have used in regard to the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, and
described such language as tending to make disreputable
the appointment of the person who had used it by a
government whose members had taken part in passing
that bill.—Mr. KEOGH, in reply, said that Sir J.
Pakington had taken new and unsafe ground, for that
no meeting had occurred in Ireland on the Ecclesiastical
Titles Bill since the conversation with Lord Naas. He
should be prepared, at proper time and place, to meet
the new charge now raised without notice.—Mr. WHITESIDE
condemned Lord J. Russell's apparent justification
of Lord Clarendon, and dwelt upon the allegation that
Mr. Keogh had made mob speeches "on the Sabbath."
—After some observations by Mr. BENTINCK and Mr.
VANCE, the subject dropped.

On the order for going into committee on the Succession
Duty Bill, Sir W. JOLIFFE urged, upon various
grounds, the postponement of the committee.—The
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER declined to consent
to a proposal which he considered to be at variance with
an understanding as to the course to be taken with the
bill.—Mr. NEWDEGATE, Mr. MULLINGS, Sir J.
PAKINGTON, and Mr. BUCK remarked upon the policy of
the measure, and the house then went into committee
upon the bill.—On the 2nd clause, describing the
dispositions and devolutions of property which should be
deemed to confer successions—and which was a long
time under discussion—a motion by Mr. MULLINGS, to
exempt past dispositions, was negatived without a
division.—On reaching the 7th clause, the Chairman
was ordered to report progress.

On Friday, June 17, the house went into committee
on the Succession Duty Bill, taking it up at the point,
clause 7, where progress had been reported. There was
considerable opposition, technical discussion, and
putting of imaginary cases; but there was only one
division, which was carried by the customary ministerial
majority. The bill was advanced as far as clause 19.

On the motion for the third reading of the Excise
Duties on Spirits Bill, Mr. CONOLLY, Colonel KNOX,
Lord GALWAY, and a fraction of the Irish members
opposed the motion by moving the adjournment of
the house four times in succession; the minority
diminishing from 34 to 18.—Lord J. RUSSELL accused
them of factiously trying to make a minority overrule
the majority, and was for yielding; but Mr.
GLADSTONE stood firm, and said the minority must yield.
The bill was accordingly read a third time, but not
passed.

On Monday, June 20, Sir John PAKINGTON put some
questions respecting the present state of Jamaica.—
Lord J. RUSSELL stated that despatches had been
received relating to a political and financial crisis in that
island; that those despatches had been under the
serious consideration of the government, and that a plan
had been adopted with reference to the financial powers
now exercised by the House of Assembly which he
should hereafter explain to the house.

The house then resolved itself again into a
committee upon the Succession Duty Bill, commencing
with the 19th clause, in which a proviso was
moved by the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER,
that no duty should be payable, on the determination
of any lease purporting at the date thereof
to be a lease at rack-rent, in respect to any interest
accruing to the successor at its determination; which
was agreed to, with the understanding that the exemption
was to be extended to interests arising under leases
falling within clause 24. A long discussion took place
on the two ensuing clauses—the 20th, enacting that the
interest of a successor in real property shall be
considered as an annuity; and the 21st, providing rules
for valuing lands, houses, &c. Various amendments
were proposed in the latter clause, and at length the
committee divided upon a motion by Sir J. TROLLOPE,
to omit the words enacting that there shall be included
in the estimate of the annual value of lands, &c., in the
case of a successor not restricted from cutting the
timber thereon, the computed annual value of such
timber, not being timber planted or left standing for the
shelter or ornament of a mansion house, and valued
therewith; when the motion for the omission of these
words was carried against the government by 153 to 150.
—Sir J. Trollope then moved to add a proviso, that
any timber growing on such land should not be included
in the estimate; but, after further debate, the chairman
was ordered to report progress.

The house then went into committee on the Customs,
&c., Acts, when certain resolutions relating to Stamp
Duties were agreed to.

In a committee on the Edinburgh Annuity Tax
Abolition, the LORD ADVOCATE explained the nature of
the tax, and a resolution whereon to found a bill was
agreed to.

In committee on the Soap Duties Bill, Mr. J.
WILSON stated that it was proposed to postpone the
reduction of the duty on foreign soap imported until
the 5th of July, 1854, and to provide that the privilege
of importing soap from Ireland, duty free, shall take
effect from the same date.

On Tuesday, June 21, the Liverpool Election
Committee reported that Mr. Turner and Mr. Forbes
Mackenzie were Unseated, on the ground of bribery and
treating. The circumstances, were not, however, such
as to induce the committee to recommend the house to
postpone the issuing of the writ, or to institute further
inquiry.

The Marquis of BLANDFORD moved for leave to bring
in a bill to make better provision for the management of
Episcopal and Capitular Property. He commenced by
pointing out what he believed to be the evils of the
existing system of management, and explained the means
by which he anticipated, under a different system, a
large surplus over the present one would be available for
new churches, and for the payment of increased
superintendence. He believed that the means which he
suggested, would supply the present wants of the church,
and that as the population increased, appeals could be
made effectually to the church's own resources. Part
of his plan was to transfer the entire management of
the property, with some slight exceptions, to the Estate
Commissioners.—Lord John RUSSELL considered that
the bill itself should be seen before entering into the
merits of the proposition, which was one of great
importance, and entitled to serious consideration.—Mr. HUME
approved generally of the proposal, but regretted that it
did not touch the subject of education. He congratulated
the house upon the progress of church reform, and
drew a favourable omen from the fact that not even Sir
Robert Inglis was there to oppose the present startling
innovations.—Sir B. HALL was also delighted to see
such questions assuming a tangible form and substance
in the house.—Mr. EWART and Mr. PELLATT also
expressed approval of the plan; and the latter, as a non-
conformist, added a word for the dissenters.—Some
further conversation ensued, and leave was given to
bring in the bill.

On Wednesday, June 22, Sir R. INGLIS moved the
second reading of the Recovery of Personal Liberty Bill.
While praising the measure for its moderation, he cited
evidence to show that it was necessary. He particularly
urged them to remember that the Council of Trent had
recognised the probability of young women being
confined in convents, and had directed the censures of the
church against those guilty of confining them. Even in
Roman Catholic countries measures had been taken for
the protection of persons resident in convents; and he
asked for a similar protection in this country—a protection
which was not the less necessary because the cases
which called for it might be few.—Mr. PHINN moved
an amendment for the appointment of a select committee
to inquire into the necessity for a measure of this kind.
With regard to the bill before the house, he was
surprised that it had been drawn up by a lawyer, since it
contained a falsehood in its preamble; and he further
complained that if adopted it would destroy the most
valuable element of liberty—that which declared every
man's house to be his castle.—Mr. I. BUTT seconded the
amendment.—Mr. FAGAN opposed both the bill and the
amendment.—Mr. NAPIER supported the amendment,
as he considered the bill inadequate to meet the case.
One of its deficiencies was that it did not enable the
inmates of convents freely to dispose of the property
under their control.—Lord J. RUSSELL reiterated the
arguments which he had, on the previous occasion,
urged against the measure. Admitting that some