The Press.
London, England, 1853-06-18 00:00:00

THE PRESS.

consequences both with regard to legality and to mo-
rality, he declared that
"he knew of no proposition►—he knew of no interruption
of their social relations—he knew of nothing that could he
proposed as a matter of political considenition half so mis-
chievous as the measure which, was now proposed for the
adoption of the Legislature."
Mr. PHILLINORP: retorted upon Sir J. Pakington
the accusation of having appealed to Radical preju-
dices in that house. So far from tending to over-
throw aristocratic institutions,he believedthat the bill
would do exactly the contrary, because it would take
away the odium which now clung to them, from the
widely-spread impression that their members enjoyed
immunities which the rest of their fellow-subjects

did not share.
Mr. Muu,iss apprehended many collateral evil,'
from the working of the measure. The tax em-
braced all real and personal property, settled sad un-
settled, and interfered with all settlements, past, pre-
sent, and to come. Estimating the total produce of
the tax at a much higher amount than that assessed
by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he computed
that its incidence upon real property would, on the
average, constitute a new burden of 3,175,000/. an-
nually ; and maintained the accuracy of his compu•
tations, as weighed against those of Mr. Gladstone,
on the authority of his own extensive experience in
the making and administration of wills. The machi-
nery of the measure he condemned on account of
its inquisitorial features, and affirmed that it would
frighten trustees and executors front accepting
office :
" He protested against these inquisitorial powers, and
feared they would produce the worst results. If we were to
have a tax for the purpose of getting rid of indirect tax-
ation, let us have it in the mode that had been proposed
for the taxation of corporations, namely, siXklellee in the
pound upon all wetland personal estate. Thts would pro-
duce more than the succession duty. for it would realise
6,000,0001. annually. Such a tax he would support, but as
to the present bill, it was so unjust, and so inquisitorial,
that he believed, in twenty years hence, the right honour-
able gentleman who proposed it would be held to be one
of the most dangerous and mischievous Chancellors of the
Exchequer that this country had ever seen."
Mr. WILLIAMS calculated that. an estate of I($Jl. a
year, worth 3,000 t. in the market, would pay but 151.
succession duty, if inherited in lineal descent. He
urged the house not to refuse so paltry a tax on land,
while mulcting a servant or a widow ten per cent. upmt
the amount of any trifling legacy which might be left
th em.
4ir J. Tamiorn urged that there were poor and
struggling inheritors of land as well as of legacies.
Depicting the consequences which the tax would in-
volve upon some of these, he proceeded to remark
upon its peculiar incidence. In one noble family
there had been but a single succession in a period of
eighty-five years ; in another the property had changed
possession seven times in sixty years. Theta% might
therefore vary, by mere accident, from practical ex-
emption to almost total confiscation. All legacy duties
were front this cause unjust in princirle. With
regard to the land, the measure was a positive retro-
gression, bringing back the feudal system under
which estates were held in capite of the Crown.
In 1796 a less onerous impost was proposed by a more
influential minister, with the excuse of an expensive
war, but was then refused by the hawk+ ; and he trusted
the present proposition would share that fate.
Mr. A. l'Et.t.frirr thought the present budget
the best that had been proposed for many years. it
WAR pm-eminently the " poor man's budget," anti the
legacy duty was its cornerstone.
Sir .1. Wm.su was convinced that the Government
had introduced the measure under pressure from the
extreme democratic party. Nor wax that pressure
of recent date. For many years the Whig Ministry
had felt its weight, and endeavoured to alleviate it by
enneession
- -

