HC Deb 19 February 1838 vol 40 cc1249-61

On the Motion that the Parliamentary Electors Bill be now read a third time.

Mr. Blake

expressed a hope that the provisions of the Bill should be extended to Ireland, and stated it to be his understanding that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated his intention to that effect in Committee upon the Bill.

Lord John Russell

observed, that his right hon. Friend had, after some deliberation, judged it better to make the measure, with regard to Ireland, the subject of a separate Bill.

Mr. Maclean

said, that he should most certainly oppose the third reading of the Bill. The two questions involved in the measure were so totally distinct that they ought not to be mixed up together. What was the object of the Bill with respect to the electors? The noble Lord proposed that those voters who were already in arrear with their taxes should be allowed to go farther back in arrear—namely, to the month of October of the preceding year; and yet what was the objection urged by the advocates of the Reform Bill against the scot and lot voters? It was, that they were in nine cases out of ten paupers, and, therefore, unfit to have the franchise. It should, however, be recollected that there was a test of the solvency of the scot and lot voter, because before he could vote he must prove that he had paid his taxes. But now the noble Lord proposed to give those who were not scot and lot voters a right to vote though they had not paid up their taxes. His objections to the Bill were, that it interfered with the provisions of the Reform Act; that it mixed up two questions so entirely distinct as on the first mention of their connexion to have been declared not only by the noble Lord but also by the Speaker as incompatible, and not to be incorporated in one Bill; and that it was but the commencement of a series of changes to which the noble Lord should be cautious how he gave countenance, as it would lead the people to believe that the strong ground which the noble Lord took in the first week of the session on the question of the ballot would not be maintained, that he would not remain firm in his purpose to oppose changes, and that having yielded this, the noble Lord would, with a little more pressure, yield the question which he then refused to concede. Nor would the change end with the ballot: the next step would be the reduction of the household qualification to an annual value of 5l. with the non-payment of any taxes; and the final step he conceived to be perfectly obvious. If, therefore, he were asked, even by the freemen, for the grounds on which he refused this Bill, he should reply, that by granting it he conceived that he was jeopardising the provisions of the Reform Bill. The hon. and learned Member concluded with moving that the Bill be read a third time that day six months.

