but on that occasion he had announced a duty on
successions, whilst he held out less prospect of removing
the income tax than the present government. By the
immediate financial impact of the present proposition,
the Exchequer would be deprived of a sum of £450,000.
It would break up the income tax, and with it the
whole financial plan, which ministers proposed with
the view of placing the finances of the country on a
secure footing, of maintaining public credit, and of
doing justice between one class and another.—Mr.
DISRAELl defended the financial propositions of the
late government, and endeavoured to show that ministers
had fallen into great inconsistency in admitting that
land was at present taxed 2d. a pound higher than
other property, and yet proposing a new tax on it
calculated to produce £2,000,000. With reference to
the present amendment, this very plan of assessing the
income tax on the net instead of the gross income, had
been recommended in the strongest terms by the right
honourable baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty.
—Lord J. RUSSELL contended that the right honourable
gentleman had taken up an entirely ditl'erent principle
from that which he inculcated in last December, and
even on last Monday, he having then aimed at
establishing a distinction between permanent and precarious
incomes, whilst he now said that the holders of
permanent incomes should have their burdens still further
lightened, and those of precarious incomes not at all.
The proposition would aggravate the existing inequality
for trades and professions, by creating a new inequality
for land. It was evident that these great financial
questions were treated by the right hon. gentleman,
if not with exclusively party views, yet with such levity
and caprice that the house and the country could not
rely on any plan coming from him. Looking at this
shifting of ground, he was inclined to ask, with an
expression perhaps somewhat vulgar if it had not been
ennobled by the authority that used it, under which
thimble is the pea?—Lord J. MANNERS argued that
the former government would have done justice to
trades and professions if their plan had been adopted,
and the present amendment would effect the same
end, operating in another direction. Upon a division
the amendment was negatived by 276 against 201.

On Tuesday, May 10, Mr. AGLIONBY reported, from
the Plymouth Election Committee, that Mr. Collier had
been duly elected to represent that borough at the last
election; that Mr. Mare was not duly elected, and that
the election was void so far as regarded his return;
that it was proved to the satisfaction of the committee
that Mr. Mare had, by himself and his agents, been
guilty of bribery at the last election for the borough, by
promising employment and situations to electors, with a
view to influence their votes; that sundry electors had
been thus bribed; and that the petition against the
return of Mr. Collier was frivolous and vexatious.

Mr. Thomas CHAMBERS moved for leave to bring in
a bill to facilitate the Recovery of Personal Liberty in
the case of Persons Confined in Nunneries and other
Monastic Establishments. These establishments, he
said, are rapidly increasing in England and Wales;
there are now seventy–five nunneries within those
limits; and there is an impression that the law does
not sufficiently protect those who may be induced to
enter them, but may afterwards grow discontented and
desire to quit them. He desired to give the Home
Secretary power to appoint an inspecior to visit any
nunnery where there may be reasonable grounds for
believing any woman is confined against her will,
and in that case power to sue out a writ of habeas
corpus. Mr. Chambers pointed out, that lunatics,
sailor boys, and parish apprentices, are so protected;
and that in carrying out the Excise–laws, officers are
empowered to enter any house where they smell a box
of cigars or spy a pound of pigtail through the keyhole.
As things now stand, a nun is practically out of the
pale of the constitution, and without means of redress.
Power of government control exists in Prussia, Russia,
Austria, Bavaria, and France. Mr. Chambers said his
object was not to invade religious liberty but to protect
civil liberty.—Mr. Craven BERKELEY seconded the
motion; and alluded to his own experience in the case
of Miss Talbot.The motion was further supported by
Mr. Frewen, Mr. Newdegate, Sir John Tyrell, and Sir
Robert Inglis.—Mr. Drummond and Mr. Whiteside
spoke in favour of some measure of the kind, but
thought this bill would not effect the object aimed at.
In opposition to the motion were Mr. Sergeant Murphy,
Lord John Russell, Mr. Lucas, Lord Edward Howard,
and Mr. Fagan. It was contended that nuns are not
prevented from seeing their friends; that conventual
establishments are very useful; and that if the measure
passed the female Roman Catholics of Ireland would
throw themselves on the protection of France. Lord
John RUSSELL regretted that the question had been
brought before the house. Two years ago, the house
objected to a bill on the same subject; and there
ought to be very strong grounds indeed for again
introducing it. Is there any class of persons to whom
the ordinary laws afford insufficient protection? if so,
then not only for them, but for all classes should greater
securities be provided. Let us see the special case
made out. There are certain ladies living in
communities, many of whom entered them in a spirit of
sincere and deep devotion; there are others who preside
over large institutions for the purpose of educating
young girls; and others who visit the sick. Now he
was not asked whether he approved of these institutions;
but he was asked to put special restrictions on them,
and especially examine their houses, and find out who
are discontented. But the only law that could prevent
that state of things would be a law forbidding the
existence of convents altogether; because if you went to
release a discontented nun, you would probably find
that it was not locks and manacles that detained her,
but her sense of the obligation of her sacred promise.
Lord John threw discredit upon the anonymous stories
told respecting forcible detention; and was disposed to
think that had the evil existed, the Roman Catholic
gentlemen would come forward and demand a remedy.
—Lord Edward HOWARD, alluding to one who was at
least nearest and dearest to himself—[Miss Talbot, whom
he married]—with an indignant exclamation against
such private afi'airs being dragged before the public—
pointed to the result of Miss Talbot's case as showing
the liberty enjoyed by ladies residing in convents.—On
a division, there were—For the motion, 138; against it,
115; majority, 23. Thus leave was given to bring in
the bill.

Mr. Bentinck moved for a select committee to inquire
into the circumstances under which the petitions against
the Return of Mr. Atherton and Mr. Grainger for the
City of Durham had been withdrawn, detailing, in
support of the motion, particulars connected with the
transaction. The motion was opposed by Mr. M.
CHAMBERS, who made a counter statement, and
contended that, while the inquiry would be useless for
its professed object, it would defeat inquiry into the last
election. After a brief, but warm and eager discussion,
the house divided upon a motion of Lord PALMERSTON,
that the debate be adjourned until the 31st of May.
The numbers were:—For Lord Palmerston's motion,
107, against it, 74.

On Wednesday, May 11, Mr. G. BUTT moved the
second reading of the Elections Bill. The object was,
he said, to lessen the expenses at elections by limiting the
period between the receipt of the writ and the day of
nomination in counties to not more than ten days, or
less than five, and in boroughs to six days. With
reference to Universities, he proposed the same as for
counties; and he further proposed to limit the polling in
them to five clear days, to be included in one week. The
bill was read a second time.

Mr. CRAUFORD moved the second reading of the
Sheriffs' Court (Scotland) Bill. He said the sheriff's'
courts in Scotland were akin to the English county
courts, and they were free from the absurd distinctions
between law and equity. Latterly, the business had so
enormously increased that the number of the judges of
the sheriffs' courts had been also increased. Though
nominally appointed by the sheriff these judges were
really appointed by the Crown, and they must be barristers
of three years' standing. From their decisions an
appeal lay to the "sheriff depute," who was only an
ordinary practising barrister, and therefore his decision
was no more to be respected than that of the judges