In the last thirty years the income of the country luul
little varied, but reduction and remission of taxation had
proceeded to an enormous extent. During the first ten
years of the pried, begining with I►rt'l, 111,400,1101. of
taxes were remitted, against 1,000,01 WW. imposed ; in the
next ten years 11,10111,1101 W were remitted, against 1,500,111101.
imposed. The first of these was a period orfory, the last
of Whig rule ; and, though they were alike in giving a
largo balance of remission, there was this difference be.
tween them, that, while the fOru►er left a good surplus, the
latter left a considerable and accumulating defivit. In the
last ten years, since Nit—which might be called the era
of the transfer of taxation front one class to another-
-1:1,500,111101. of taxes had been remitted, against 6,300,000/.
imposed. Mo that during the last thirty years, while
forty millions of taxation had been remitted, only
111,500,0901. had been imposed. These fiorty
millions were nearly all taxes which pressed upon
manufewtming and commercial industry, while a large pro-
portion of the ten and a half millions was placed upon► the
property of the country. He thought, therefore, they
ought to be cautious how they carried this prineiple of the
transfer of burdens further, and ask themselves why the
Government now thought it necessary to impose this ad•
ditional and cruel tax upon the land."
Lord J. Russ Eu. assumed, as an axiom admitted
on all hands, that the system of taxation demanded
revision. But revision could not be done in a lump

149

—the subject must be attacked in detail. Coining,
therefore, to the item of the legacy duties, and al-
luding to Mr. Disraeli's understood promise to impose
some tax on successions, the noble lord enlarged
upon the anomalies and injustices discoverable under
the existing statutes, and justified the changes and ex-
pansions proposed by the tiovernment:—
" You have, in the first place, a tax which bears very
hardly upon the succession to personal property in many
instance', which does not bear upon the succession to real
property, which follows the very artificial distinctions of our
law, discriminating between settled and non-settled pro-
perty, falling upon a lease for ONO years, because it is eon
sidered as personal property by our law, and not upon an
estate tier life, because that is regarded as real property
(Hear.) One would have thought that no proposition
could have been more natural, or more likely to meet the
assent of those who consider a revision of taxation de-
sirable, than one by which their anomalies and irregularities
might be in some degree amended."
Examining the historical arguments founded on the
conduct of Mr. Pitt and Mr. Peel, he declared that
they were either not to the point, or inconclusive from
the changes of circumstances. Reverting to the
principle of the bill, he reiterated the assertion that
it was introduced as part of a great whole, as an item
in a comprehenaive budgetary scheme, of which
many parts had been already adopted by the house :
" The chancellor of the Exchequer, in reviewing the
taxation of the country, has very wisely made this part of
his financial scheme. The question really is, whether you
will continue this tax upon successions, and whether, so
continuing it, you will make it an equal and a just tax. No
doubt this, like many of our taxes, imposes very great
hardships, and it has been said that we had better get rid
of it altogether. That is very easy to say, but there are
at present more than two millions derived trum it ; and
the right hon. baronet (Sir .1. Pakington) has not proposed
to get rid of it otherwise than in his speech. lbw h. ( , hear.)
He did not propose a single step in order to get rid of the
existing legacy duty. and he would, therefore. Rs it seems,
leave those who an' now subject to it liable to the hard-
ships it imposes.'
Alluding to the censure passed upon the bishops for
voting in favour of the tax, Lord .1. Russell affirmed
"that he felt somewhat alarmed heat that motion which
he remembered was brought forward a great many years
141'0, to relieve the bishops, as it wan then called, of their
functions in that house, nh '.l he brought forward, having
the eloquent support of the member for Droitwich--
(lamphier)--and should be carried in this house, to his
(Lord John Russell's) great regret. ( Renewed laughter.)
He trusted the right honourable baronet would not pursue
his opposition in so strenuous and, he might say, nu vehe-
ment a manner, and that the proposal now before the
house would be considered only as our more attempt, by
a revision of apart of the taxation of the country, to make
the tax more Mr and equal ; and, as the proposal had ma
the general approbation of the ple of this country, I
would that night meet the on of the House of Com

moms."
Mr. E. Dti won or. contended that an unjust income
tax weighing upon trade afibrded no plea for creating
an unjust succession tax to weigh upon the land.
Sir E. Deunr►+, following out the comparison, ar-
gued that the succession tax, being permanent, was
worse than the income tax, whose date of termination
was fixed. it violated every principle of equity to re
Bowe a whole nation of its burdens at the cost of a
single class. Enumerating some of the many charges
and imposts that weighed already upon land, that
diminished its revenue and impeded its transfer, Sir
E. Oaring maintained that a more unjust bill than
the present had never been brought into the house.
On a division the numl►ers were--
For going into committee
' For Sir J. Pakington's amendment
Majority for Ooveniment
The house then went into committee pro forme.

