Faiths fru turtritiugs in arlituunt.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEEK.

Horn OF Loans. Monday, June 13. Russia and Turkey; Question and An- swer—India ; Lord Ellenborough's Speech. Tuesday, June 14. Royal Assent, County Election Polls (Scotland) Bill, and Ag- gravated Assaults Bill—Free Blacks in South Carolina; Lord Beaumont's Speech. Thursday, June 16. Hackney Carriages Bill, passed—Oaths; Lord Brougham's Statement—Encumbered Estates Court Continuation Bill, read a first time.

Friday, June 17. Mr. Keogh ; Lord Westmeath's Motion for a Committee, de- bated and withdrawn.

Horse or COMMONS. Monday, June 13. Succession-duty Bill; Debate on going into Committee, Sir John Paking,ton's Motion negatived by 268 to 185—Savings- Banks Bills, read a second time—Excise-duties on Spirits Bill, amendments consi- dered.

Tuesday, June 14. New Writ for Harwich—Voting by Ballot ; Mr. Berkeley's Motion for leave, negatived by 232 to 172. Wednesday, June 15. Elections Bill, in Committee—Leasing Powers (Ireland) Bill, in Committee—Combination of Workmen Bill, passed. Thursday, June 16. Mr. Keogh ; Explanations—Succession-duty Bill, in Commit- tee—Sheriffs Courts (Scotland) Bill, in Committee—Soap-duties Bill, read a first time—Simony Law Amendment Bill, read a first time. Friday, June 17. Succession-duty Bill, in Committee—Excise-duties on Spirits Bill, read a third time—New Writs ordered for Durham and Peterborough.

TIME - TABLE.

The Lords. The Commons.

Hour of Hour of Hour of Hour of Meeting. Adjournment. Meeting. Adjournment.

Monday Sh .. 9h 20m Monday 4h .(m) 11145m Tuesday 5h 7b 30m Tuesday 4h .(m) 2h 30m

Wednesday ......:.p:. No sitting. Wednesday Noon .... 5h 53m

Thursday 5h .... 7h 5m Thursday 4h .(m) 11130m Friday „A" 5h 9h lent Friday 4h . (m) 31130m

aittingis Week, 4; Time.1311 5m Sittings this Week, 5; Thne, 47h Om Session, 85; — 194h 14m — this Session, 109; — 750h 58m SUCCESSION DUTIES.

On the motion for going into Committee on the Succession-duties Bill, Sir Joni PAXINOTON moved as an amendment that the House should go into Committee that day six months.

By the aid of " corporations sole," who expressed their approbation of a

tax neither they nor their order were to pay, the proposal of the Govern- ment had been saved from condemnation in the House of Lords ; where reason and eloquence had been met by brief statements, and only one argu- ment, that of the alleged anomaly, was urged in favour of the tax. But if anomalies exist, Sir John and those who sit near him thought it would be better to abolish the legacy-duties altogether. In effect, the argument of Mr. Gladstone was this—" I find the legacy-duty unequal and objectionable in its principle, and I make it worse." Parliament has no right to tax settled personalty by an ex post facto law. Mr. Gladstone had met that argument by saying that he could not afford to exempt settled personalty : but if an ex post facto law is wrong and unjust, it is no answer to tell us that the loss of the revenue would be inconvenient, and that the Government cannot afford to be just. Other interests are quite as much affected by the tax as the land : small traders, owners of small estates, younger children, and unmarried daughters, would be touched just at the moment of their affliction. Sir John revived the argument that the land is burdened by special imposts—poor-rates, tithes, road-rates ; that its direct burdens amount to 17,500,0001. upon 80,000,0001. per annum ; while personalty only pays 3,000,0001. or 4,000,0001.: how then could Government be justified in imposing further burdens upon land? In fact, this is not so much a rich man's question as a poor man's question. ("Hear, hear ") He challenged any Member who cheered to disprove his statement. Why, an uncle or a cousin, aged thirty-niqe, succeeding to an income of 1001. a year, would have to pay 461.; and a man succeeding to an income of 10001. would have to pay 4501. ; and this latter with the income-tax besides ! Such a proposal would not have been submitted to the House if the burden had fallen upon exist- ing owners of property. Sir John hotly opposed the machinery by which the bill is to earned out, as most arbitrary, tyrannical, and unjust. Even were Parliament so subservient as to pass this measure, Mr. Gladstone has still to learn whether the country will submit to it. ("Hear, hear !") Sir John hoped and believed that it would not. " I am the last man to counsel my countrymen to resist a law ; but I have no hesitation in declaring that I will exercise any feeble influence I may possess to tell the country to resist by every legal means an impost so vexatious and machinery so unjust and tyrannical." For instance, there is timber. The bill gives two alterna- tives; by one, the owner will have to pay on the money he expends for re- pairs ; by the other, "the timber which ornaments a man's property is to be valued every time a succession takes place, and a tax imposed upon it. The right honourable gentleman may call that taxation ; I call it plunder."

As to the authorities for the bill, it is difficult to comprehend how such an

incongruous Administration as the present can appeal to any authorities at all; but, supposing Lord John Russell to appeal to Fox and Grey, Mr. Glad- stone to Sir Robert Peel, and all of them to Adam Smith, still none of these authorities sanotion the bill. He accused the Government of being actuated by motives not creditable, resulting from its extraordinary composition ; a Government fain, by all sorts of expedients, to conciliate the support of four or five sections of parties. " Now they have to apologize for a Protestant speech, in order to bring back Roman Catholic adherents ; now they have to pander to Radical prejudices and Radical exactions. The present measure comes within the latter category. It is, however, in my opinion, high time that this war of classes should cease—(Cheers from both sides of the House); iktime, as my right honourable friend the Member for Bucks has well Baia; that town and country should recognize a common interest." (Re- cheers.) lie believed that the present Ministers, or their successors, o distant day find themselves obliged to repeal this tax, " in obe- the unanimous demands of an indignant nation."

will dience'

Mr. Hearmam expressed surprise to hear Sir John Pakington complain of a measure which his own Government were prepared to introduce.

