wished to ask a question relative to the present state of our trade at the important port of Buenos Ayres. The House was aware, that a blockade of that port was established about eighteen months ago by a French squadron, under the immediate command of the French Government, The effect of the blockade had been to suspend all trade in that quarter of the globe. It had afforded a most serious interruption to the commercial intercourse of all nations, and had been especially detrimental to the commerce of England. The trade of England with that port, amounted to no less than 1,000,000l. annually, and if the export returns were included, it would be 2,000,000l. It was most desirable that the anxiety of the commercial public should be set at rest, more especially as the last information was, that the blockade still continued. He begged to ask the noble Lord, whether there was any immediate prospect of the discontinuance of that blockade, and whether her Majesty's Government had taken any steps, by negotiation or otherwise, to effect that object. According to the answer he received from the noble Lord, he should decide whether he would bring the question before the House in a more distinct manner.

said, the last despatches received, stated that the blockade still continued. With regard to the other point, he would state, that her Majesty's Government were using their best endeavours, at Paris and Buenos Ayres, to bring about an amicable adjustment of the dispute between the two parties.

observed, that the noble Lord had not expressed any opinion as to any immediate prospect of the blockade being discontinued. He hoped the noble Lord would inform the House, at least, of the general grounds and principles upon which the French Government founded its right to institute that blockade.

did not feel himself at liberty to express an opinion, either one way or the other. He could only repeat, that the Government were doing all in their power to bring about an amicable adjustment of the matter.

inquired whether the principal ground of misunderstanding was not a demand made by the French, that the French residents in Buenos Ayres should be put upon the same footing as those of the most favoured nation.

replied, that that certainly was one of the demands made by the French.

trusted, that the hon. and learned Gentleman would postpone this bill till next Session. He was friendly to a system of enfranchisement, and he would be glad to co-operate with the learned Gentleman opposite, in endeavouring to found a measure giving greater power of voluntary powers of enfranchisement, and such other provisions as would meet the justice of the case; but he could not, consent to the compulsory power, which would do great injustice to many parties, especially where a tenant for life might be obliged to pay for the enfranchisement of a reversion. He objected also to the introduction of a system into this country which would require the assistance of commissioners, to be paid at the public expense. He hoped, however, that the bill would be brought forward in the next Session of Parliament at such an early period as would ensure its being passed.

said, that if the compulsory clauses were objected to, they could be withdrawn, as the bill provided also for voluntary enfranchisement. He could see no reason, therefore, why the bill should not be proceeded with. He had not introduced the measure upon his own authority, but upon the authority of a Select Committee of that House, and the resolutions upon which it was founded had been drawn up by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Tamworth. Let the bill go into Committee; and if it was then determined that the compulsory part ought to be abandoned, he was willing to adopt the voluntary part alone. It was no fault of his, he could assure the House, that the measure had not been brought forward earlier.

thought the bill so objectionable, that its defects could not be remedied by striking out the compulsory clauses, and he should therefore move that the Committee be postponed to that day six months, and it would depend upon the support he received whether he should press it to a division. He did not oppose the second reading, because he had understood from the hon. Member for Honiton that he would reprint the bill, and modify the compulsory clauses. The bill had been reprinted, and the clause remained as objectionable as ever. He thought it should have been intituled, "A bill to take away the rights of all lords of copyhold manors, and to compel the tenants, whether willing or not, to purchase the same." The bill was a direct interference with the rights of private property, in a manner in which the Legislature had never dealt with it before. Hitherto they had never interfered with those rights, except when great public utility demanded it. He thought, that any general bill giving a compulsory power of enfranchisement applicable to all cases alike, would work great injustice. That was the opinion of Mr. Blamire, the chief tithe-commissioner, to whom the working of this bill was to be intrusted, and of many others. He objected also to the clause giving compensation to the stewards as if to bribe them into acquiescence in the measure, for vested interests, when he had never heard of such a thing as a vested interest in these stewardships. He concluded with moving, that the Committee be postponed to that day six months.

seconded the amendment; for though he did not object wholly to the bill, vet he entertained such objections to the compulsory clauses, that unless the honourable and learned Gentleman would promise in committee to erase all those classes, he could not allow the bill to proceed.