THE BALLOT.

Mr. H. BERKILLEY on Tuesday brought forward his
annual motion on behalf of the ballot. His of
arguments in favour of affording to the
electors that shield and protection he now reinforced
by many allusions to the incidents, disclosed before
the parliamentary committees, of the late general
election. Voters and candidates, he remarked, were
there given up as a prey t►► a swarm of low attorneys,
whom he stigmatised as the agents thr►ugh whose
means the House of Lords teturned a majority of the
House of Commons, and whom he depicted as gloat-
ing over their first spoils and repluming themselves
for new and wider flights. Hut bribery, though it had
increased tenfold lately, was the lightest of the evils
which the ballot would cure. A bribe might even be
beneficial in its consequences—workmen had been
known to redeem their tools, a sick family had owed
medical advice to the receipt of a timely bribe. It
was intimidation that had pr►ved the worst and
most indomitable hindrance to freedom and purity
of election
Against int' hit' they had no remedy wluttsoever.
He defied the most astute member of that house to point
outanything like a remedy for it. There mono remedy but
the ballot; and they knew it. (('heers.) They cou!d
make no law to prevent alandiordfromejecting atenant•at
will when he pleased. They could make no law to prevent a
customer from changing his tradesman as often as he
pleased. They could make no law to stay the judgment

150

creditor, and prevent him from putting his debtor either
into the polling-booth or into prison. Thmugh every
grade and phase of society they could make no law to com-
pel the employer to keep on the employed. ven voting
exposed the voter to the influence of persons who, by the
knowledge they obtained, were able to deal out punishment
or reward to the elector. The elective fnutchise was thus
wrested front the class that was legally entitled to it, and
was usurped by others who had no right to it itt all, more
particularly by peers of the realm, who were tOrbidden by law
front interfering in elections for members of Parliatnent.
Secret voting wait the only mode of preventing this evil,
and he 'should not trouble the house on the subject of inti-
midation, further than to sold two pithy sentences—one by
the best authority of the olden time, the other by the tiEst
authority of modern days—" There is no way to step this
evil, it is so engrained in the people, but by the way of bal-
loting,' said Daniel Hefei.. "Own, is no way of steeping
intimidation, but my making intimidation mechanically im-
possible,' exclaimed George (:rote. t ('hrem ) His com-
plaint was that, though intimidatien was raging through
the land like an epidemic, and though they leul as certain
a remedy for it as vaccination was for the smallpox, they
denied to the country the cure. (Hear, heur.r.
Following up this argument, Mr. Berkeley quoted
passages from various speeches delivered by members
of the present Ministry, though in most cases at
times when they were not ministers. Sir .lames
Graham at Carlisle showed himself at his wits' end
—and that was a lung way Mr—for reasons against
the ballot. Lord John Russell had protuised a large
measure of reform, which still loomed in the distance,
and was visible only through Ministerial telescopes,
but in which, since the noble lord had resumed his
seat on the Treasury bench, they were informed that
the ballot would not Sind a place. Mr. Bethell, Sir
J. Itomilly, and Sir l'age Wood had all pledged
themselves to the principle of secret voting. Ad-