Sir Robert Peel

was desirous of stating the grounds upon which he objected to this Bill. His main ground of objection was, that he considered it the first step towards an alteration in principle of that which he understood to have been the settlement of the great question relating to the representative system in this country. The noble Lord had referred to the zeal which some of those individuals who had strongly opposed the Reform Bill were now displaying in the vindication of that measure. Now, nothing appeared to him to be more perfectly consistent than man's giving every reasonable opposition to the Reform Bill while it formed the subject of Parliamentary discussion, but when that Bill had been passed by the Legislature, accepting it as a great national and constitutional settlement, and being prepared to vindicate its provisions. He (Sir Robert Peel) did not profess to be at all more enamoured of the Reform Bill than he had been at a former period; but quite as zealously as those who declared themselves enamoured of it most highly, he would defend its existing provisions. He would oppose any attempt to undermine or break through the provisions of that Bill, or pass over the limits which it prescribed, as much as if it were attempted to restore the nomination boroughs, or to curtail the franchise. Whatever pretext of justice might be assigned for concession upon any particular point, he would oppose the concession; since so much greater evil must flow from such a change than good could possibly accrue. The course therefore, which his duty prescribed to him with reference to this question was that of maintaining, as far as in him lay, the Reform Bill as the settlement of a great constitutional question; and in adopting this course he was acting in perfect consistency with his known political opinions. The Reform Bill established three qualifications for Parliamentary voters. First, that the voter should have been resident for six months, or that he should have held the tenement out of which he voted for at least that period previous to the election. The second qualification was, that the value of those premises should be at least 10l. per annum. The third was, that the voter should have paid before the 20th of July all rates and taxes due by him on the 6th of April preceding. Pecuniary ability and residence were therefore the qualifications fixed upon by the framers of the Reform Bill, after mature deliberation; and had been accepted by both Houses of Parliament as a satisfactory test of the voter's competency. Another test had been proposed, which was the payment of rent; but this test was abandoned; and he had a right to believe that those three qualifications which he had specified were intended to remain in full force, or at least that the noble Lord, who was the author of the Reform Bill, should not himself be the man to set the example of violating its provisions. He must also say, that his confidence in the ability of the noble Lord to resist the clamour which had been raised upon the subject of the ballot would be greatly shaken, if the noble Lord could be appealed to as the author of a material change in the Reform Bill. Two of the three qualifications were, according to the noble Lord's scheme, to remain the same. The qualification of residence or occupancy was to remain the same. The yearly value of the premises was to remain the same. Why was the other qualification disturbed? The noble Lord proposed to give to the voter a much longer period for the payment of his taxes; and he begged to call the attention of the House to the following facts. It was enacted by the Reform Bill that the elector, previously to being permitted to vote legally, should, on or before the 20th of July, have paid all rates and taxes due by him up to the 6th of April previous. Was this, he would ask, unreasonable? A period of nearly six weeks was allowed to the householder, during which to make good the payment of his taxes; and he must say, that he thought it a good principle, to require that people should pay their rates and taxes when due. If it were said, that there might be a deficiency of notice from the parochial officers, why, he would ask, did they not apply the remedy to the defect of notice? Why did they not require that, on the 10th of April or the 20th of April, a satisfactory notice should be issued, warning every voter, that, unless his rates and taxes were paid by the 20th of July, he would not be entitled to vote? Why did they not direct that it should be! announced to every voter that upon application at a particular place he would be enabled to ascertain the amount which was due by him? He would have the notices issued, and served upon each individual voter, as soon as possible after the 6th of April. The voters would thus all be placed upon a footing of equality, and no chance would be left to overseers or collectors, however disposed, to act with partiality. But the noble Lord proposed to take a different course, and to extend the period of paying the taxes for six additional months. He was anxious that the House should observe the progress of the remission of those taxes, which had been deemed a fitting qualification for Parliamentary voters in 1832, when the Reform Bill passed. The house-tax and the window-tax then existed; and, with reference to the great majority of voters, he apprehended that scarcely any other of the assessed taxes was in force. Well, they had repealed the house tax in 1834, and in this respect they had materially altered the voter's qualification, the repeal of this tax having removed one of his restrictions. The window tax still remained, but diminished by nearly one-half in its amount. And if this were repealed, no assessed taxes would remain to be demanded of the majority of the voters. There would afterwards remain only the parochial rates, to the payment of which the voter was subjected in 1832. He would briefly exhibit the progress which had been made in the reduction of the parochial rates since the passing of the Reform Bill. In the year ending March, 1833, the amount of parochial rates paid in England and Wales for the relief of the poor and the incidental charges connected therewith was 8,739,881l. In 1837 the total amount was 7,511,219l., and in 1838, that is to say for the year beginning in March, 1837, it was only 4,808,000l. Thus, the poor-rates, which in 1833 amounted to 8,000,000l., amounted now to little more than half that sum; and the pecuniary qualification which attended the right of voting in 1832 having by the operation of Acts introduced since the passing of the Reform Bill been greatly reduced, the noble Lord now came forward with the concession of twenty additional weeks to the 10l. householders for the payment of their rates, the entire proposed period being that of six months. He confessed he thought that this in itself was a bad principle. The existing period of six weeks was, in his estimation, perfectly sufficient to enable any person of pecuniary ability to entitle himself to vote. And he thought he had abundantly shown, in the mode proposed by him, that no apprehension need be entertained of the elector losing his vote in consequence either of negligence or design on the part of the parochial authorities. On these grounds he opposed this measure, which he certainly did not think would be an improvement; but he opposed it the more particularly, in order that he might not appear by his silence to acquiesce in what appeared to him to be a perfectly unnecessary and prejudicial interference with the qualification for the exercise of the elective franchise, as established by our definitively arranged representative system.

