secured, it would not assemble it in less than ten
months. Had he also considered the subject of the local
expenses of the old ballot, and all staff clerks, sub-
clerks, constable and other officers; and the burden
they would impose on the county-rates? Had he
reflected on the consequences of taking his force from
married men with fixed trades, between twenty-five and
thirty-five, instead of confining it to the youth between
eighteen and twenty-three.—Mr. HOBHOUSE confessed,
that until the delivery of Mr. Maule's speech, all the
authority was on one side of the House and the argument
on the other; but when Mr. Maule came fresh
from the War Office, and told them that the bill was
almost unworkable, he thought that the weight of
authority, as well as that of argument, was against the
bill. Contending strongly that the measure ought to be
carried on the hustings, and settled by a new Parliament,
he moved as an amendment, that there be added
to the motion the words "this day six months."—But
the SPEAKER decided that this amendment was irregular;
so it was not put.—Mr. DISRAELI controverted
the main grounds of Mr. Cobden's speech; which was
no more or less than "the assumption that in the
present state of Europe no nation need defend itself."
But his chief object was to ask the favour of
unembarrassed progress with the bill, on the ground of formal
course and usage; he hoped that there would be no
division, because the government were in fact only
obeying the former order of the house; all they asked
for was permission to lay on the table of the House that
bill which the majority of the House had decided should
be prepared. There would be many opportunities of
ample discussion hereafter.—After some remarks by
Mr. Bright and Mr. Roebuck in opposition to the
bill, the motion was agreed to without a division.

On Tuesday, March 30, Mr. H. BERKELEY moved
for leave to bring in a bill for taking the votes of
parliamentary electors by Ballot. In the debate which
followed, and in which the principal speakers were
Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Cobden, Mr. Walpole, and Sir B.
Hall, the usual topics were employed on both sides;
and the motion was negatived on a division by 246 to
144.

On Wednesday, March 31st, Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD
moved the second reading of the Tenant Right
(Ireland) Bill, which, he said, was not a crotchet of his
own, but was demanded by an entire nation, as was
proved by the shoals of petitions presented in favour of
it, while not a single petition had appeared against it.
Mr. Crawford explained at great length the provisions
of the bill, the main object of which was to provide full
and fair compensation to the tenant for such expenditure
of labour and capital upon the land as increased its
value.—Mr. NAPIER stated several objections to the
bill; namely, it perpetuated a custom which was
nowhere a legal custom, and which ought not to be
recognised by act of parliament; it did not carry out
properly and fairly the principle of compensation for
unexhausted improvements; it would affect existing
contracts, and its machinery would set landlords and
tenants at variance. Concurring with Mr. Crawford in
respect to the principle of compensation, he would not
go out of the limits of the fixed laws of property, and he
concluded with an outline of the measures which the
government proposed hereafter to introduce, upon
their own responsibility, for consolidating and amending
the law upon this subject, facilitating contracts, and
providing simple, cheap, and efficacious remedies for
both parties.—Mr. Roche, Lord Castlereagh, Mr.
V. Scully, Mr. Keogh, and Mr. Grattan, spoke in
favour of the measure, which was opposed by Sir J.
E. Tennent and Mr. Whiteside.—At 6 o'clock the
House adjourned without a division having taken place.
—On the following day, the adjourned debate was
postponed to the first Wednesday in May.

On Thursday, April 1st, Mr. MONCKTON MILNES
brought forward the case of British Travellers in
Austria, by moving a resolution to the effect that the
House had observed with regret, in the correspondence
respecting foreign refugees, a menace on the part of a
friendly power to visit upon unoffending British
travellers its displeasure at that exercise of the right of
asylum which is agreeable to the laws, customs, and
feelings of the people of Great Britain. Observing, in
the outset, that the manifestation of feeling exhibited in
this country towards certain foreign visitors had been
spontaneous on the part of the mass of the people, and
had received no encouragement from the government,
he referred to the communications which had taken
place between our foreign department and the Austrian
court, and to the despatches of Lord Granville and the
reply of Prince Schwarzenburg, which showed, he
contended, that the precautions in question were adopted,
not as matter of general regulation, but to annoy
British subjects and the British government, by way of
reprisal and retaliation. Since the accession of the
present ministry, he admitted a different tone was held.
It had been announced to Lord Malmesbury that the
news of this event had been received by the Cabinet of
Vienna with "feelings of deep satisfaction," which
seemed to imply that the advent to office of the present
government was regarded as evidence of a change of
our foreign policy, which would be anything but grateful
to the people of this country. Such an alteration of
tone on the part of the Austrian minister, therefore, did
not authorise or require the abandonment of this
motion. Mr. Milnes discussed upon moral and legal
grounds the right of England to grant an asylum to
foreigners of all nations, without distinction of political
opinions; and, in conclusion, stated that he had a
double motive in proposing this resolution; first, to
secure protection to British travellers; secondly, to
relieve the present government from the prejudice they
might suffer if it were supposed that Prince Schwarzenburg's
last letter, breathing hopes of a change in our
foreign policy ominous to England, was acceptable to
them.—Lord D. STUART seconded the motion.—Mr.
WALPOLE desired to avoid all inflammatory topics. He
was at a loss to understand whether the motion was
intended to blame the late or the present government.
After a careful perusal of the papers, he thought that
three inferences were to be drawn from them. First,
that the conduct of the government of this country, late
and present, had upheld and maintained its dignity;
second, that the foreign courts had misunderstood, very
naturally, our laws and regulations with reference to
foreign refugees, so different from their own; and,
third, considering that this misapprehension had been
more or less removed by the representations of the late
government, and the conciliatory tone employed, and
that more amicable relations now existed, that it was
inexpedient by an abstract resolution to revive feelings
of dissatisfaction which had disappeared. With respect
to the sentiment expressed by the imperial cabinet upon
the accession of the present government, it had been
inspired by the line of policy shadowed out by the Earl
of Derby in the House of Lords, which had further
contributed to remove the unpleasant feeling that had
so long disunited the two states. The present government,
he assured the house, were as determined as any
past government to maintain the asylum which this
country afforded to distressed foreigners; and, under
these circumstances, he put it to them whether it was
wise to pass a resolution which, at the very least,
would appear to foreign powers to cast something like
a reflection or censure upon their conduct.—Lord
PALMERSTON thought that Mr. Milnes had done right
in bringing the subject before the House; but suggested
that, having accomplished his object by doing so, he
should assent to a motion of the previous question; and
the matter was so disposed of accordingly.

Sir DE L. EVANS moved for leave to bring in a bill
for appointing commissioners to inquire into the
existence of Bribery in the Borough of Harwich,
supporting his motion by evidence taken before various
election committees.—Mr. K. SEYMER opposed the
motion, for which, he contended, no parliamentary
case had been made out.—Mr. CLAY observed that it
was a matter of notoriety that corrupt practices
prevailed at Harwich.—Mr. WALPOLE said, a commission
like this should not issue except upon a clear case,
otherwise a most unconstitutional power would be
lodged in the hands of parties, which he should be
unwilling to invest in any one without strong grounds.
The only precedents were those of Sudbury and St.
Alban's, and he showed the distinction between those