(Sir John Pakington denied this assertion.) Mr. Headlam quoted the sen- tence from Mr. Disraeli's speech : speaking in the name of the late Government, Mr. Disraeli told the House that " they had not neglected carefully to examine the question of the stamp and probate duties, and

that they thought it not impossible to bring forward, on the right occa- sion, a duty on successions that would reconcile contending interests, and

terminate the system now so much complained of." That plainly inti- mated an intention to propose a measure of this kind. Mr. Headlam argued that the public does not oppose this measure ; that the press ap- proves it ; and that it forms a good equivalent for the duties now levied on personal property. Mr. FRBSHPIELD denied that the late Government had made any pro- posal to impose a tax of this description. Mr. Disraeli gave no pledge beyond this—that the question had been considered, and that it was not impossible a proposal might be made regarding it at a proper time. He objected to the bill and the machinery to enforce it, and called on the House to reject it as "mischievous and obnoxious."

Mr. R. Puminconz heard with the greatest astonishment the charge that Mr.•Gladstone had pandered to the Radical party in bringing in this bill ; "for of all the Radical and revolutionary speeches I have ever heard, that of the right honourable Baronet is the strongest : he began by a wholesale attack on the bench of. Bishops, and declared his intention of inciting the people to break the law."

The fallacy of his argument against the bill lies in considering all landed property real property ; whereas, by law, half the landed property of this country consists of what is called personal property—namely, an interest in the property for years, which does not amount to a freehold estate. It is the peculiarity of the English law, that if a man had an interest in latd for twenty thousand years it would be consideredpersonalty ; wherew if he had an estate for life it would be regarded as a freehold. A leaschffid for nine hundred and ninety-nine years would pay the legacy-duty, while a life interest would not. These were the peculiarities of the English law. Mr. Phillimore believed that the bill was not a blow at the aristocracy : had it been so, he would have been its strenuous opponent. Mr. Munnneos objected to the bill, on the ground that it is more in- quisitorial than the old Court of Wards and Liveries : that settled personalty could not be come at, and that in future no persons would place themselves- in the positions of trustees or executors. Ho entered into an elaborate calculation, showing that the new tax would yield 3,266,6661.

Mr. WILLIAM Wiraasms briefly supported the measure. He said that Mr. Gladstone had shown more political virtue and public honesty than any Chancellor of the Exchequer had done for more than a century past.

Sir Ionic TROLLOPS championed the small proprietors, and did not see why corporations sole should escape while corporate charities were to be taxed. Sir Ionic TROLLOPS championed the small proprietors, and did not see why corporations sole should escape while corporate charities were to be taxed.

Mr. Gladstone had said he did not wish to tax the small clergyman . but there are large prizes in the Church as well as small ones ; the holders of the large prizes rejoice in Mr. Gladstone's measure. They had lately given a most indelicate vote ; and when the House knew that many of these right reverend prelates are receiving more than three and four times as much as the Eccle- saastical Commissioners and Parliament had contemplated—(Cheers from all sides of the House)—be, for one, wished to ask if the country were prepared that they should be untouched, or that they should sit in judgment upon a legislative measure from the operation of which they were altogether ex- empt. He must say that his feeling of the stability of that principle un- der which they allowed right reverend and most reverend prelates to vote away the property of others, while they themselves escaped unscathed, was very much shaken. (Loud cheers.) Mr. PiaLneix supported, and Sir lows Wensw, at great length, opposed the bill.

Lord Joint Russinr, thought there was very little cause for the warmth which had been shown. The question is not difficult or complex.

For some time the House had been in the habit of hearing opinions ex- pressed in favour of the revision of taxation ; they had come from that side, and had been echoed by the other ; Mr. Disraeli bad made a laudable attempt towards the desired object, and Mr. Gladstone had been struck by the in- equality of the legacy and probate duties. He was confirmed in his views by looking back at the financial history of the past half-century. Mr. Pitt abandoned his intention of taxing real property only when on a division there

i

appeared 54 on each side : but it is clear that he had considered that the tax should apply to both. But what was the reason of his defeat ? "Mr. Fox objected to the tax. He objected, in the first instance, in the strongest man- ner, to the tax on personal property, and it was only by the force of a large majority against him that he was defeated in that opposition. Mr. Fox's objection to the one tax and to the other was based on the principle that he desired to give no additional means for the purpose, of carrying on the war. Mr. Pitt was intent on procuring increased means for that war. Mr. Fox, opposed to the war itself, was equally intent on preventing Mr. Pitt from ob- taming those increased means. But Mr. Fox, though unsuccessful as to per- sonal property, was successful as to real property ; and the cause of his success was that Mr. Pitt had failed in the earlierpart of his life in carrying that re- form of Parliament of which he had been the advocate. There is no doubt that had he carried that reform, and the commercial and manufacturing in- terests of the country had, of consequence, been duly represented in this House in 1795, he would have carried the two taxes together, the inequali- ties connected with which have latterly been so much discussed in this House." Lord John had objected to the proposal made in 1842, because it did not include settled property ; but in Mr. Gladstone's scheme settled property is included. It would seem that Sir John Pakington had been suddenly struck with the injustice of the tax on successions; but so long as it was confined to personal property, he had made no objection. Then he had denounced the clause relating to timber as a plunder clause ; but in the act of 1795, plate, that might be disposed of, was liable to the tax : the same principle, in nearly the same words is applied to timber. Placid upon plate, the right honourable gentleman becomes vehemently indignant respecting timber. It has been said that the institutions of the country were jeopardized by the measure. "Now, all the jeopardy I see is from the language both of the right honourable Member for Droitwich and of the right honourable Member for Lincolnshire, in reference to the other House of Parliament ; where they not only complain, in terms not at all ambiguous, of the decisions of that other House, but divide that House into two parts, and say, while they are quite satisfied with the Temporal Peers, they are not at all pleased with the con- duct of the Spiritual Peers. Really, I am somewhat alarmed lest the motion brought forward some years ago to relieve,' as it was termed, the Bishops from their duties in the other House, should be again brought forward, and this time under the potent sanction and support of the right honourable gentlemen and their friends." (Laughter.) Mr. E. Duliconnin and Sir EDWARD DBRING opposed the bill, on the

ground, so often advanced, that the anomaly caused by the Income-tax was more than redressed by this measure ; and that it was unjust to im- pose a new and heavy burden upon the land. The House divided—For the amendment, 185; against it, 268; Go- vernment majority, 83. The House went into Committee pro forma, and the amendments were ordered to be printed.