Lord J. Russell

observed, that the first, and indeed the last, objection made by the right hon. Baronet to this Bill was that it was an alteration of the Reform Bill. He owned that it appeared to him that if they were to insist upon a pedantic adherence to every Bill that became law, they would not be acting for the general convenience or benefit of the country. This bill was objected to because it was an alteration of the Reform Bill. Now, according to the Reform Bill, the polling in cities and boroughs was to be taken in two days, and yet Parliament had since agreed that it should be taken in one day. Hon. Members seemed to have forgotten that that alteration had taken place. Another alteration had been made by Parliament in the Reform Bill respecting the polling-places; and when it was proposed in the other House of Parliament, it was only objected to that the power of altering them should be given to the magistrates of quarter sessions without the consent of the Crown. He could name another and more recent instance of proposed alteration. It was part of the provision of the Reform Bill that a fee of one shilling should be paid on registering. It was, however, said by hon. Members opposite, that that was an inconvenient provision for the voter, that it subjected him to annoyance, and that Parliament might dispense with it without parting with any real security. So far from objecting to the proposal, he (Lord J. Russell) added that a Bill might be introduced for the purpose of making that alteration. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, however, were so impatient, so discontented with the Reform Bill, that they were not satisfied with his assurance on the subject, and insisted upon dividing the House upon the question of placing that alteration in this Bill, in order that it might be carried into effect as speedily as possible. That being the case, the only difference that could exist between hon. Members opposite and himself was, as to the alterations it would be proper to make in the Reform Bill. The question was not whether it were right to make an alteration in a measure which had already been altered, and regarding which further alterations were proposed, but whether the one now proposed was an alteration which it would be proper and advise-able to adopt, and one which did not alter the main principle of the original measure. According to the Reform Act the rates and taxes ought to be paid by the voters of cities and boroughs; but did this Bill, he would ask, take away that provision? In the first year, the voter could not come forward and vote without being able to say that he had paid his taxes up to the 5th of April. In the second year, he would not be admitted to vote if he had not paid up his taxes to the 11th of October of the preceding year; so that on the first year of his admission to vote he must have paid up to the 5th of April, and on the second up to the 11th of October preceding. It could not surely be said that that man was insolvent or unable to pay his rates who complied with this regulation. And if not, the principle contained in the Reform Bill was preserved in this; while he thought that it only did what ought to be done—remove as much as possible a source of vexation and annoyance to the voter. Everybody knew that if these voters, by negligence, or absence, or some other cause, did not pay their rates at the exact period at which they were demanded, they would lose the exercise of their franchise for that year. That was an unreasonable degree of strictness, in which he conceived some relaxation might be made. There was no doubt that the original intention of the Reform Bill was to give the franchise to 10l. householders who could pay their rates and taxes, without reference to the time at which they should be paid. Therefore did he consider this Bill perfectly compatible with the principles of the Reform Bill. Even if it were carried, he did not say that there should be no other Bills in which certain provisions of the Reform Bill would be modified. He thought it an absurdity to say, that in the year 1832 they carried an act so widely different from all previous Acts, that no future experience or information they could obtain should induce them to alter a single provision of it, but preserve it in the exact form in which it was passed. Although he was prepared to maintain every great outline of the Reform Bill, yet, if he thought there was any change which would make its operation easier, or remove any annoyance to the voter, without disturbing the franchise as laid down in the Bill, he would not hesitate to propose it for the adoption of Parliament.