verting to the example set in other assemblies, where
members sheltered themselves under the ballot, he
remarked that hon. gentlemen of that house indi-
vidually used the system snore than any other assent.
Maw in the world ; lint, though they could blackball
the social Sir Lucius (rfrifiger, they refused the
voter the right to dose by the much more mischievons
political Sir Lliciiir. He denied the force of the
argument that the ballot would be no security because
no Englishman could conceal his sentiments, awning
that we had not been shown to be a garrulous people;
and he, as a Forester and an Odd Fellow, could
testify to the fidelity with which the secrets of those
orders were kept ; and, in further proof of mu. national
taciturnity, quoted the declaration of a Freemason's
wife, that if there had been any masonic secret she
should have extorted it front her spouse in his softer
moments. lie asserted that the polities of the people
were at present not known, for numbers dared no
more assert their political opinions than vote as they
desired to do. The open-vote system was so truly
British that it existed nowhere but in Britain, and
we might well take a lesson front foreigners in that
respect. At present we excited their amusement, and
gained for John Bull a reputation for a love of beer,
bribery, and boxing, which were tar front being desira-
ble. In conclusion he called on the house to restore
to the electors of this country their ancient and char-
tered privilege—that of recording an unfettered vote.
Sir .1. V. SHELLEV, who seconded the motion,
added to the illustration given by Mr. Berkeley that
atfiirded by his own constituency—Westmitist tic.
Their numbers were happily large enough to ensure
practical independence, Ind still great inconvenience
was caused to tradesmen in its inure fashionable
neighbourhood by ottempts to "put on the screw "
especially .by ladies. With regard to the general
question. lie denied that the ballot would place any
cheek upon the legitimate influence of landed pro
petty ; and quoted the opinions of Sir E. 11. Lytton,
put forward in 115214, in support of that belief. On
those grounds he asked the country gentlemen, if
they would not bring the representative system into
contempt, to " hack up " himself and his friends in
their present attempt.
Mr. E. BALL disputed the doctrine that the ballot
could in practice dry up the source ofeomipt influences.
He anticipated better results from an extension of
the electoral basis, and to accomplish that end sug-
gested that all borough electors should have votes for
the counties, and all county electors votes for the
boroughs.
Mr. 1)1111.11.131onE, without expecting from the bal-
lot a perfect cure. hoped to Lind in it. a specific remedy
for a specific evil—t hat of intimidation. It. might
not secure complete honesty at elections, but it would
take away one motive from the dishonest and confer
some protection upon the honest. In England it
would be useful ; and in Ireland, as the facts he cited
from the late election histories proved, it was almost
indispensable.
Mr. Bitstor also advocated the ballot, as offering.
if not a eure, at all events it palliative to a general
and crying evil.
Mr. S. HeittitotT discovered that the advocates of
tto called secret voting had I•onsitlerahly modified their
tone. They spoke of it now as a merely partial
remedy, and limited its effect to the discouragement
of intimidation. Now. intimidation, as he showed,
was a ditniubthing evil, while corruption, against