On Thursday, Sir Wirmisti IOLLIFFE made a slight resistance to the motion for going into Committee ; renewing the discussion on the prin- ciple of the bill, and pathetically arguing against its tyrannical provisions. He was ready to bow his back to the burden, but he entreated the House not to inflict it in the manner proposed. He also complained of the ex- emption of corporations sole. Mr. GLADSTONE was very sorry, but, in accordance with his duty, he must decline to reopen the discussion. He could not postpone going into Committee ; especially as a tacit consent had been given to that course on Monday. Mr. NEWDEGATE, Mr. MULLINGS; Sir JOHN PAKINGTON, and Mr. RUCK, also complained of the bill; and seemed hurt that Mr. Gladstone had not replied to the "arguments " used against it on Monday. However, no division was taken, and the House went into Committee. A division was taken on clause 2, describing the property that should bo taxed on succession. The objection to taxing settled property was re- stated by Mr. Mumatros, and replied to by Mr. GLADSTONE; and the clause was voted by 113 to 45. Mr. Maxim pointed out an injustice which would be inflicted by the bill as it stood. Where a landlord comes into possession of property on the termination of a lease granted on lives, he would have to pay the tax ; but where the lease has been granted for a term of years, he would not have to pat the tax on coming into succession. To illustrate his argu- ment, he stated that the Duke of Bedford and the Marquis of Westmin- ster would shortly come into possession of immense estates, and pay no tax. Mr. GLADSTONE reminded the Committee, that there was no ques- tion before them. The principle of the bill, and he wished to preserve it, was to tax successions on death. The case which had been raised ought to be provided for by a separate clause, if at all. He would consider it.

Clause 5, providing that the extinction of determinable charges shall confer successions, was carried, on a division, by 171 to 100.

When clause 7 was read, Lord GALWAY moved that the Chairman should report progress. He described the bill as "downright robbery." It might be very well for the right honourable gentleman to endeavour to please the Manchester and Metropolitan parties at the expense of the landed interest ; but as a small landed proprietor, living up to his income, he begged to protest against it. (Laughter from the Ministerial benches.) He supposed honourable gentlemen on the other side never stood up for their own interest in that House, or supported measures to increase their own property. At all events, he confessed he could see no harm in country gentlemen stand- ing up for their own property. (Ironical cheers.)

Colonel Surrnone concurred. Mr. GrAnsmoNE said he was sure both gentlemen must feel relieved after discharging themselves of their views of the general policy of the bill. He would not oppose the motion.

Accordingly the House resumed.

SOAP-DUTrES.

The House went into Committee on the Soap-Duties ; and agreed to a resolution declaring, that on and after the 5th July next the excise-duties on soap shall cease and determine. Mr. FREWEN attempted to move an amendment inserting the word " hop " instead of soap. The CHAIRMAN decided against him, as the House had instructed the Committee to con- sider exclusively the duties on soap. Mr. FREWEN appealed to the high- est authority, the honourable Member for North Hampshire. But the SPEAKER said, that in Committee the highest authority is not the honourable Member for North Hampshire : however, as an individual, he concurred with the Chairman. The resolution was agreed to, and a bill was brought in and read a first time.

Tura= AND Russia.

In reply to a question by the Marquis of CLL.NRICARDE, the Earl of CLARENDON stated that the report published by the Jloniteur (mentioned in our last paper) respecting the instructions given to the French and English Ambassadors at Constantinople, and to the advance of the com- bined fleets to the Dardanelles, was correct ; and that the "most cordial unanimity has hitherto existed, and still continues to exist, on this most important question" between the Governments of France and England. The orders given to the French and English Admirals were precisely similar.

On the same evening, Lord Yon& RUSSELL gave a similar reply to a question put by Mr. DAYARD. In reply to a question by Mr. DISRAELI, Lord JoHN RussErm said, speaking from memory, that the despatches to Lord Stratford de Redcliffe were transmitted on the 31st of May, and the instructions to Admiral Dundas on the 1st or 2d of June—I believe the 2d of June."

GOVERNMENT OP INDIA.

The Earl of Examnionousai, in moving for copies of the correspondence which has passed between the President of the Board of Control and the Court of Directors, criticized the Government measure, and offered some suggestions of his own. He also expressed himself in favour of immediate legislation.

The measure he pronounced to be an experiment of mutilation—perfectly Oriental; but, instead of the punishment being inflicted by the executioner in this country, obeying the dictates of a superior humanity, it is to be per- formed by the persons themselves. (Laughter.). The thirty Directors, with a degree of jocular cruelty hardly witnessed since the days of Louis the Eleventh, are called upon to designate the fifteen who are to go out of office. Now, for her Majesty's Ministers it is more natural, and a less disadvantage, to go out of office than to come in ; but the Director going out of office loses social position and a salary. The worst fifteen, the youngest and least ex- perienced fifteen, will be left ; and by restricting the choice of the Go- vernment nominees to persons who have served in India for ten years, (while ten years is much too brief in the general run,) many persons whom it would be desirable to have in the direction will be ex- cluded,—such, for instance, as the Judges of the Supreme Court, the Go- vernors, and the Commander-in-chief. It would be better to extend the period to twenty years, and make exceptions. It would also be better that the number of nominees should be enlarged. Proprietors will now say," Oh, if you are a distinguished man, go to the Government—they promote dis- tinguished men " ; the Proprietors will elect persons for their own purposes ; the public will be disgusted, and the whole power will be thrown into the hands of the Government. All persons in the civil or military service of

India, above a certain rank, at home or on furlough, should be added to the constituency ; that would represent all the Presidencies. We cannot give India a constitution in India, but we can give her one here. The Council should be an Indian Council, and the English mind should be represented by the President of the Board of Control. A Minister who made himself better acquainted with questions coming before them could easily rule the Court of Directors ; and he could do a great deal better if he had a good Council. Lord Ellenborough described how, while the Indian Minister of the day can control the measures of the Court of Directors, the Court of Di- rectors can control the men ; because they have the patronage. It is as if, in this country, Ministers possessed the executive power and the Opposition all the patronage. The severance of civil and scientific patronage from the Court of Directors may be beneficial; but it will produce a social revolution. He seemed to throw some doubt ou the proposed test of examination, and argued against " cramming" men for positions—over-educated men being intolerable bores. The best education is the education of the world, where men compete with their equals. Once in India, however, there is to be no competition ; a man is to rise by seniority, irrespectively of his abilities. The regulation as to competition for entrance into Haileybury or Addiscombe would exclude the sons of officers in the Indian army, who cannot afford to send their sons to cramming schools. Lord Ellenborough proposed that the Court should have the appointment of cadetships ; one civil to five military to be given on honour, as good service pensions in the Navy are now, subject to the approval of the Board of Control, and mainly with a view of securing some appointments to the sons of Indian officers. Having passed through this subject, he objected to the extension of the "Macaulay Code" to all India, as overriding the inevitable variety of local laws and customs. He approved of a Legislative Council and of the amalga- mation of the Supreme and Sadder Courts, of the appointment of a Lieute- nant-Governor of Bengal, of the revision of the furlough regulations, and other minor details of the Government scheme. He finished with a descrip- tion of the arduous duties of the post of Governor-General; upon whose cha- racter, after all, the character of the Government of India must depend.

