countrymen were Roman Catholics, it was thought right
to afford prisoners of that creed the means of becoming
better christians. The system had been for several
years in practice at Millbank, and it was his intention
that it should be extended to all government prisons.
What was wanted was to endeavour to mend the minds
of those who were imprisoned for crimes, and to rectify
their notions of right and wrong, which could be done
only by affording them religious instruction by ministers
of their own faith.—The amendment, which was opposed
by Mr. Scholefield, Mr. J. Ball, and Mr. Lucas, and
supported by Mr. Adderley, Mr. Crossley, Mr. Horsfall,
Mr. W. J. Fox, Sir J. Pakington, Mr. Hadfield, and
Mr. Miles, was carried upon a division (against the
government) by 158 to 136.

On Tuesday, June 13, Mr. H. BERKELEY made his
annual motion for leave to bring in a bill for the
establishment of the Vote by Ballot in parliamentary
elections. Premising that it was his determination to
persevere in his efforts to pass this measure, which he
considered to be one of justice and expediency, he
reiterated the arguments he had employed on former
occasions, contending that the elective franchise was a
limited right, and not a trust for non-electors (which
would involve responsibility, and it was impossible to
define an electoral breach of trust); and that, even if it
were a trust, its obligations could not be fulfilled under
a system of open voting.—Lord PALMERSTON opposed
the motion. He was not insensible of the advantages
which would accrue from any system that would provide
an effectual remedy against intimidation, bribery, or
the employment of undue influence at elections. But
his first objection to the ballot was, that it would
utterly fail in insuring that secrecy which was the
foundation of the desired result. No contrivance could
be devised that would prevent the opinion and votes of
a great majority of electors from being as fully known
under the ballot as under the system of open voting.
In the United States the votes at elections were not
only well known, but ostentatiously avowed. Electors
were too honest and too manly to refuse to declare the
names of those candidates who were identified with their
own political views. To some shopkeepers and others,
apprehensive that their votes might injure their
interests, the ballot might seem to be a security; but
the ballot would not prevent solicitation, and the application
of what was termed the screw, to extort a promise.
The promise in such cases would be either given or
withheld. If given and redeemed, what was the use of
the ballot? If broken, what improvement would this
effect in the mode of voting? If the voter refused
to promise, the inference would be that he meant to
vote the other way; the candidate would then act as he
now did, and the ballot would be a perfect nullity. His
first objection to the ballot therefore was that it would
not succeed: but, secondly, he objected to it because
it might succeed; for, if it did, secrecy in such a matter
would work an entire change in our habits, and compel
Englishmen to disguise their political prepossessions
and opinions, which, he thought, would be a great
national calamity. The theory of Mr. Berkeley, he
contended, was erroneous; the franchise was a trust given
for the benefit of the electors at large, and would be so
even if the suffrage were universal; and, according to
the spirit of the British constitution, every man clothed
with a political right, involving a duty, was bound to
exercise it openly, subject to a responsibility to public
opinion, which had a governing influence over every
honest man. If any man, high or low, was invested
with a public function, he ought to make up his mind
to the consequences of an honest discharge of that
function; if the ballot was required for the protection of
electors, why not for representatives, who were liable to
suffer for the votes they gave? He believed that the
evils of open voting were grossly exaggerated, and that,
in general, what a man lost by opponents he gained
from his friends.—Sir J. Walmsley, Mr. Forster, and
Sir J. Fitzgerald spoke in favour of the motion.—Mr.
BRIGHT after replying to Lord Palmerston's objections
to the ballot, said that the question was, what the
advocates of the ballot should do to secure it? He
hoped that constituencies would make up their minds
that this should be a testing question, and not allow
men to come into parliament in their name who refused
them the protection of a secret vote. Then, what should
those of the elected do by whose suffrage the present
ministers sat upon the treasury bench? He repudiated
the leadership of men professing to be liberal, who
denied the smallest concession on such questions as
this. What the supporters of the government should
do was to say to them, "We have no objection to
support you, but if you mean to be the leaders of
this party, you must take up this question of the
ballot, which we regard as a vital question, or you
shall not be our leaders, and we will not be your
followers." If the advocates of the ballot resolved to
have the ballot, and would not support a cabinet that
denied it, then, and then only, there would be a
prospect of its being carried.—Mr. WHITESIDE
applauded the speech of Lord Palmerston. He thought
the argument of the noble lord was unanswerable,
and trusted that he spoke the sense of the cabinet,
and that he had worked a conversion in the sentiments
of his colleague, the right hon. member for
Southwark.—Sir W. MOLESWORTH, however,
confessed that, although he had listened attentively to
the speech of his noble friend, he was not convinced
by it. So far from having changed his opinion upon
this question, after hearing every argument that had
been urged for and against it, the result had been
only to strengthen the conviction that no measure
would or could he effectual in arresting bribery or
intimidation which did not contain some provision that
the votes of electors should be given secretly.
Parliament had declared the necessity of more effectual
provisions to prevent bribery; were these provisions
to be of the old character, or of a new and better
description? That was the practical question at issue
between the friends and opponents of the ballot. His
conclusion in favour of the ballot was founded upon
patent proof that the bribery law was ineffectual, and he
assigned reasons for believing that it must be so. Reliance
could not be placed upon penal enactments alone;
they must be combined with other precautions that
would take away the motive to commit bribery. Sir
William entered somewhat particularly into the different
forms which corruption assumed, and the various
agencies employed, and, in pointing out the good effects
of secret voting in arresting its course, he expressed
his conviction that, had the reform act contained such a
provision, many constituencies which had become a
disgrace and reproach to the country would have been
perfectly pure. But bribery, in his opinion, could never he
effectually stopped unless intimidation were put down,
and it was idle and futile to attempt to put down
intimidation by penal enactments. The only security to
the voter against intimidation, individual and collective,
was to be found in the ballot, co-operating with public
opinion; while, at the same time, it would greatly
diminish the number of both bribers and intimidators.
The argument that the franchise was a trust, the
exercise of which was to be judged by the community, led,
he urged, to the conclusion that all the community were
entitled to votes; and he showed the want of analogy
between the responsibility of electors and of the elected.
If the ballot should be adopted and failed, no evil
would result from the experiment, while
parliament would feel that it had done its best to
stop a great and crying evil, which tended to
sap the foundations of our representative institutions.—
Mr. J. Butt and Mr. Kendall opposed the motion, and
Mr. Phinn supported.—On a division the motion was
negatived by 194 against 157.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE moved for leave to bring in a
bill to alter and amend the laws relating to the
Temporalities of the Church in Ireland, and to
increase the means of religious instruction and church
accommodation for her Majesty's Irish subjects. Citing
certain strong denunciations of the Irish Church
establishment by various eminent modern statesmen, as a
justification of his motion, he argued that civil
utility was the basis of all Church establishments.
Dr. Paley and Bishop Warburton having represented
their object to be that of providing for the religious
instruction of the people in the country where they
existed, and he proceeded to try the Church establishment