THE PRESS.

which it was allowed that the ballot would be in-
operative, had become the chartered epidemic of the
time. Indeed, the ballot would foster bribery, be-
cause it would atfitrd additional security both to the
corruptor and the voters. From the club analogy
there was no fair inferA'ice to be drawn. The black
balls at a club signified only a social prejudice or
individual disapprobation; but. the franchise at au
election embodied a public duty, and should lie excr •
eked in public view. in the discharge of a public
trust of this nature, the object was to make the
weight of responsibility as much felt as possible.
Universel suffrage and the ballot were more closely
allied than hail been admitted, for, the moment you
gave secret voting, those who hail not the franchise
had no longer un interest in its exercise. Unless the
voting were secret the ballot was a sham; but it was
not in the nature of the Englishman's character to
submit to its being made compulsory on hint to con-
ceal his vote or his opinions. He doubted whether a
man so successfully trained to hypocrisy as con-
tinuously to conceal his votes would be tit to be
trusted with the franchise at all, and he dreaded the
effect of such a system on the national character.
How was public opinion, which was an aggregate of
individual opinion, to be formed under such cireum-
stances ? He doubted whether the ballot would
produce any great effect upon election returns, and
objected to a course tending to destroy the system
of educating men for the exercise of political pri-
vileges.
Lord A. Lux sox believed that the ballot was utterly
objectionable in every point of view.
Mr. Cuomo' denied that intimidation had dimi-
nished. Its apparent decrease resulted only from
the cessation of all attempts to resist it. For bribery
he confessed that the only certain cure was to make
the constituencies universally too large to be bribed.
He disclaimed any intention of preventing a man's
vote or opinion being known if he pleased to record
them, but he wished to put down brutality and black-
guardism, which were practised in one single English
contest more than in an entire election for the
American Union. Alluding to the differences of
opinion in the Cabinet on this subject, he reminded
Government that this was the electoral question
which the large constituencies considered most im-
portant, and were pressing their members to attend
to. Why could not a trial be given to Bentham and
Grote? He looked upon the ballot as promising to
change the (diameter of the elections, and enable
voters to reeord their opinions as quietly as if they
were going to church. He asked at any rate that the
experiment should be made, and that each particular
place should have the choice given to it of voting one
way or the other. We were threatened with a reform
bill, for a reform without the ballot wits a threat, and
he declared that he would sooner have no extension
of the franchise than an extension of the existing
corruption.
Sir It. Peet. advocated the ballot, on the ground
that secret voting was freedom of opinion. He was
convinced that it would not interfere with the legiti-
mate influence of property ; and had had oppor-
tunities of observing the admirable working of the
system in foreleg' countries which bore the reputation
of being more despotic than our own. He then pro-
ceeded to criticise the course of the Government, as
represented by Mr. Herbert, and speculating upon
the difference of opinion which lie presumed to exist
between its members, promised himself the pleasure
of going into the same lobby with, at any rate, " the
glorious Radical of Southwark" and "the eccentric
member for Middlesex."
The LORD ADVOCATE considered that the secret
system was appropriate only in a despotic Govern-
ment. It was utterly opposed to the principles of a
free constitution, and destroyed the best virtues of
the franchise, which, being entrusted to the holder
for the public good, should be performed under the
public cognisance.
Mr. BIUOUT drew from recent discoveries a picture
of the evil which corrupt and illicit influences were
creating at every general election. Thirty members
had been unseated since the last elections; and even
since the Reform Bill the average number of peti-
tions against returns had been tOrty-seven at every
election. Ile afterwards read a variety of documents
to show the influence of landlords upon the elections,
and. having thus depicted the wrung, maintained the
efficacy of the ballot as a remedy. lie answered
some of the erguments on the other side, especially
with regard to America, in order to show that the
objeeti made to the practical working of the system
were altogether unfounded. And he finally declared
it to be the duty of the house to adopt that or some
other measure for the cure of the monstrous evil of
which he complained.
After some observations on personal topics from
Mr. Knox and Lord A. But.,
Lord J. Russet '. vindicated his own consistency in
relation to the question, and added his authority to
the doctrine that the franchise was a duty conferred
on the voters for the benefit of the general commu-
nity, and that to reduce it to a private right or privilege
was absurd under any system which did not include

SATURDAY,

also universal suffrage. Secret voting would, he be-
lieved, be hostile to the spirit of liberty in the coun-
try. Neither front America nor from history could
support be drawn for the system :
" The ballot was not established in Mtussachusets until
within about two years or so since. The former mode of
voting, though dissimilar' from °um was not secret. About
two years ago,the democratic party, being in power, intro.
duct:d the secret ballot but within a short time a bill for
repealing that system was passed by a majority, which in-
eluded the most eminent patriots and statesmen in Massa.
chases. That old patriot of Am ericaolohn Randolph,
had even said that if yon wish to make the inhabitants of a
state a set of t‘coundrels von had only to give them secret
voting. (Hear, hear.) As for history, instead of proving
the advantage of secret voting, it had done the reverse.
Take the case of Venice, where it had led to tyranny and
despotism. If that be the OM', the house should pause
until it had some better foundation for adopting this mea-
sure. At present, the only proof which existed showed that
it was hostile to all that was noble, to all that was maulv,
to all that was free in the institutions of this country."
Lord D. STUART ntoved the adjolumment of the
debate.
On a division the motion for the adjournment of
tho debate was lost by 65 to 339 ; and that for leave
to bring in a bill was lost by 172 to 232.