Earl GRANVILLE paid a high tribute to Lord Ellenborough's ability and patriotic conduct on this question, as displayed both in Parliament and in the Committee on India. He restated many of the arguments used in the House of Commons in defence of the Company's administration.

There has been a certain incompetency in the judges, it is true, and in the state of the law ; but with respect to the latter, what is our own condition in England at this moment ? Trade with India has increased as much as we could expect ; education has been extended to 30,000 or 40,000 Natives ; the revenue has improved ; and the extension of public works has been delayed only by expensive wars. As to patronage, he dissented from Lord Ellenborough. Education, as the appearance on the bench of so many successful wranglers at Cambridge proves, and examination, give opportunities to the cleverest men. Lord Granville thought that the examinations would have an aristo- cratic rather than a democratic effect, as poor men will not be able to give their children the requisite education. Instead of thinking that the fre- quency of debates on India is a danger to be avoided, Lord Granville thought that they should be encouraged. On the whole, while Ministers would have found their ease in delay, they have obeyed their duty in legislating so as to improve rather than to destroy ; and have so arranged, that if the Court of Directors do not come up to public expectations, the change is faci- litated rather than impeded.

Lord MONTEAGLE argued for delay; condemned the Government; and noticed omissions in Lord Granville's speech,—such as employment of the Natives. The Duke of ARGYLL replied to Lord Monteagle's arguments for delay ; vindicated the East India Company and the double Govern- ment, and expressed himself in favour of educating and employing the Natives. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE argued for delay ; and the Earl of ALBEMARLE said a few telling words against the double Government ; reserving himself for the bill.

The motion for papers was not opposed.

MR. KEOGH.

On Tuesday night, Mr. KEOGH gave notice that he should call the at- tention of the House to a matter personal to himself, and involving also Lord Naas and Major Beresford. The same evening, in the House of Lords, the Earl of Earawrow apparently intended to raise the subject ; but in the absence of the Duke of Newcastle, the Earl of ABERDEEN in- formed Lord Eglinton of the notice given by Mr. Keogh, and said, that under these circumstances, perhaps Lord Eglinton would think it right to postpone his observations. Lord EGLINTON concurred : at the same time he stated, that Lord Naas, whose name had been mentioned in con- nexion with an alleged offer of a place under the late Government, "dis- tinctly and unequivocally denies ever having made, or been authorized to make, an offer of office to Mr. Keogh, or to any one of his political asso- ciates."

Mr. KEOGH, accordingly, made his statement on Thursday. Before he told the main story, he appealed to the generous feelings of the House, in a case in which he was not the aggressor. He stated the circum- stances attending the discussion last week in the House of Lords ;— how that it had come upon him as a perfect surprise ; how he had at- tended in that House on being told that his name was called in question ; how he had heard Lord Derby call his appointment " un- fbrtunate," and Lord Eglinton—" a noble, and, as I have always heard, a very chivalrous Earl "—say that it was the "least reputable" of all the appointments ; and bow that be had communicated with the Duke of Newcastle, who kindly undertook his defence. He then, with much comment interwoven, told the story of tho interview at which the over- ture from the late Ministry was made to him, with corroborative evidence. At the time of the formation of Lord Derby's Government, Lord Naas, desiring an interview with Mr. Keogh,. hunted after him "from street to street and from house to house" ; inquired of friend after friend in his eager haste to communicate with him. He appeared at the Reform Club in quest of him, and was an object of pardonable curiosity to the members who sur- rounded him. Not finding him at the Reform Club, Lord Naas paid his visits to another club; and ultimately wrote a note requesting an interview at the house of his Lordship. Mr. Keogh accordingly waited upon him ; and after some conversation of no importance, Lord Naas said he had been di- rected to ask whether Mr. Keogh would accept office under Lord Derby. Mr. Keogh jestingly asked if he was to be Chancellor of the Exchequer or President of the Board of Control ? Lord Naas said that he had put a serious question ; and Mr. Keogh then said it was impossible that he could join Lord Derby's Government. Some conversation took place relative to the reelection of Lord Naas; and Mr. Keogh said he was not aware that any of his friends would offer any opposition at Kildare.

Amongst other corroborative testimony, consisting of his own reports to several Members, " eo instante," Mr. Keogh read two letters from Mr. Os- borne and Mr. Edmund O'Flaherty. Mr. Osborne stated that the writer saw Lord Naas at the Reform Club. Mr. Edmund O'Flaherty reported a conver- sation between himself and Lord. Naas in a railway carriage on the road to Ireland : Lord Naas had observed that he was disappointed at Mr. Keogh's conduct in attacking Mr. Disraeli ; that the Ministers deserved a kinder consideration after the feeling evinced by Lord Naas in having sent for Mr. Keogh and asking " whether you would take office under the Govern- ment of Lord Derby." Mr. Keogh also stated, that after an attack he had made on Mr. Disraeli, Major Beresford had called him "into that lobby," and " whiningly " complained of his attacks: that he told Major Beresford he had a perfect right to take what course he pleased. " Of course you have," said the Major; "but we really expected better things from you, seeing that Lord Naas had asked you to take office." Mr. Keogh stated, that on Friday night after the attack upon him in the House of Lords, he wrote to Lord Naas, recapitulating the facts, and asking him to give his explanation. Lord Naas had gone out of town,. and there was no answer for several days : after his return, Mr. Keogh again wrote to him ; yet Lord Naas did not reply until Tuesday at mid-day ; and then he sent a brief note, denying that either directly or indirectly " he had made any offer of office, or that he had, or assumed that he had, authority to do so. Mr. Keogh had never asserted that an offer of office was made, but that he had been asked whether he would accept office. His personal honour had been grossly assailed, without notice, and where he could not answer : he now defended himself face to face, and was confident of a fair verdict. (Cheers.) Lord Ness complained of the "betrayal of private confidence, and dis- tortion of words used in confidential conversation." Unpractised as he was in debate, and unable to cope with Mr. Keogh as a rhetorician, every word he intended to utter would be true.

