_May 28th._--Epsom engaged all my attention last week, and I could not find time to notice the debate in the Lords on the Paper Duties, and the extraordinary majority, so much greater than anybody expected. Lyndhurst undertook to speak on the constitutional part of the question, and got leave to speak early (between Granville and Monteagle) that he might go home to celebrate his birthday, which fell on that day, when he completed his eighty-eighth year. He made a very good speech, and met with an enthusiastic reception. Lady Palmerston was in the gallery, openly expressing her wishes that the Bill might be rejected by a large majority. Her language on this and other occasions so shocked some of the more zealous Whigs, that the Duke of Bedford was asked by one or more of them to remonstrate with her on the way she talked, but she knows very well that Palmerston is of the same mind, though he cannot avow his real sentiments in the way she does. Palmerston said to Gladstone, 'Of course you are mortified and disappointed, but your disappointment is nothing to mine, who had a horse with whom I hoped to win the Derby, and he went amiss at the last moment.' The affair has gone off very quietly, the House of Commons not being the least disposed to quarrel with the Lords about it. Even John Russell, who had talked very absurdly, held moderate and prudent language in the House.[1] Footnote 1: [A Bill for abolishing the duty on paper was carried in the House of Commons on March 12 by a majority of 245 to 192. It was rejected on May 21 by the House of Lords by a majority of 193 to 104. The dispute was eventually settled by a resolution for removing so much of the duty on paper as exceeded the Excise duty at home.] [Sidenote: REFORM BILL WITHDRAWN.]