THE KEOGH EXPLANATIONS.
Mr. Keoun, on Thursday, excused himself for in-
troducing some personal explanations into the
House of Commons, on the plea that he was not the
assailant but the assailed, and spoke under the con-
straint of liming to defend his honour. The story
of his wrongs he thus recounted :—Lord Westmeath,
and the Earls of Derby and Eglinton, had, on the
previous Friday, criticised an election speech of his
delivered in Ireland, and one of them—Lord Derby
—had appended the remark that his (Mr. Keogh's)
appointment was the most unfortunate, and least
reputable, nomination made by the present Govern-
ment. Being at the bar of the Peers at the time, he
heard the words, and therefore made some commu-
nication to the Duke of Newcastle, which resulted in
his grace retorting upon the Opposition that they
should not disparage a man to whom they had them-
selves offered office. Since then much had been
said in the house and out of it on the subject. The
allegation of having made the offer of office was ap-
plied to Lord Naas; and, in his lordship's name, a
positive denial of ever having done such a thing, or
been authorised to do it, had been given in " another
place," and through various channels. Under this
assault upon his veracity, he (Mr. Keogh) felt com-
pelled to enter into an elaborate detail of circum-
stances, and justified in intruding on the house a
number of written communications which had passed
between himself, Lord Naas, and other hon. mem-
bers. He began by remarking upon the notoriety
of the fact, at the time,
" that the noble lord, who then held the office of Chief
Secretary for Ireland, had sought me with eagerness im-
mediately upon the formation of his Government—had
purmted me from street to street, from house to house—
had inquired after me, not of one or two, but of friend
after friend of mine, in his eager haste to place himself iu
communication with me. I thought it was likely that
some of those eirctunstauces must have reached the ear
of the noble earl who was Viceroy of Ireland ; I thought it
likely that these things could not have been done without
the knowledge of the noble earl the late Minister of the
Crown ; and I authorised and asked the noble duke (New-
castle), therefore, to state the fact to the house—the fact
upon which 1 now rely—the fact upon which the noble
lord has joined issue—that, when he was already named
as Chief Secretary for Ireland, the noble lord sought an
interview with me, and at that interview asked me if I
would accept office under Lord Derby. (Cheers.)"
Detailing the incidents of this pursuit, Mr. Keogh
related bow Lord Naas sought for him first at the
Reform Club :
" The noble lord went to the Reform Club, and, having
been informed that I was not a member of the club, in•
quired for other friends of mine there, and being informed
that one of them was in the house, he waited in that great
hall which, when ministers are changing, is a sort of poll.
tied encampment. I need scarcely say that the noble
lord's presence there excited some small surprise.
(Laughter.) Ido not suppose that lam stating any very
grave charge against the members who surround me when
I say that they exhibited a justifiable curiosity in ascertain-
ing his business. In fact the noble lord was the observed
of all observers; and it became perfectly well known that
his business in having recourse to that club was to ascer-
tain where 1 was to be found, and to see me upon the busi-
ness upon which he was then engaged."
Passing over to the events of the previous Friday,
Mr. Keogh told how, immediately on leaving the bar
of the House of Lords, he wrote to Lord Naas, recapi-
tulating the circumstances which had occurred in the
' preceding February twelvemonth, seeking to rouse
his lordship's memory into a corroboration of his own
statement touching the offer. To that letter, sent on
Friday night, he waited for an answer vainly until
Monday, when he despatched another " reminder,"
and on Tuesday received a reply to this brief effect
"4, tiro.venorplaee. Tuesday.—Dear Sir.-1 only received
your note last night on my return to town, after an absence of
some days. 1 distinctly deny that. either directly or indirectly,
I made an offer of office to yourself or to any of your friends, or
that 1 had, or that 1 assumed I had, authority from any one so to

JUNE 18, 1853.

do. As to the interview which tool• place between us about toh
period to which you refer, my recollection of it au essentially
*lifters from the version given by yourself, that I cannot admit
its accuracy or the deductions )ou seem to have drawn from it.—
Truly yours, "HAAS.
Against a contradiction so explicit and positive Mr.
Keogh proceeded to offer a rejoinder, which he threw
principally into the form of queries addressed to the
recollection of Lord Naas and Major Beresford

