it so much as formerly, since he had seen the utter
failure of universal suffrage in a neighbouring country.
He objected to the abolition of the property qualification,
as introducing a further democratic element into
the constitution, and separating to a still greater extent
power from property.—Mr. BRIGHT objected to the
omission of the ballot. He saw no reasons for lowering
the county franchise to £20, which did not apply with
equal force in favour of carrying the reduction to £10.
What reason was there for saying that the man who
occupied a £10 house in the country was not as intelligent
and as respectable as the man who lived in a £5 house
in a borough? The noble lord had talked about
maintaining the balance of interests, but the preponderance
of the representatives of the land and opponents of the
settled question of free trade, which he supposed he
meant, was not a balance of interests, but merely a dead
lock to the government. He wanted to know why
such places as Thetford and Harwich should send two
members, while such boroughs as Manchester, Finsbury,
or Westminster sent no more? A settlement on such a
basis could not be permanent, nor ought it to be so. He
urged Lord John Russell to consider the propriety of
withdrawing the members from those small boroughs he
proposed to enlarge, and apportioning them to the large
constituencies, or to new constituencies raised from
more populous districts. On the subject of oaths, he
thought it would be far better to abolish them altogether,
substituting, if necessary, a simple declaration.—
Further observations were made by Mr. Newdegate,
Mr. Roche, Mr. Trelawney, Sir John Tyrell, Mr.
Disraeli, Sir G. Grey, Sir B. Hall, and others; after
which leave was given to bring in the bill.

On Tuesday, the 10th, Mr. Sharman CRAWFORD
moved for leave to bring in a bill for securing the
Ulster custom of Tenant Right, or compensation to
improving tenants, and to limit the power of eviction. He
stated, that the measure he now proposed was substantially
that which he brought in last year. It was
avowedly for the protection of tenants, but it included
justice to landlords: it extended to Ireland the English
principle that the consent of the landlord to improvements
was not to he a condition precedent to the
tenant's right for compensation.—Sir George GREY
consented to the introduction of the bill—in deference
to its author's motives, and long consideration of the
subject; but he hinted that it would be stopped at the
second reading. Sir George ascribed the unfortunate
condition of Ireland not to a desire of compensation for
improvements, but to a combination, by force, intimidation,
and terror, to reduce rents. Government (he
said) will ask no new powers, but put forth the strong
arm of the existing law, with strictness and severity.—
Mr. Sadleir and Mr. E. B. Roche having asked of
the government to step forward and redeem the royal
pledges to legislate on the unsatisfactory state of the
relations between landlord and tenant,—Lord JOHN
RUSSELL made a defensive statement. The government
had introduced a bill—a bill which was settled by a
committee on which were Sir William Somerville, Mr.
Sadleir, and other gentlemen of experience; but Lord
John had found, on a conference with the opponents of
the bill, that if it were passed into law, the first thing
they would do would be to get up meetings and raise a
flame against it in Ireland: therefore, considering how
government propositions were opposed, and considering
what extravagant propositions were advanced by the
opponents of the government proposals, Lord John had
decided to relinquish his bill. The notions of the
opponents of the government bill were inconsistent with
the rights of private property; and the subject was so
beset with a thousand difficulties, in a country where,
as in Ireland, litigation is a sort of pastime, that he
had resolved to bring in no further measure on the
subject.—Mr. KEOGH severely criticised this extraordinary
statement by Lord John Russell of his motives for
disappointing the just expectations which his own
public declarations and acts had encouraged in Ireland.
—Mr. BRIGHT suggested, that the source of difficulty in
the way of government legislation is the fears of the
large Irish proprietors in the cabinet: "can the cats
wisely and judiciously legislate for the mice?"—Leave
given to bring in the bill.

On Thursday, the 12th, the New Reform Bill was
read a first time. The Corrupt Practices at Elections
Bill was also brought in, and passed through the same
stage.

The subject of the Preserved Meats for the Navy was
brought forward by Sir W. JOLIFFE, who demanded
a select committee to inquire into the government
contracts with Mr. Goldner. This was assented to by Sir
Francis BARING, on the part of the government.
The Admiralty defence was repeated, with additional
exculpations. The substance of the defence was, that
the meats were introduced to the navy very slowly and
guardedly; that the contracts with Mr. Goldner were
well fulfilled for the first years; that his contracts are
not the only ones under which defective meats have
been received; and that in fact the state of science is
not such that any preserved meats can be unreservedly
relied on. But the preserved stores supplied to the
Arctic expedition were made of picked meats supplied
by the Admiralty itself, under the late administration,
and were made during the period when the best results
were obtained: it is confidently trusted that those have
remained good. Sir Francis Baring proposed that the
period of inquiry should reach back to 1840, so as to
include the case of the Arctic meats, and should include
English meats as well as the foreign meats, to which Sir
William Joliffe, with protectionist sympathies [as
hinted] had confined it. With these extensions, the
motion for a select committee was agreed to nem. con.

On Friday, the 13th, Mr. LABOUCHERE moved for
leave to bring in a bill to carry into effect certain provisions
contained in the Copyright Treaty with France.
He said that it was only recently that negotiations with
France had been brought to a satisfactory termination.
The proposed bill was an extension, in regard to France,
of the act of 1844. The only new principle it
enunciated was the recognition of a copyright in translations,
a point which had been strongly urged by the French
diplomatists, and which it had been deemed just to
concede. At the same time, a translation could not
properly be placed upon the same basis as an original work.
It was therefore proposed to give a copyright protection
of five years to an authorised translation of a French
work, under certain conditions, as to announcement of
the authority, and publication of such translation within
a specified time. The other details of the bill he thought
would be best explained at a later stage.—Lord MAHON
considered that the thanks of all literary men were due
to the government for this bill, and also to Lord
Palmerston, during whose tenure of office the treaty in
question had been negotiated. It had been the conviction
of the present Justice Talfourd, when carrying his
measure on copyright, that it would not be complete until
an international law of the same character should be
established. He was, however, anxious to know whether
the important question of copyright in Belgium and the
United States were in course of negotiation?—Mr.
LABOUCHERE replied in the negative, but said as soon
as the law regarding France should be complete, it was
intended to send it to the governments of other nations,
as a basis for negotiations.—Leave was given to bring in
the bill.

The LORD ADVOCATE obtained leave to bring in the
New Reform Act for Scotland. In its leading features
it closely resembled the English bill, it being intended
to reduce the amount which qualifies Scotch county
voters from £10 to £5 as regarded proprietors and long
leaseholders, and from £50 to £20 as regarded
occupiers. And in boroughs the £10 franchise was to be
reduced to £5, and the right of voting conferred upon
all who paid 40s. in direct taxation.

Sir W. SOMERVILLE obtained leave to bring in the
New Reform Bill for Ireland. He referred to the very
recent legislation which had taken place upon the
subject of the representation in Ireland, and said that
as that legislation had so largely increased the county
constituency (from 25,000 to 135,000) there would be no
further interference with the county voters. But as the
number of borough electors had actually been
diminished, it was proposed to reduce the borough franchise
from £8 to £5. And it was further designed to adopt
the same course with Irish as with English boroughs
where the electoral population was small, namely, the