He described himself as having been, down to the formation of the late Government, in frequent and friendly communication with Mr. Keogh re- specting the motion on the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, which was brought on the day before the defeat of Lord John Russell on the Militia Bill. On the following Monday, Lord Derby came into power, rend an office was offered to Lord Naas contingent on his reelection. He therefore sought an interview with Mr. Keogh in order to learn whether or not his reelection was likely to be opposed. Mr. Keogh answered him in a friendly way, and Lord Naas believes he did prevent a contest. Lord Naas admitted that he had asked, imprudently perhaps, the simple question—"If office had been offered you under the new Government, would you or your friends have accepted it? " Mr. Keogh replied—"I think, after all that has occurred, after the part I and my friends have taken in the overthrow of the late Government, some such offers might have been made." (Great cheering and laughter.) Mr. Keogh asked " if any one in authority knew or authorized Lord Naas to ask the question ? " and Lord Naas replied that "Major Beresford knew of my asking you the question." (Cheers and counter-cheers.) But he denied that Major Be- resford had authorized him to do more than say that "the Government have no unfriendly feeling towards" Mr. Keogh. In a conversation just before, in which Major Beresford expressed some solicitude as to the course which certain Irish Members might take, Lord Naas told him he intended, " as a matter of in- formation to myself," to learn whether Mr. Keogh was disappointed at not receiving an offer of office. How could he have intended to make such an offer, when all the appointments had been already made ? Lord Naas denied the railway statement imputed to him by Mr. O'Flaherty ; indeed, he could not have made it, as it would have been at variance with the truth. He freely admitted that he had taken an erroneous course; but it was an error of judgment, "because I believed I could confidentially and freely and frankly communicate with a man who, though a political opponent, I be- lieved at that time to be a friend." (Cheers from the Opposition.) Major BERESPORD flatly denied that he had authorized an offer of office : reason and common sense show that it is impossible he should have done so.

" When I dq anything, I take the responsibility. (Ironical cheers from the Ministerial benches.) Ay, I take the responsibility upon myself. I compromise not others, nor bring them in. I do not communicate private conversations, nor compromise other persons." (Continued ironical cheering.) He wished every gentleman had the same respect he had for a confidential communication, and would not make use, for the purposes of attack, of pri- vate words, spoken perhaps in a friendly and unguarded moment. He ad- mitted the interview in the lobby, alluded to by Mr. Keogh ; but he said that he had only in a quiet, gentlemanlike way, asked Mr. Keogh whether Lord Naas had not conveyed a kindly and friendly message from him? Major Beresford strongly protested against the " prostitution of private documents and the exposure of confidential communications."

Mr. NAPIER explained some points of date. Mr. Is.sec Burr set his position right, by stating that he had not volunteered permission to Mr. Keogh to use his name in corroboration of one point, but that he did not object to it.

Mr. DISRAELI set forth how both the statements might be reconciled, and disclaimed any hostility to Mr. Keogh. For himself, he saw no rea- son why the late Government should not have offered Mr. Keogh an office; Mr. Disraeli would 'not have been displeased if office had been of- fered and accepted by Mr. Keogh : he was a man of great abilities, whose career Mr. Disraeli had always respected. As to his invective—invective is a great ornament to debate—how should we get through dry statistics without something pungent ?and he had always listened to Mr. Keogh with admiration, and, on the whole, with pleasure. In his opinion, the honour of both gentlemen was clear and unimpeachable. Lord Jowac RITSSELL drew attention to the material point at issue—the personal question, and made the most of Mr. Disraeli's admissions re- specting Mr. Keogh ; showing that by such testimony Lord Eglinton's accusation and imputation were now swept away—" gone, and gone for ever." Lord John showed that the statement of Mr. Keogh was confirmed by the statement of Lord Naas ; and argued that every one must have understood his question to have meant an offer of office. He severely censured Lord Naas for not having given a specific and candid answer to the appeal of Mr. Keogh. He might have replied—" The question I asked you may have given you an impression that an offer of office was meant, but that was not my. mean- ing." Instead of which, he answered with dry reserve, that "neither di- rectly nor indirectly" was any office offered. "Such a want of fairness and candour, and, I should say, honourable consideration for the feelins,es and character of a person with whom the noble Lord had been on terms of friend- ship, it has seldom been my lot to witness: and all this, be it observed, from a noble Lord who though he says he is not much used to speaking in this House, is particularly nice with respect to the public conduct of others, and who, not very long ago, constituted himself into a public accuser. There- fore the noble Lord should be remarkably particular himself in his conduct towards those with respect to whom he may be in political opposition." (Cheers. John ohn thought there was no reason to doubt the veracity of either gentleman ; but there was reason to regret that there should be cause. to read letters in that House to prove that " the rash and reckless accusation of the late Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland is unfounded." (Cheers.) SIT Jams kaismonis reviewed the whole controversy on both sides ; regarding it as a question of memory and not of veracity. But he drew a distinction between the personal and the political charge against Mr. Keogh, and revived old accusations; accusing him of "physically tramp- ling under foot" the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, and of making a solemn appeal to the Deity and declaring that he would not join any Government that did not make Sharman Crawford's Bill a Cabinet measure ; and Sir John insisted that on those accounts the appointment was not "reputable." Mr. KEOGH denied that any meeting, to his knowledge, had occurred on the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill since his interview with Lord Naas, and the story of the trampling he denied altogether.

After some more talk from Tory Irish Members, as if to keep up the dispute, the subject was allowed to drop.

YOTLNG BY BALLOT.