-- - -
" The noble lord wrote a short letter; mine was a long
one, stating facts. Did he, in passing by my statement
that he had seen me twice at a club, mean to deny or to
assent to that statement ? Did the noble lord, when I
asserted that he had written me two notes on two consecu-
tive days, and when he passed over that statement, mean
to imply that he admitted it—that he denied it, or that he
forgot it? When he passed over that portion of my letter
where I stated that I had jestingly said, Do you mean to
make me Chancellor of the Exchequer' and he had re-
plied,' I have put a serious qnestion, and I expect a St`tiOnA
answer,'—did he mean to admit it, to deny it, or to forget
it? (Hear, hear.) Did the noble lord, when I mentioned
and reminded him that he had told me that, he put the
question to me, and made the offer, by direction of the
right honourable gentleman the ampler for North I:ssex
t Major Beresford)--did he mean to admit it, to deny it,
or to forget it ? (Hear, hear.) Finally. I wish tit ask the
right honourable gentleman► the member for North Essex
whether he has forgotten the day when, taking me front
outside that door (the door of the honse) into the window
of that division lobby, at a morning sitting, he complained
at' the attacks which I was making upon his thwennnent?
I stated to hint that I hail a perfect right to take what
course I thought proiwr, and I expressed mvself surmised
at the remonstnmee of the right honourable gentleman.
He replied, of course you Ilan., but really we expected
better things from yon, seeing that Lord Derby had asked
you to take office.' (('heere.)•'

Supporting his statement of the " offer" by showing
that some friends of his own—Sergeant Murphy anal
Mr. Flaherty among others—had been told of it
within the hour it was made Mr. Keogh at length
recapitulated the precise words and conditions under
which he had received it. With Lord Naas he bad
enjoyed a long friendship, and at the time in ques-
tion a prolonged conversation, he admitted, took place
between them, wherein various subjects were dis-
cussed. In particular the prospect of his re-election
for Kildare, about which Lord Naas was anxious,
was mentioned, and the inquiry made whether Mr.
Keogh or his political friends intended to start any
opposition in ease his lordship vacated by accepting
office. But in the conversation the query was dis-
tinctly put, " Would you, it' offered office under Lord
Derby's Government, accept it ?"rhat query he in-
terpreted into an offer of office, and nothing else :

" Is there any politician in this house so young as to
doubt the meaning of the inquiry when put. by the Chief
Secretary for Ireland? k Cheer's.) Remember, I was asked
that question before Lord Derby's Government was cone
pleted. And 1 ask any member of the house what they
think was the meaning of these words ? hear.) It
is just us if a man were to go to a holy and say, If I were
to ask you to nom me, what would be your 'answer"
(Larighter.) it would lie an insult to the understanding
of the ionise to think they would come to any other rote
elnsion than I have stated. (Hew, hoar.)"
Lord NAAS complained of the betrayal of private
confidence and the perversion of friendly conversa-
tion which Mr. Keogh had permitted himself to per-
petrate. To place the transaction in its true light, it
was necessary to remember that. a great intimacy had
existed between himself and that. hon. member.
They haul entered Parliament together, were mem-
bers of the same club, shared, to a considerble ex-
tent, the same political opinions, anti were in constant
habit of exchanging friendly visits and confidential
intercourse. The very day before the Whigs were
overthrown Mr. Keogh had promised to support his
resolution respecting the Trish viceroy; and when
the Derby Administration was formed, and the Irish
secretaryship olfercti to him Omni Naas ,he natu-
rally turned to Mr. Keogh for information, if not for
help, under the anxieties which that office involved.
His acceptance of office was contingent upon the
chances of being re-elected for Kildare. on that
subject he was desirous of obtaining Mr. Keogh's
opinion, or rather of learning his intention, and the
following was the result :--
"We discussed for some time ditik.ent topics connected
with various interests. Amongst then, waS the subject of
the election, and I recollect distinctly what I said to the
honourable and learned gentleman. This is the question
on which, with the answer to it, this whole diem, is
founded: and I think when the house heats them it will
admit that a more serious charge was tweer made on such
trumpery grounds. ( ffra r. hear.) I'atskavl in perfect conti-
(knee, never thinking that the question would ever be made
an engine of to endeavour to damage my eltanicter. I asked
him this question : ' If office had lwen olhT it to you under
the new Government, world you or your friends have
accepted it It may have been an imprudent question,
hat i eon safely say it was not put with the intention which
the lanolin-aide and learned gentleman has assumed.
I Hear, hear.) Ilc Made an answer, which I collect its
distinctly as the question. His mesa IT was this : I think
that, after alter all that has occitrred—ulter the part that
1 anti my Ilieuds have taken in the overthrow of the late
Goverantent—stnue such otn'r might have been made.'
(Loud erica ,tf Ilear,"fema the Opposiliwt.) After that We
pruce:ded to discuss various topics connected with the