Mr. Goulburn

said, that although the noble Lord had taunted them with having proposed the repeal of the registry fee of 1s., he was sure there was no one in the House who would for a moment say, that the two propositions, theirs and that of the noble Lord, were in the slightest degree similar. He would argue the question precisely on the footing on which the noble Lord had put it. He told them, that the intention of the Reform Bill was, that a voter should have a holding of 10l. a-year, and that as a proof of his solvency he should be required to pay taxes. That was his understanding of the Reform Bill, and he was happy to say he was confirmed in it by the admission of the noble Lord. So long as the payment of taxes was required up to the 5th of April, they had a proof of the solvency of the party desiring to vote, because on the 5th of April the said party must have been a sufficiently long time in possession of the tenement to allow the taxes to accrue. But if the taxes were only to be paid up to the 11th of October, it appeared to him that there was no obligation on the part of the voter at the time of registering to pay a single tax. They would not, therefore, have any security of the solvency of persons claiming to vote for 10l. tenements, because at the period fixed by the noble Lord they would not be liable to pay any tax whatever. The provision in the Reform Bill was, that the tenant must occupy his tenement twelve months previous to the last day of July. A man entering a tenement on the 31st of July would not on the 11th of October following be in a situation to pay taxes for that quarter, because they could not be legitimately called for by the officers who collect the King's taxes half-yearly, in April and October. In October the tenant would not be six months in possession, and consequently not liable to pay taxes. As far as the King's taxes went, they would therefore lose the security which they afforded for the solvency of the tenant. Now with regard to the Poor-rates; he appealed to hon. Gentlemen if they were not levied after old Michaelmasday, when provision was to be made for the poor and the heavy payments required; so that the noble Lord would find that the tenant entering in July would not be liable to this rate in October. The effect of this Bill would, therefore, be to destroy altogether the test of solvency so far as the payment of the King's taxes and the Poor-rate secured it. It gave, besides, a facility of creating votes, not liable to this restriction, by putting persons into 10l. houses on the 31st of July, who would not have any taxes to pay in the following October. He begged of the noble Lord, who was so strenuous an advocate for this restriction, to frame the Bill in such a manner as to insure the payment of taxes at some time or other.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, that the argument of his right hon. Friend did not apply to this measure, because it provided, with respect to voters placed on the registry for the first time that their taxes should be paid up to the 5th of April. By that the Bill preserved the test of solvency. With regard to the provision for the payment of the taxes up to the 11th of October, it only applied to those who were now on the registry, or who should be hereafter placed upon it according to the regulation established by the Reform Act in the first instance of registry, which required the taxes to be paid up to April. If there were anything in the right hon. Gentleman's objection, it was singular that this provision should have been objected to by the hon. Member for Leeds, because it provided only a remedy for the grievances of parties either now on the register, or who might hereafter be placed there. With respect to the argument as to the repeal of the shilling, the right hon. Gentleman had applied it as if his noble Friend had drawn from it a deduction that hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to consent to this Bill, but his noble Friend had not so used it; he had only applied it as an answer to that unreserved declaration of fealty and allegiance to every part of the Reform Bill which the hon. Gentleman had avowed. Then there was, also, the proposal for the abolition of the stamp duty, on the admission of freemen to corporations, which hon. Members opposite were ready to support. Would any man tell him that that would not be a clear alteration of the franchise? But provided the franchise was only altered after the fashion of hon. Members opposite, in a way to suit their own favoured parties and constituencies, they were as ready to make that alteration as any hon. Member on that side of the House was to adopt the one proposed by the present measure. He would take that opportunity of staling in answer to the hon. Member for Galway, who had asked the question in his absence, that he had told that hon. Gentleman that he should be prepared to include in this bill a provision for the repeal of the stamp duty on the admission of freemen into the Irish corporations, but that, on consideration, he did not think it would be right to take the House by surprise in proposing an amendment of the kind on the third reading of the bill. On a future occasion, however, he or some other member of the Government, would be prepared to introduce a bill to carry that object into effect.