regretted that any opposition had been given to a bill which he was convinced would confer great benefits on the country. He had himself brought in a bill for the enfranchisement of copyholds, founded on the report of the real property commissioners; but that bill only provided for voluntary enfranchisement. A committee was then appointed formed of Members of both sides of the House, and in which the right hon. Member for Tamworth took an active part, to consider the whole question; and though he in the committee opposed the insertion of the compulsory clauses, yet, finding that they were strongly advocated by the right hon. Member for Tamworth, and other well-informed persons, he had given way, and cheerfully yielded up this bill to the management of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Honiton. The committee had called before them the tithe commissioners; and it was their opinion that it could be done, and done beneficially, though, as the hon. Member for the North Riding said, no general rule could be laid down. That was the very reason why it was proposed to appoint Mr. Blamire and other discreet men to carry out its provisions, and see that justice was done both to the lord and to the tenant. He hoped that they would not allow the session to pass over without doing something to remove the reproaches cast upon the present law. He readily admitted that the copyhold tenure had some advantages, but there was no advantage which could not easily be transferred to freeholds, and what were the disadvantages of the tenure. The interest of the Lord in the soil was such as to work great public injustice. For instance, to all timber which was growing on copyholds the Lord was entitled, and the result was, that none was planted, and this circumstance had given rise to the saying that "the oak was too noble a plant to grow on a servile soil." Then, again, on a regrant on death or alienation, the lord was generally entitled to a fine equal to two years' improved value. So that no one would build upon copy-hold land, or lay out any money to improve it. The hon. Baronet said, that this bill would deal unjustifiably with private property, but when the public good required it, they must deal with private property, taking care, however, that all interested in the property should have ample compensation. In this bill all the interests of the lord were carefully guarded, and it was equally beneficial to the lord and to the tenant. As, however, he found that the bill as it stood was to be strongly opposed, and as in the present state of the session any measure so opposed could not be expected to pass, he would advise his hon. and learned Friend to withdraw the compulsory clauses. The bill, even then, would do much good. At present, when a tenant was on his death-bed seven or eight different persons were waiting round him, in eager expectation to seize upon his cattle. These were the remains of a barbarous age, and if they only got an alteration in that respect from this bill it would do good. If the House would consent to go into committee, he was sure his learned Friend would do all that could be reasonably desired, and he hoped that they would succeed in obtaining an instalment of progressive reform in copyhold law; that this bill, if it passed, would not be held up as final, and that they would never hear anything of the finality of the Copy-hold Reform Bill; for whilst any abuses were to be remedied, he for one hoped that reform would proceed. He thought that the present bill, even when altered, would do great good, and he trusted that the owners of copyholds would gladly submit to regulations required for the public good, as well as the Church had submitted to regulations for a like purpose.

said, the interpretation clause was much more comprehensive than it had been arranged when the bill was in committee, and, in consequence, there was the most unjust interference with private property.

protested against striking out the compulsory clause, which was the most important part of the bill. Still, however, much good would remain in the bill, and if forced he must assent to it; however, he would never lose an opportunity, so long as he had a seat in the House, of endeavouring to get rid of this odious remnant of the feudal system.

stated, that no man could have visited Windsor Castle without being aware that the stables belonging to it were very unsuited to a royal palace. It had been thought desirable to build new stables and a riding-school there, and he was happy in being able to state that this could be done without any charge on the public purse. If they took the amount required from the hereditary revenues of the Crown, it would be exactly the same as taking it from the public purse, as these revenues had been surrendered to the public on the granting the civil list. The amount, however, to which he had alluded, had been saved out of the fines of the land revenues, and therefore would not be taken from the annual income. This fund had accumulated so as to enable them to build the stables out of it. At present, stables were rented at various parts of Windsor, and when the new buildings should be erected these would be given up, and thus an annual saving would accrue. Again, it had been found necessary to build a riding-house at Windsor for the sake of the health of her Majesty. He would take that opportunity of correcting a delusion that had gone abroad, that the statements of the income from the land revenues which had appeared in the two or three last revenue papers, had arisen from the sale of portions of property. This, however, was not the case: but the sums in question had resulted from the revenues of the Woods and Forests. It had been asked, why had not a similar application of income taken place before? His answer was, that the land revenues of the Crown were incumbered with a debt, which amounted to upwards of 11,000,000l. for building Regent-street, and it was obvious that no surplus revenue could be applied, until this debt was paid off. He trusted, however, that there would be a continued increase in this branch of the revenue, as the property was an improving one. The right hon. Gentleman concluded with moving that a sum not exceeding 70,000l. be applied out of the land revenue for building stables at Windsor Castle.