in the next session he should bring the subject of Parliamentary oaths before the House.

On the 30th of June, Mr. H. Berkeley, M.P. for Bristol, brought on his annually-repeated motion in favour of taking the votes at elections by ballot. On a subject so repeatedly discussed, both in Parliament and by the press, it is not to be supposed that much novelty could be elicited; but Mr. Berkeley, as usual, enlivened his argument with some pungent remarks, and with illustrations drawn from the recent general election. Lord-Palmerston, he observed, had told the House to wait, for that he had a Reform Bill in prospect that was to swallow up all other Reform Bills; but he (Mr. Berkeley) declined to wait without knowing what they were to wait for, He, therefore, asked whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to adopt the ballot as a part of their Reform Bill next session. If the answer was in the affirmative, he had nothing to do but to sit down; but if in the negative, he must submit his case to the House. There being no audible response to this inquiry (although the Chancellor of the Exchequer rose from his seat), Mr. Berkeley said he must take silence to express dissent, and presume that it was not their intention to entertain the vote by hallot; he should, therefore, pursue the course he had taken on former occasions, and reply to the objections offered to the ballot. He then reviewed the leading arguments employed by the opponents of secret voting and by the advocates of open voting, contending that, had the former system been adopted, the abolition of the Corn Laws and other beneficial measures would

have been greatly accelerated; and he expatiated upon the advantages of that mode of voting in those countries where the ballot was in operation, drawing largely from authorities. He described what he termed the appalling features of the late election in England, referring to particular cases of intimidation or coercion exercised over voters, making a passing attack upon the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, and contrasted these scenes with the order and tranquillity which prevailed at Victoria, in Australia, since the ballot had been introduced, which was the more remarkable, he observed, because, under open voting in that colony, the same features were exhibited as were apparent here. Mr. Berkeley concluded by entreating the Government to give the people the ballot, which they would now receive as a boon, rather than wait until they should be compelled to surrender it to them as a right.

Sir John Shelley seconded the motion, adducing some cases of pressure exercised upon the electors of Westminster at the late election, in confirmation of his arguments. Mr. Green also strongly supported the ballot.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was unable to adopt the views of Mr. Berkeley, or to form so sanguine an estimate of the beneficial effects of the ballot; but, on the contrary, he shared the alarm with which he believed the ballot was generally regarded by the opposite side of the House. He would consider this question, he said, in a practical view whether the mode of voting proposed was adapted to the wants and circumstances of this country. He adverted, first, to the ballot as prac

tised on the continent of Europe, arguing that the different state of things existing there destroyed all analogy between the case of continental countries and England. He next examined the principles of this mode of voting in the United States of America, where the votes, it appeared, were not secret, but by tickets; and all we could understand from the American practice was, that if a voter chose to conceal his vote he might do so; but secrecy was not, as Mr. Berkeley seemed to assume, au essential part of the vote by ballot in America. In Massachusetts, where the ballot had been practically open, a system of compulsory secrecy was introduced, and continued in force two years, when the old system was reverted to, and there was now no State in the Union in which the votes were compulsorily secret. In considering what would be the effect of acceding to this motion, the House must ask what was the system Mr. Berkeley recommended. Was the secrecy to be optional or compulsory? The experience of the United States was against compulsory secrecy, and his (Sir George Lewis's) conviction was, that the attempt to introduce it into this country would be to row against an irresistible current, and that such an institution would be repugnant to the nature of the people. If a system of optional secrecy was adopted, which some regarded as a panacea for all the evils of our electoral system, it was his confident opinion that the great majority of the electors were ready and even desirous to avow their vote.

In order to protect all voters, secrecy of voting must be made compulsory, which was not done in the United States. In his opinion we must look to

moral influences, and not to laws, for an amendment of the practices complained of.