Mr. HENRY BERKELEY moved for leave to bring in a bill to protect the electors of Great Britain and Ireland, by causing the votes at all Parlia- mentary elections to be taken by way of ballot. When Lord Aberdeen came into office, Mr. Berkeley had hopes that the ballot would be included in the promised general measure of reform ; but as it now appears that no such measure is to be brought in, he determined to attempt separate legislation on the subject, with the permission of the House. Referring to the eve of the last election, he described Major Beresford con- sulting Mr. Frail, and Mr. Hayter consulting Mr. Coppock, in order to se- cure purity of election ; he alluded to the saturnalia which followed; and he quoted John Evelyn to show that the evils were as bad two hundred years ago,—evils to remedy which, Daniel Defoe, forty years after Evelyn, pourted out the ballot. The chief evils of the present system are bribery, including treating, and intimidation. Many efforts have been made to put down bribery, but none to put down treating. Election Committees have been forced to unseat gentlemen whose agents, either through stupidity or treachery, had given some elector 21., or some beast a gallon of beer; but they allowed candidates or their friends to bring their tenants to the poll, customers to compel tradesmen to vote, and masters to discharge servants for voting against them. Bribery is but a dwarf compared to intimidation. Bribery is indefensible, but it has some redeeming points. Money given for a vote may have enabled a mechanic to buy tools or obtain medical aid. But in "the election-screw,"—that famous instrument, wholly English though founded on an espionage worthy of Fouche or Vidooq,—what redeeming feature is there in that ? Look at the report of the Clitheroe Election Committee ; while intimidation generally is spoken of, there is no mention made of that worst kind which assails an elector at his fireside, and puts the debtor in prison. Yet letters read before that Committee show that such intimidation was practised. Against that kind of intimidation no remedy but the ballot could be devised.

The faults of our electoral system have now been acknowleged by every Minister. Quoting from the Perth and Leeds " Democracy " speeches of Lord John Russell, Mr. Berkeley contrasted them with the tone of Lord John's subsequent address to the electors of London. [Lord John Russell— "Those speeches were delivered in opposition : they were made last sum- mer."] Mr. Berkeley said, he did not care when they were delivered : that did not alter the case. He would tell the noble Lord what the people said of him with reference to these matters. They said that in the times of the Reform Bill he was the best collar-horse, but that now, when in office, he turned out a jibber, broke away from the collar, and slipped down on his haunches. (Laughter.) Citing the speeches at Carlisle, in which SirJames Graham expressed his desire to put an end to intimidation, but "did not be- lieve the ballot would do it," Mr. Berkeley controverted Sir James's argu- ment that if the ballot were agreed to it could not be enforced, and that as to bribery it would still continue on the principle of "no return no pay." The Solicitor-General, the Attorney-General, the Master of the Rolls, Vice- Chancellor Page Wood, were all in favour of the ballot. To the argument that the ballot would in fact afford no concealment, Mr.'Beheeley replied; that would depend on the voter himself; and asked, "how is it, that if geiN tlemen conceal their opinions by resorting to the system of blackballing the Sir Lucius O'Triggers of the social circles, they deny that it is possible to blackball the Sir Lucius O'Triggers of politics ? " The fact is, that the politi- cal opinions of electors, tenants-at-will and tradesmen, under the present system are not generally known ; and he quoted the evidence of Mr. James Mathers, examined before a Committee in 1835, to show that tenants-at-will in counties generally vote with their landlords. He also read a correspond- ence, which took place in August last, between Mr. de Burgh of Raheny, a Monaghan landlord, his agent, and one of his tenants, showing that Mr. de Burgh enforced the payment of rent nearly on the day it was due, avowedly because the tenant "refused his landlord the compliment of his vote." In 1832, Lord John Russell said at Torquay, that he would adopt vote by ballot if he saw the tenantry forced to vote against their feelings : now, though there had been no intimidation on the estates of the Duke of Bedford, there had been intimidation in the vast majority of cases. He described the riotous scenes at Oldham and at Six-mile Bridge during the last election. He denied that the ballot would make the country democratic ; and pointed to the con- duct of the dreaded democracy at the Great Exhibition and the Duke of Wel- lington's funeral. In fine, he insisted that the people of England have as much right to the ballot as any Member of that House to the enjoyment of the sunshine of God's firmament or the light breezes of the spring. (Cheers.) Sir Jonw SHELLEY seconded the motion.

Mr. EDWARD BALL said, he must vote against the motion : but he an- nounced a new plan of his own. He was for permitting every man of twenty-one years of age to have a vote on payment of a sum of money at the registry-office—the sum to be divided among the Members elected. (Great laughter.) Well, the Speaker is paid, Ministers and Judges are paid • why should Members of Parliament be the only persons unpaid ? (Laughter.) " Instead of feeling it a degradation, I should feel it an extreme honour passed on me—(Renewed laughter)—to have it said that I had been elected out of respect." Mr. J. G. Primsnaolz argued for secret voting as a lesser evil : it will not prevent bribery, but it is the obvious remedy for intimidation. Mr. BRADY spoke on the same side, as to the exercise of intimidation in Ire- land.

Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT remarked, that Mr. Berkeley's speech differed from his other speeches on the same subject, seeing that he based his case on intimidation, and implied that the ballot would be inoperative as against bribery. But intimidation has decreased since the days when the late Duke . of Newcastle said he had a right to do what he liked with his own; whereas bribery has increased.

Instead of turning the tenants off in his county, the landlords think themselves fortunate if the tenants do not turn them off. Bribery it the plague-spot of our electoral system ; and against bribery the ballot would be inefficacious. As to the blackballing in the clubs, the cases are not identi- cal—the one is a political, the other a social question. You are not bound to give a reason for a personal dislike, but there is a responsibility attached to the exercise of the public function. Mr. Herbert referred to the work- ing of the ballot in the parish of St. Marylebone, where party strifesie not -lessened, and there is the most entire openness in the proceedings ; and to

America, where secrecy is not insured, yet where the ballot screens and facilitates corruption, and where, in 1850, the Governor of New York, in his message. pointed to the alarming increase of bribery, and urged the As- sembly to adopt such measures as should protect, not the voter, but the ballot-boxes. (Cheers and counter-sheers.) Mr. Herbert argued that the ballot would be a sham unless secrecy were made compulsory ; that the openness of the English character would frustrate compulsory secrecy ; and that if the ballot were granted it would sap the foundations of liberty, by destroying the independence and fearlessness of the people. Lord AT IrrANDER LENNOX opposed the motion.

Mr. COBDEN hoped Mr. Herbert would live to make as manly a dis- avowal of the opinions he now holds on the ballot as he had of the senti- ments he formerly expressed on free trade.

