prayer, to which Lord Campbell objected.—Earl
GRANVILLE stated that the Commissioners felt
themselves precluded from entertaining the question.

Lord REDESDALE presented some petitions praying
for a restoration of the Convocation of the Church, and
spoke at some length in support of the measure. The
Archbishop of CANTERBURY thought the revival of
the convocation calculated to increase rather than heal
the divisions in the church.—The Archbishop of
Dublin gave his opinion in favour of convocation; the
Bishop of London claimed for the church the right to
meet in convocation; and the Bishop of Oxford held
that convocation was less dangerous than the existing