Lord J. Russell observed that Mr. Berkeley rested his case upon three assumptions, all of which he believed to be erroneous; first, that at this moment there prevailed so much intimidation that it was impossible that the opinions of those who were entrusted with the elective franchise could be fairly ascertained; second, that the voter had an indefeasible right to give his vote without reference to any one but himself, and without being brought before any tribunal to answer for his vote; and, third, that there is a very general and prevailing opinion throughout the country in favour of secret voting. Admitting that there were cases of intimidation, he denied that, in general, tenants voting with their landlords voted against their will and their conscience. He protested against the doctrine that freeholders and 101. voters were to be accounted infallible, and that in their hands was to be left a free and despotic power of voting as they pleased, without that responsibility, control, and criticism to which the highest functionaries in the State were subject. This was a doctrine contrary to the principles of the British constitution. He insisted that the country had a right to know how the franchise was exercised by those who were entrusted with it. As to the last assumption, although there were many persons who advocated the ballot, yet he did not believe that the general opinion of the country was in favour of secret voting. In America the ballot was not synonymous with secret voting. There would be no resource under the ballot but compulsory secrecy, no

man being allowed to state what his vote was. Did anybody believe, he asked, that this would take place in England more than in America? He was convinced that the evils of such a system would far overpower the good it might produce, and he would always raise his voice in favour of open voting.

After a short reply from Mr. Berkeley, the motion was negatived by a majority of 68, the ayes being 189, and the noes 257.

Another proposition, which had on some former occasion been submitted to Parliament, was again broached by Mr. Roebuck, but was not favourably entertained by the House of Commons. This was the abolition of the office of LordLieutenant of Ireland-a measure which had some high authorities to recommend it, and had at one time been seriously contemplated by the Ministry of the day. Objections and difficulties had, how ever, been raised, the effect of which was to prevent, or at least postpone, the consideration of the question. It will be seen, from the debate which arose on the present motion, that it was opposed by some members rather on account of the time and the mode in which it came before the House, than on its substantial merits and expediency. Mr. Roebuck's speech was, as usual, vigorous and to the point. He brought forward this motion, he observed, which had been made at various periods under very different circumstances, at a most auspicious time. Ireland was now not only an integral part of this great country, but she was happy in her government and in her external and internal circumstances, except in this one particular. Ireland ought to be a frac

tional part of this country, a part of the United Kingdom; he wished to make her like a county of England, and the measure he proposed would take away the last badge of her subjection. What advantage, he asked, did Ireland derive from her separate Government? She had a Viceroy; but what did he do for Ireland? The separate Government was a focus of intrigue at Dublin, and made Ireland depend, not upon her own individual exertions, but upon her Government. After insisting upon the inutility of a separate Government located at Dublin, considering the virtual approximation of the two capitals, he anticipated the objection that he expected would be offered to the resolution in the shape of the previous question, which could only be founded, he said, upon the plea that this was not the proper time to propose the measure, whereas, he repeated, no time could be more propitious.

Mr. M'Cullagh said he had listened to the speech of Mr. Roe buck without being able to understand on what ground he asked the House to consent to this motion. He (Mr. M'Cullagh) objected to it because he did not think this was the proper mode of dealing with such a subject, or that this was a time for bringing it forward. It was a question that should be taken up by the Government, and ought to form part of a Government measure. Mr. Roebuck, he observed, proposed to pull down, without building anything up, having offered no plan for the future government of Ireland. He moved the previous question.

Mr. Grogan, one of the representatives of the City of Dublin, offered a decided opposition to the motion, fortifying his case by citing

the opinion of the Duke of Wellington and other eminent authorities, who were adverse to the measure. Mr. Vance, his colleague in the representation, urged strongly the loss which his constituents would incur by the abolition of the Viceregal Court, and contended that they would suffer by a reduction in the value of house property and otherwise, and would be entitled to claim compensation for the injury.

Mr. Whiteside said, if Mr. Roebuck had proposed to identify the policy by which Ireland was to be governed with that of England, and had a plan for working out that object, he would support his resolution. But such a plan required a vast amount of preliminary inquiry and consideration, and this was, in his opinion, a fatal objection to the motion. He was bound to say that he did not think the prosperity of his country bound up with a Lord-Lieutenant.