The advocates of the ballot do not admit that it would be inoperative against bribery ; they said, while it would be a perfect shield against in- timidation, it would be a potent obstacle to bribery. Intimidation has not been pot down by public opinion; on the contrary, the counties have suc- cumbed, and have ceased to make a struggle for independence. Why, it is held an insult to a large proprietor to canvass his tenants without permis- sion obtained : we have heard talk of a duel in consequence of one gentle- man's poaching on the territory of another. Before the Reform Bill, the counties were the strong-holds of freedom; but the freeholders have been swamped by the tenants-at-will. Where an attempt at independence has been made—as in North Northumberland, South Northumberland, Hertford- shire, Herefordshire, and West Surrey—we have sufficient proof of the ex- istence of intimidation. He appealed to Sir George Grey to speak to the character of county elections. As to Ireland, there all is in- timidation and violence, and the elector requires to be shielded from both priest and landowner. Controverting Mr. Herbert's arguments drawn from America, "no return no pay," Mr. Cobden asked, "Must there be a Ballot League as well as an Anti-Corn-law League ? " There has been a threat to bring in a Reform Bill without the ballot : he would rather not have the franchise extended at all than run the risk of this virus of corruption being brought to bear on the five-pound householders ; and if Lord John Russell is not prepared to grant the ballot, Mr. Cobden would rather see him postpone the Reform Bill.

Sir ROBERT PEEL supported the motion very decidedly, in an amusing and eccentric speech.

Since the time of Mr. Grote to the present day, able and powerful argu- ments had been adduced in support of the present measure. He brought to the same view of the subject the hearty advocacy of an honest heart, and that was sure to meet with the sympathies of some of those whom he ad- dressed. He had advocated the ballot not from a hasty conclusion ; nor was he actuated either by a love of reform or a desire of upsetting the insti- tutions of the country,. but from considerations of what it appeared to him, with his limited experience of judging, was calculated to promote the liberty and independence of the people of this country. (Cheers.) Sir Robert be- lieved that the greatest possible publicity should always accompany the po- litical acts of a constitutional government, but that on the other hand the greatest possible secrecy should always accompany the sovereign expression of public opinion in the exercise of the elective franchise. He therefore thought that all measures which tend to elevate the public mind, to free it from the influence of political animosities, and to render it no longer liable to the heat of political passions, should ever meet with the regard and atten- tion of that House. Out of doors, the balance of public opinion indisputably inclines to this free, this easy, this honourable system ; and as the balance of public opinion out of doors inclines that way, so he firmly believed that on that night the majority of the House must equally incline in its favour. (Laughter.) Well, if it did not that night, it was a mere matter of time. And ft must be a source of great gratification to those amongst them who are faithful to their political convictions, to look forward to the accomplish- ment of their political views, and to remark that on each successive occasion when this measure is submitted to the House there is a diminishing majority against it. This was a clear proof to him, and to everybody else who had any sense—(Immense laughter)—of the progress that this question is making in the minds of honourable gentlemen. He told a story illustrative of Austrian rule in Italy and the value of the ballot. The case occurred at Florence. Prince Lichtenstein pro- posed as a member of some club or reunion a member of the Windischgratz family ; but as in Italy all Austrians are naturally enough hated, the young member was blackballed. Prince Lichtenstein was, of course, furious at this result. He called out the military—oc- cupied all the most important posts of the city, and threatened to interfere with the public amusements. He then called a meeting of the club, and said, " Gentlemen, the ballot is all nonsense ; let us have publicity of voting." The consequence was, that with the sword hanging over the heads of the electors, the candidate who was in the first instance blackballed was unanimously elected. (Laughter.) It has lately been established that Lord Aberdeen has no "subordinates" ; and Lord John Russell quoted a sensible opinion of Lord Melbourne's, which

he evidently meant to throw in the teeth of Lord Aberdeen—(Laughter)-

that if the members of Government are only agreed about the course which they pursue, it is of no consequence whether they are all agreed with re- gard to the grounds by which they arrive at that course. One would think, from this, that the noble Lord and the members of the Government are all of the same opinion with regard to public questions. He begged the House just to look at the opinions of the Cabinet upon this very question of the ballot. There is the right honourable gentleman the Member for Southwark —the glorious Radical of Southwark—(Laughter)—who looks at the ballot as the anchor of the salvation of this country ; and Sir Robert agreed that he is perfectly right. Then there is the right honourable gentleman the Mem- ber for Carlisle, who is now sitting with great complacency under the gentle breezes which fan the Admiralty flag. (Renewed laughter.) That right honourable gentleman looks upon the ballot as the Cape Horn of politics—as the Ultima Thule of political navigation. (Continued laughter.) With re- gard to those few honourable gentlemen whom the country regret to see so much separated from their legitimate connexions now that there is no longer any necessity for their separation, he did not know bow they were to vote but there was one honourable gentleman upon whose vote he could with cer- tainty rely, and that was the honourable and gallant captain the eccentric Member for Middlesex. (Loud laughter.) Alluding to the increase of bribery, Sir Robert took two eases. There was the borough of Aylesbury, which had on two occasions been convicted of bribery; but he could not say whether or not the purity of the borough had

been improved since her Majesty's Solicitor-General had been connected with it. (Laughter.) Let the House consider the case of the Wigton

Burghs. At the late general election, Sir John al‘Taggart polled 140 votes,

and Me. Caird polled 139: Mr. Caird petitioned, but was unable to with- stand the Earl of Stair and eleven lawyers staring at him. (Loud laughter.) Sir Robert urged the House to rally round the popular standard of the ballot, which would not at all interfere with the legitimate exercise of the

influence of property, but would benefit all classes. (Cheers.)

The Lonn-Anvookru repeated, with some variation of form and phrase, the arguments of previous speakers against the motion. Mr. BRIGHT followed the lead of Mr. Cobden ; taking his illustrations of intimidation from Ireland, where he found a Duke of Newcastle in a Marquis of Londonderry—and Durham, where the same family influence prevailed. He pointed chit that in the United States no election petition, with allegations of corruption or intimidation, had ever been presented ; and he stated that in Massachusetts the ballot had existed since 1634.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, he would not have spoken on this occasion had not his personal conduct been misrepresented. The speech quoted by Mr. Berkeley was made before Lord John's election. He had voted against the ballot only a few weeks before ; and when he was asked in the Guildhall, how he should vote in future, he gave his reasons against secret voting.

