example either in ancient or modern times of the effect
of secret voting, except that of Venice, where it had
established despotism, the house should at least pause,
and rather adhere to a mode of voting which was
compatible with all that was manly and free in our
institutions.—The house divided—first, upon the question
of adjourning the debate, which was negatived by 329 to
65; and then upon the main question, which was also
negatived by 232 to 172; so that the motion is lost.

On Thursday, June 16th, Mr. KEOGH made a statement
respecting Charges against him with Reference to
the Formation of the Late and Present Governments,
and which, he said, impeached his veracity, and were
derogatory to his personal honour. He referred to a
recent discussion in the House of Lords, in which Lord
Eglinton had stated that his appointment was the least
reputable of those made by the present government,
and he undertook to prove that Lord Naas, the late
Chief Secretary for Ireland, had sought him with eagerness
immediately on the formation of the late government,
and in an interview with him had distinctly asked
him whether he would accept office under Lord Derby.
He went into a detail as to what had occurred, read a
letter of Mr. Bernal Osborne's in proof of Lord Naas'
visits to the Reform Club, and alluded to Mr. Isaac
Butt as evidence of his interview with his lordship. He
also read correspondence between himself and Lord
Naas, in which the latter gave a direct negative to Mr.
Keogh's statement as to their conversation. He
admitted that nothing could be more positive and precise
than this denial, upon which he most confidently rested
his case. He mentioned a dialogue which he had had
with Major Beresford, who took him aside and whiningly
complained of his attacks on the late government,
saying better things were expected of him, since Lord Naas
had offered him office, and this Mr. Keogh confirmed
by a reference to Mr. Serjeant Murphy. He also cited
a letter from Mr. Edmund O'Flaherty, who stated that,
on a journey, Lord Naas had informed him that he had
proposed place to Mr. Keogh. He said that in the
interview with Lord Naas, the latter consulted him on
his lordship's election prospects for Kildare; and Mr.
Keogh went on to say that, in consequence of the course
he had taken on that subject, he had been subjected to
calumny and slander, "as only such things can be
done in the Irish press." After commenting upon the
documents, which, he contended, fully vindicated his
honour, he reproached Lord Naas with allowing him to
labour under a weight of obloquy, slander, and calumny,
from which it was in his power to relieve him by at least
admitting that he had used a phrase which, under the
circumstances, might have induced a supposition that
he was authorised to make a tender of office.—Lord
NAAS, in reply, complained of a betrayal of private
confidence, and of a distortion of words used in private
conversation. He stated that before the formation of
Lord Derby's ministry, he had been in frequent
communication with Mr. Keogh on the subject of the
motion affecting Lord Clarendon. He admitted
conversations with Mr. Keogh on the Kildare election, and
that the latter, in a friendly way, and without compromising
his political principles, had exerted himself to
prevent a contest. He allowed that he had made efforts
to see Mr. Keogh; and here, in answer to some ironical
cheering, the noble lord indignantly defied any member
who doubted his word to "stand up his place" and he
would "meet him." He then said that his question to
Mr. Keogh was, "If office had been offered you under
the new government, would you or your friends have
accepted it? " His question might have been imprudent
and improper, but it had not been made with the
imputed object. Mr. Keogh's answer had been, "I think,
after all that has occurred, and the part I and my friends
have taken in overthrowing the late government, some
such offer might have been made." They then went to
other party topics, and subsequently Mr. Keogh asked
him whether any person in authority knew of or
authorised him to ask the question he had put. He
replied that Major Beresford knew of it. But he
explained that a few hours before that interview he had
met Major Beresford in St. James's-square, who asked
him what position the Irish party would take up, and
upon Lord Naas saying that he would ask Mr. Keogh,
the major desired him to add, from himself, that the
government of Lord Derby had no unfriendly feeling
towards them. He had never mentioned the result of
the interview with Mr. Keogh until last Tuesday. The
interview with Mr. Keogh had taken place when every
office was filled up. He admitted the plausibility of the
inference drawn by Mr. Keogh. But he said it was
impossible he could have made the statement alleged by
Mr. O'Flaherty, and after a sarcasm at the way Mr.
Keogh had got up his case as against a prisoner,
expressed his belief that the public and the country would
believe that he had spoken the exact fact.—Major
BERESFORD declared that no man had authorised him
to offer, or to hint at the offer, of office to Mr. Keogh,
and that not being so authorised, he did not authorise
Lord Naas to do so. He confirmed the account of the
conversation in St. James's-square, and dwelt on the
fact of having had no subsequent communication with
Lord Naas thereon. As to any charge of boasting of
being in communication with Lord Derby, he said,
"When I do anything, I take the responsibility on
myself." He admitted having remarked upon Mr.
Keogh's invectives against Mr. Disraeli, but not
"whiningly;" and he enlarged for a considerable time
against the use of private conversation and private
documents—a practice which would, he said, reduce
gentlemen to the "silent system."—Mr. NAPIER
explained some communications he had had with Lord
Derby on the subject.—Mr. I. BUTT confirmed the statement
referring to himself, with an unimportant variation,
and amid ministerial cheering at the frankness with
which he spoke.—Mr. Disraeli said that the real
question was, the veracity of two members of the house,
and remarked that in the antecedents of Mr. Keogh
there were many reasons why office should have been
offered him by the late government—a course at which
he should himself have been neither astonished nor
displeased. Observing that Lord Naas could have no
object in making an untrue statement, he proceeded to
suggest that the impressions of Lord Naas and Mr.
Keogh were reconcilable, and he argued upon the
details to bear out this view. He disclaimed recollection
of any invective uttered against himself by Mr. Keogh,
and declared that he had always thought invective a
great ornament of debate, and that without it the house
would hardly bear statistical details. When in office he
had not found the bearing of invective the most grievous
part of his duty, and he had always listened to Mr.
Keogh's with admiration. Finding the two statements
before the house reconcilable, he urged that there was
no use in pursuing the subject, and warned the house
against rendering more difficult communications
between gentlemen, by taking the most uncharitable
view of the intercourse between man and man.—Lord
J. RUSSELL said that complaints had been made of the
use of private conversation, but he must remind the
house that the whole of this discussion had arisen from
a personal attack on a gentleman holding a high and
responsible office. Referring to Lord Eglinton's
remarks upon the appointment of Mr. Keogh as
disreputable, and Mr. Disraeli's upon the gentleman's
qualifications for office, he observed that the great result
of the discussion was to sweep away for ever Lord
Eglinton's accusation. He could not agree with Mr.
Disraeli that this was a question of the veracity of two
members, for Lord Naas' statement had confirmed that
of Mr. Keogh. It was impossible for any one to have
received such a communication as Lord Naas' without
receiving the impression that office was to be offered
him. He censured the mode in which Lord Naas had
spoken on the subject, as wanting in fairness and
candour, and honourable consideration of one who had
been his friend. One who had so recently constituted
himself a public accuser should be very careful. He
said that there was no reason to doubt the veracity of
members of the house, but there was reason to regret
that it had been necessary to bring forward private
conversations and letters in answer to Lord Eglinton's
reckless accusation and unfounded attack.—Sir J.
PAKINGTON complained of the triumphant tone adopted
by Lord J. Russell, and considered the question as one
of memory between two gentlemen. He then referred
to language which Mr. Keogh had been reported to