Sir W. Somerville, who had been Chief Secretary for Ireland, supported the original motion. He regretted the unavoidable absence of Lord J. Russell, whose opinion in favour of the abolition of this office, he knew, had undergone no change; he (Lord John) thought the conciliatory measures adopted of late towards Ireland, the practical diminution of distance, and the advantages attending a direct intercourse between Ireland and Downing-street and Whitehall, took away the reasons for retaining the office. He (Sir W. Somerville) thought the present a roundabout, unsatisfactory system, and that Ireland would gain by its removal. Believing that the abolition of the Viceroyalty would not only tend to the improvement of Ireland, but would benefit the inter

ests of the empire and allay party feeling, he should repeat the vote he gave in 1850.

Mr. Bagwell opposed the resolution. He asked whether it was proper that a measure of reform should be introduced which was not called for by the people, there being no movement in Ireland in its favour. Ireland, he said, had been swindled out of the Union, and that was a reason why the real wishes of the people should be consulted upon this question.

Mr. Maguire pronounced the office of Lord Lieutenant an utter and a worthless sham, and denied that the Viceroy had any hand in bringing about the present pros perity of Ireland. If applied to, he acknowledged himself to be a mockery, being obliged to consult his superiors, the Cabinet in England. The influence of the Viceregal Court was injurious, he said, to all classes, and was especially demoralising to the people of Dublin. He should not, however, vote for the resolution, which did not offer any equivalent.

Mr. Horsman replied to certain remarks of Mr. Whiteside upon the appointments made by Lord Carlisle, who, he asserted, had adopted a strict rule postponing political influence to competency and merit. With reference to the question before the House, acknowledging the moral as well as material improvement of Ireland, he remarked that she was but just beginning to find her feet, and required to be watched as a convalescent, and the question was, whether the abolition of the office of Lord-Lieutenant would conduce to her well-being. He had conversed with all ranks and classes in Ireland regarding its good government and future, and he had

found their opinion favourable to the abolition of the office. At the same time, they would not have voted for this motion for the same reason that influenced him. It was one thing to condemn and another to re-construct, and unless the Government saw what was to be substituted for the Lord-Lieutenant, they could not adopt the resolution. He thought this was one of the questions of reform which should be left to the consideration of the Government.

Mr. P. O'Brien considered the retention of the Viceroyalty to be a matter of contract with the Irish

nation.

Mr. Blake made some observations in vindication of the present Lord-Lieutenant.

Lord Palmerston said there was no denying the importance of this question; but this was an abstract resolution which, if adopted, ought to be followed up by some practical measure to carry it into effect. Mr. Roebuck, however, had left that task to others, without suggesting any arrangement by which the Government of Ireland might be carried on, after the adoption of a resolution, at the conclusion of the session, condemning the existing state of things, rendering that state of things inefficient for the Government during a long period of time. This was a very inconvenient method of proceeding on a a grave question of this kind. The question was one surrounded with great difficulties, and he was not prepared at the present moment to propose any arrangement that would be satisfactory. He should vote for

the previous question, and even those who thought that, as an abstract proposition, the office of Lord-Lieutenant might be dispensed with, might vote for the previous question, which meant that the motion was not one which it was desirable for Parliament to entertain. Lord Palmerston pronounced a warm eulogy upon the present Viceroy of Ireland, observing that there never was a LordLieutenant who enjoyed more fully the affections of the people he was sent to rule.

Mr. Disraeli said the motion was unquestionably of no ordinary character; it proposed to make a great alteration in the Administration of Ireland, and the House should have the reasons before it which rendered such an alteration expedient and necessary. No reasons of that kind had, however, been laid before the House. Accusations had been made against the Lord-Lieutenant, but they were not justified in voting for the resolution unless the enormities of the office were so obvious, the public discontent so overwhelming, and the Ministry so negligent that the House of Commons ought to come forward to provide a remedy for the wrong. This was not their position, and their only course was to vote for the previous question, which implied that it was not convenient at the present time to discuss the motion.

After a few words from Mr. Conolly, and a reply from Mr. Roebuck, the House divided, when the previous question was carried by 266 to 115. Consequently the original resolution was not put.