Lord John argued that the vote is a trust ; that secret voting is therefore unconstitutional ; that the spirit of liberty had grown by the readiness of men to suffer sacrifices, and that to take away responsibility and hold every man harmless would quench that spirit. He corrected Mr. Bright's his- torical argument drawn from Massachusetts : the ballot established there in 1634 was a system of open voting, by writing the name on a piece of paper ; it was not secret at all. It is not certain even now whether Massachusetts will finally establish the secret ballot : he thought the United States would prefer the open ballot. " if that is the case—if we, in fact, have no ex- ample, either in ancient or modern times, of this mode of secret voting being successful, (the only example of its success being in the republic of Venice, where it established despotism)—then I say, at least let us pause until we have some surer foundation to rest a belief on that this secret voting is a suf- ficient remedy for the evils complained of ; and let us keep that mode of voting which has been found consistent and compatible with all that is no- ble, with all that is manly, and with all that is free in our institutions." (Great cheering.) .

Lord DUDLEY STUART moved the adjournment of the debate ; and divided the House ; but that motion was rejected by 329 to 65. The House then divided on the original motion—For it, 172; against it, 232 ; majority against leave to bring in a bill, 60.

Eracrroxs BILL.

On the motion of Mr. GEORGE Burr, the House of Commons went into Committee on this bill; which fixes the time for the proclamation of writs at not later than ten nor sooner than six days from the receipt thereof for counties, and within six days after the receipt in boroughs, two days' notice being given. It also fixes the duration of the poll at the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge at five successive days, and exacts that the election shall not take place sooner than six nor later than fourteen days after the receipt of the writ. There is also provision for the appointment of any number of Pro Vice-Chancellors to take the poll in the absence of the Vice-Chancellor. On the motion of Mr. GEORGE Burr, the House of Commons went into Committee on this bill; which fixes the time for the proclamation of writs at not later than ten nor sooner than six days from the receipt thereof for counties, and within six days after the receipt in boroughs, two days' notice being given. It also fixes the duration of the poll at the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge at five successive days, and exacts that the election shall not take place sooner than six nor later than fourteen days after the receipt of the writ. There is also provision for the appointment of any number of Pro Vice-Chancellors to take the poll in the absence of the Vice-Chancellor.

Much pressed to withdraw his bill, Mr. BUTT declined ; and it passed through Committee.

NEW WRIT FOR HARWICH.

Sir Joint Tim= moved the issue of a new writ for Harwich. Ho commented on the absence of legal evidence against the borough in the report of the late Committee. Sir JOHN SHELLEY moved, as an amend- ment, the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the state of the representation in Harwich. That borough stinks in the nostrils of the people. Mr. HEADLAM, Sir FREDERICK TRESIGER, Mr. AGLIONDY, Sir ROBERT INGLIS, and Mr. 1VADDINGTON, supported the original motion. They ar- gued, that Mr. Peacocke was unseated because he had made a corrupt bargain with Mr. Attwood, and that no evidence of bribery at the last election had been taken. On the other hand, Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE argued, from past reports of Election Committees on the borough, that it is ripe for disfranchisement. Lord Joan./ Rosana. thought this the strongest case that has come under the notice of the House ; but they could not overlook the report of the Committee. The course taken on previous occasions made it difficult to single out a case and say, "This is worse than another ; we will not iasue the writ." The investigation was incomplete ; and he should be quite prepared, even if the writ were issued, either to vote for a Committee of inquiry or for the disfranchisement cf the borough.

Before a division was taken, the amendment was withdrawn ; and the motion for issuing the writ was carried by 217 to 102.

Sir JOHN SHELLEY gave notice that he would move for leave to bring in a bill to disfranchise the borough of Harwich.

OATHS.

Lord BROUGHAM called the attention of the Peers to petitions which he had presented from various religious bodies in Scotland and England praying for some alteration of the oaths taken in courts of justice. Three sects, the Moravians, the Quakers, and the Separatists, have been relieved from the necessity of taking oaths; but all sectaries who do not belong to those bodies are still required to take an oath, or they lose the benefit of tes- timony. The consequences arc grievous to the administration of justice. Not only might a felon escape, but an innocent person might be impri- soned. Lord Brougham thought that a discretionary power should be given to the court to take an affirmation instead of an oath where there exists a conscientious objection on the part of a witness. But he objected to abolishing the swearing of witnesses altogether. Lord CAMPBELL presented several similar petitions; and hoped the time was come when this grievance would be removed.

FREE BLACKS IN SOUTH CAROLINA.

Lord BEAUMONT, in moving for correspondence respecting the law of the State of South Carolina on Coloured seamen, began with an assurance that he did not wish to renew on this side the Atlantic the angry discus- sions which have taken place on the other. By the law of South Carolina, a Coloured seaman arriving in the ports of that State is liable to be seized and imprisoned : an instance of this occurred in March 1852, when Manuel Pereira, a British subject, was so imprisoned. The treaties with the Federal Government are subject to the municipal laws ; and the only way of dealing with the grievance would be by obtaining a modification of the State law. The Earl of CLARENDON said that the subject is sur- rounded with great difficulties, and the correspondence is very volumi- nous. Some of the highest constitutional authorities in the United States hold that the law is unjust, and the Federal Government at- tempted to impress that view on the Government of South Carolina ; but the excitement produced was so great that the Federal Government said that if Great Britain insisted in demanding the concession, they must give notice to terminate the treaty. Great Britain is not the only sufferer; for the law applies to all the States of the Union. Lord Cla-

rendon was willing to give the papers, but he hoped that would not lead to irritating discussions.—Motion agreed to.

ELECTION COMMITTEES.

The Committee appointed to institute further inquiries into the circum- stances attending the election at Plymouth in July 1852 reassembled on Thursday. Captain Seymour, Commodore-Superintendent of the Devon- port Dockyard, was examined; and proved that a great number of ap- pointments, exceeding those in ordinary times, had been made about the time of the elections in July last. He specified the cases. John Smith, one of the men appointed, stated that he voted for Mr. Mare, and that he received the order for his appointment before the election ; but that he bad never seen Mr. Mare, and that his getting the appointment had nothing to do with his voting. The Livapool inquiry continues its petty and interminable disclosures ; but the evidence, though cumulatively important, is without separate interest.