the increase of British shipping.—Mr. HUDSON asserted
that the ship-builders at Sunderland were prosecuting
their business at a loss; while Mr. EWART insisted, on
the prosperity of the shipping trade at Liverpool.

The motion forgoing into committee on the Suitors in
Chancery Reform Bill afforded an opportunity to Sir W.
P. WOOD to impugn what he said was an unfair and
unfounded statement made by the Lord Chancellor in
the Lords, to the effect that the present government
when they came in, found no trace of measures to carry
out the recommendation of the Chancery Reform
Commission; the fact being that everything had been done
as far as time would allow (the report having been made
only on the 27th of January, a week before the meeting
of Parliament,) to carry out the recommendation of the
commission.—Mr. J. STUART thought his honourable
and learned friend's explanation fully bore out the Lord
Chancellor's statement, for he had admitted there was
not time to prepare the bills.—Some further explanation
on the same point took place, after which the bill passed
through committee proj formâ.

The Copyright Amendment Bill and the St. Albans
Disfranchisement Bill went through the same stage; in
the latter case after a last appeal from Mr. J. BELL in
favour of his constituency.

On Tuesday, the 23rd, Mr. FREWEN moved a resolution,
that in any remission of taxation the Repeal of the
Excise duty on Hops ought to be taken into serious
consideration. He founded his motion upon the facts
that the amount paid into the Exchequer on account of
this tax did not exceed, upon an average of three years,
£ 269,000; that it was the only tax which had never
been mitigated, and that it pressed with great severity
upon the hop-growers, and was producing distress and
ruin in his part of the country.—Mr. J. L. HODGES
supported the motion.—The CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER observed, it was admitted that it would be
improper to press government for any pledge upon this
subject, which, at a fit time, would not escape their
attention. Under the circumstances he hoped Mr.
Frewen would not require a more definite answer.—
Mr. HUME and Mr. Henry DRUMMOND urged the
repeal not only of this tax, but of the malt tax.—
Mr. COBDEN thought that upon every ground of
expediency the obnoxious hop duty ought to be repealed.
The malt tax stood upon a different ground; its repeal
must be accompanied by an equivalent reduction of
the expenditure. He recommended Mr. Frewen, if he
really wished to succeed, to press his motion to a
division, as the budget had not yet appeared, and this
was a condemned parliament.—Mr. FREWEN, however,
was satisfied with the answer of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, and would not put the house to the trouble
of dividing.—The motion, accordingly, was withdrawn.

Mr. M. MILNES moved for copies of the
correspondence between her Majesty's government and foreign
states respecting the Protection afforded to Refugees, in
continuation of the correspondence already presented.
He was anxious to have these papers prior to bringing
forward the motion of which he had given notice.—The
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the correspondence
was now complete, and would be shortly laid upon the
table.—The motion was withdrawn.

Mr. ANDERSON moved for a return of copies of
correspondence between the British ministry and their
agents at Constantinople and in Egypt since January,
1850, relative to the attempted Interference of the Porte
in the internal Administration of Egypt, by depriving
the Pasha of the power to inflict capital punishment,
and to construct railways in his own territory. He
dwelt at length on the deep interest England had in
upholding the efforts of the Pasha to improve and civilise
Egypt, and contrasting the security of European life
and property in that country, as compared with their
insecurity in Turkey, recommended the exercise of
British influence to terminate the dispute favourable to
Egypt.—The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER could
not accede to the motion. To do so would be to publish
information in reference to important negotiations still
pending for the settlement of the differences between
Turkey and Egypt; but a due regard to the interests of
the two states, of England, and of the world, would be
observed in the negotiations referred to.—Lord J.
RUSSELL stated that though we had guaranteed the
treaty under which the Pasha of Egypt held the Pashalie,
we had not guaranteed the conditions on which the
future relations of the Porte and its vassal should
subsist. Any interference, therefore, on our part with
either the Porte or the Pasha could only be in the shape
of advice given by one friendly power to another. He
agreed that it would not conduce to the satisfactory
termination of the negotiation if the papers asked for
were given.—Mr. HUME, though disapproving of the
interference of England in 1839, thought we were now
bound to insist that the conditions of the treaty we then
guaranteed should be carried out.—Mr. M. MILNES
said England had never so guaranteed the independence
of Egypt that she would be justified in supporting that
independence by the force of arms; but he thought all
the parties to the treaty were morally bound to see it
carried out, and that Egypt, in its endeavour to promote
civilisation, and to ensure security for life and property
within its territory, should be supported by the moral
influence of this country.—Mr. ANDERSON intimated
that he did not intend to press his motion, and it was
withdrawn.

On Wednesday, the 24th, Mr. FREWEN, in moving
the second reading of the Protection from Dangerous
Animals Bill, adverted to the public evils, and even
injuries, arising from the absence of sufficient legal
control over furious dogs and savage bulls, and from the
enactment against draught dogs not being extended to
the rural districts. The object of the bill was to remedy
these defects in the law.—The Attorney-General
gave a ludicrous exposition of the proposed provisions
for the destruction of mad dogs (already without the
pale of the law), and for the tethering of irritable bulls,
and he urged that, although the subject of dog-carts
might deserve consideration, there was no urgent
necessity for legislation. It would be better, he thought,
to withdraw the bill; otherwise, he should propose its
rejection.—Mr. SPOONER defended the bill, more
especially with reference to draught dogs; and Mr.
EWART suggested that that part of the bill should be
alone retained, and that it should be referred to a select
committee.—After a short discussion, the bill was
withdrawn.—Mr. V. SMITH (in the absence of Lord J.
Russell) moved the second reading of the Corrupt
Practices at Elections Bill. The Attorney-General
repeated what had been said by Mr. Walpole, that the
government did not object to the bill, reserving to
themselves the liberty of proposing amendments in the
committee.—The bill was read a second time, not without
a vehement denunciation of election abuses by
Colonel Sibthorp.

On Thursday, the 25th, Mr. HUME moved for leave
to bring in his measure to amend the Representative
System, by making the franchise depend on residence
and rating only—to introduce voting by the ballot—to
shorten the duration of Parliament to three years—and
to adjust the representation on the basis of population
and property. He called on the house, as the best
means of preserving the blessings of our constitution, to
remove all ground of discontent arising from the
injustice and anomalies of the present system. The
only way in which the country could bear that competition
which must, ere long, come upon it, was by ensuring
to the people equal rights, and convincing them that they
had an interest in the maintenance of the institute as of
the country. He commented upon the recent speech of
Lord Derby, who, having seceded from the views he
advocated 19 years ago, denounced as demagogues those
who remained stedfast to those opinions. The extension
of the suffrage had not tended to encourage, but to check,
the lawless march of democracy, and democracy was
only dangerous when it became lawless. At present,
one-fortieth of the adult male population could return
the majority to make laws for the government of the
entire country; that was not a state of popular
representation that could be satisfactory to the people,
or permanently secure content and tranquillity.—Sir J.
WALMSEY in seconding the motion showed the gross
inequalities of a system under which 325 members,
forming, in fact, a majority of the house, represented
only 141,372 votes, or one for 430. while the rest were
returned by 908,715, or one for 2779, and after quoting