with some other documents relating thereto.—The
Earl of CLARENDON informed the noble lord that a
copy of the treaty had been already laid upon the table
of the house.—The Earl of MALMESBURY claimed credit
for the Emperor of Russia for the self-abnegation he
displayed on the Danish question.

On Monday, June 6, Lord ELLENBOROUGH called
attention to the subject of the War in Burmah. He
described our army as being unable—partly from its
want of the means of locomotion, partly from the
inadequacy of its force to the extent of ground it had to
occupy, and the magnitude of the enterprise assigned to
it—to take advantage of the favourable opportunity
which the revolution in Ava had afforded it, or, in fact,
to undertake any operation of importance. He
recommended that the troops, which were now much dispersed
in garrisons, should be concentrated, that the government
should give up all illusions as to an easy conquest,
and prepare itself for an arduous and costly war. At
the present rate of proceeding, he believed that the
expenses of the army were not less than those of the
expedition which conquered China, and he could not
estimate them at less than from £1,000,000 to £1,200,000
a-year.—Lord GRANVILLE regretted that the government
had received no further information; and Lord
ALBEMARLE strongly urged the propriety of disavowing
the annexation of Pegu.

On Friday, June 10th, the Marquis of WESTMEATH,,
in moving for Papers relating to certain Irish Outrages,
complained of remissions of sentences on offenders by
the present Lord-Lieutenant. His lordship also referred
to an election speech delivered by the Irish Solicitor-
General, in which it was alleged that inflammatory
language was employed, and he asked whether, in the
event of a vacancy on the Irish bench, it was designed
to promote that gentleman. Lord ABERDEEN defended
the course which had been adopted in regard to the
remissions of sentences, and declined to reply to the
question regarding Mr. Keogh.—The Earl of DERBY
spoke in condemnation of the language alleged to have
been used by Mr. Keogh.—The Duke of NEWCASTLE,
on the authority of Mr. Keogh, declared that the
language in question had been falsely charged against
that gentleman, who utterly denied having employed
it.—The Earl of EGLINTON stated that he possessed
evidence that such language had been used, and thought
that the matter should be referred to a select committee.
He condemned the appointment of Mr. Keogh to his
present office.—The Duke of NEWCASTLE said that it
was understood that Lord Derby's government had
entered into negotiations with a view to proposing office
to Mr. Keogh.—The Earl of DERBY denied that any
such proposition had been made.—After further discussion,
the Marquis of WESTMEATH withdrew his motion.

On Monday, June 13, the Earl of CLARENDON, in
reply to a question from the Marquis of CLANRICARDE,
stated that the greatest unanimity existed between the
Governments of France and England on the Turkish
Question, and that the statement which recently
appeared in the Moniteur respecting the combined action
of the French and English fleets was perfectly correct.
—The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH, in moving for copies of
the correspondence between the Board of Control and
the Board of Directors with regard to the measure for
the Government of India, made a long speech, in the
course of which he declared himself in favour of legislation
during the present session.—Earl GRANVILLE
hailed this change in the noble earl's views as a favourable
sign and considered that they might now safely
consider any further attempt at postponement as
influenced merely by party motives. His lordship
explained and defended the measure of the government
in a long address.—Lord MONTEAGLE was nevertheless
in favour of delay, and condemned the hasty course of
the government as without precedent and without
justification. He objected also to the plan itself, as
well as to the time when it was brought forward.—The
Duke of ARGYLL feared that the greater portion of
those who urged delay were influenced only by a wish
to gain time in order to overturn altogether the present
system of Indian government, and he feared moreover
that Lord Monteagle belonged to that party. He took
that opportunity of defending the rationality and justice
of the present system, which he endeavoured to show
needed nothing to perfect it but the alterations proposed
by the government, and compared to which a single
system was unreasonable and difficult, if not altogether
impossible.—The Marquis of CLANRICARDE examined
the arguments pro and con, and declared himself
strongly against a precipitate and imperfect measure as
a substitute for deliberate and permanent legislation.—
The Earl of ALBEMARLE followed to a similar efiect,
and the motion was agreed to.

On Tuesday, June 14, the Earl of EGLINTON, on
behalf of Lord Naas, denied that that noble lord had
ever made an Offer of Office to Mr. Keogh.

The great Extramural Cemetery Bill was read a
second time by a majority of one, the numbers being—
for the bill, 37; against it, 36.

The report of the Amended Hackney Carriages Bill
was brought up and received.

A motion of Lord BEAUMONT, for Correspondence
Respecting the Law of South Carolina with regard to
Coloured Slaves, was agreed to.

On Thursday, June 16, Lord BROUGHAM presented
a number of petitions, principally from ministers of the
Church of Scotland, in favour of a General Abolition of
Oaths. He did not himself advocate so sweeping a
measure, for there were undoubtedly cases in which the
form of an oath was necessary to insure the truth; but
he proposed to give the judge who presided power to
accept an affirmation instead of an oath whenever, in
his opinion, the objection to an oath was founded on
really conscientious scruples.—Lord CAMPBELL
presented petitions to the same effect, but concurred in
Lord Brougham's suggestion, which had also the
authority of the common law commissioners.

A Bill to Continue the Irish Encumbered Estates
Court for Two more Years, was read a first time, and,
after a smart discussion between Lords BROUGHAM and
CAMPBELL, on county court fees, their lordships
adjourned.

On Friday, June 17, the Marquis of WESTMEATH
again introduced his Charges against Mr. Keogh; and
he moved "for a select committee to inquire into the
subject of seditious language alleged to have been used
by her Majesty's Solicitor-General for Ireland at Moate,
in the county of Westmeath, and at Athlone, in the
month of July last."—This motion led to a protracted
debate, in the course of which the allegations against
the honourable and learned gentleman were met and
answered. The motion, at the suggestion of the Earl of
Derby, was withdrawn.

On Monday, June 20, the Earl of ABERDEEN moved
the second reading of the Income Tax Bill, a tax for
which, (he said) in the present condition of the finances
of the country, it was impossible to find any substitute,
and which the government had, therefore, resolved to
reimpose, with certain modifications, for a period of
seven years. With respect to the feeling, which had
become widely spread, that a difference should be made
in taxing precarious incomes and realised property, it
had been found impossible to legislate so as to meet that
feeling, though it had been adopted as a principle by the
late government; and he (Lord Aberdeen) could not
recollect a greater triumph of reason over strong conviction
than was displayed in the speech of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer when treating this part of the question.
He then entered into the details of the bill, which he
described as being the foundation of a solid system of
finance, and destined, if the country continued to enjoy
the blessings of peace, to secure many years of happiness
and prosperity.—The Earl of DERBY said that he would
not oppose the second reading of the bill, because it was
quite impossible to dispense with the money brought
into the Exchequer by this most objectionable tax. He,
however, protested against the hasty conclusion of Lord
Aberdeen as to the intentions of the late government
with respect to the reimposition of the tax, for they had
no opportunity of stating their intentions respecting it,
except in a general way. The noble Earl then stated
his objections to the tax as reimposed by the government,
and concluded by declaring that he only submitted to it
because he believed it to be an inevitable impost, and
one which, after these repeated renewals, he did not
believe would ever be taken off.—After some observations