Colonel Sibthorp

would now take the same part he had taken on a former occasion, in reference to this measure. He admitted, that as far as regarded the freemen, the bill was a just one, but the noble Lord endeavoured to thwart that object by adding another to the bill—viz., the remission of the rates to the 10l. householders by which the noble Lord sacrificed his maintenance of the Reform Bill. The noble Lord was, therefore, attempting to make the bill a mere trap, by a pretended consideration towards the freemen. It was one of those horrible Ministerial tricks, one of those underhand measures, which the noble Lord was continually bringing forward. He would, therefore, oppose this measure, for, indeed, independent of his objections to it, he felt that he might conscientiously oppose any mea- sure, which emanated from a Government so corrupt, that in every measure they proposed, there was to be discovered some underhand work of this kind.

Sir W. Follett

wished to say a few words, in consequence of what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with whom his right hon. Friend (Mr. Goulburn) was at issue, in order that the House might understand the precise nature of the proposed alteration. He agreed that in order to entitle the 10l. householder to the been intended to be given, it was necessary that he should be once on the registry, and that consequently he must have paid taxes before he could vote. But if once upon the registry, he would never be again required to pay taxes due on the 5th of April, but only those due in the preceding October. That right would always remain to him, and the question was whether they ought to agree to it. The other part of the bill referred to the stamp duty upon freemens' admissions. He would vote against the bill, not because that duty was to be taken off, but because it was improperly introduced into this bill, and because he objected most distinctly to any alteration in the 10l. franchise. His objection to the proposed alteration, notwithstanding what had been said by the noble Lord, was, that it was the first step towards altering the franchise created by the Reform Bill. The alteration was not merely what was stated by the noble Lord. Was there no distinction between an alteration in that part of the Reform Bill which related to the mode of registry, the mode of taking the election, and the right of the election itself? As regarded the mode of registry and taking of elections, they had made alterations no doubt, and he hoped they would make others because he thought there were still in their system of registration, defects, which it was incumbent upon Parliament to remove. But it was not because they made alterations in the system of registration, and alterations of the number of polling places, and alterations in the number of days required to complete an election, or because they took away a fee of 1s. paid upon registering that, therefore, they were called upon to alter the elective franchise itself. They were told that the proposed alteration was a very small one, but his objection was, that it was an alteration at all. If they commenced by making small alterations of this sort, he did not know how they could ultimately stand upon the argument that the franchise was settled by the Reform Act, or adduce it against the proposition of the hon. Member for Finsbury, for dispensing altogether with the test that voters paid rates and taxes. The punctual payment of the rates was the test which had been adopted, and it was fixed as the proper criterion of solvency, and they could easily secure the necessity of payment against any annoyances, without such an alteration as abolishing the 5th of April as the day up to which the rates were to be discharged, and by throwing it back to the 1lth of October, and by thus making a substitution which would alter the franchise itself, and which was very different from merely increasing the number of polling places, or decreasing the days of poll. He objected, then, to this bill, because it was an alteration in substance of the franchise, and one standing on totally different grounds from any change in the polling places or mode of election. One word upon the freemen alluded to in this bill. They had conferred no franchise upon the freemen by the Reform Bill, because to the franchise given under it they had had a right before the Reform Bill. When the Reform Bill passed, the freemen entitled to admission were bound to pay for the purposes of creating a revenue, a stamp upon that admission. They had not only a right to vote at elections before that, but also a right under the Municipal Corporation Act, of which the Reform Bill deprived them. That bill took off from the householder a considerable portion of his taxes, and would they tell him that it was not fair to relieve the freemen from the payment of this stamp duty without at the same time altering the franchise? The two cases appeared to him to rest on totally different grounds, and he much regretted that they had been made to form portions of the same bill. The promoters of the measure, he felt satisfied, would experience disappointment if they expected to induce those who were averse from an alteration in the franchise, to vote in favour of that change for the sake of accomplishing that which would be a been to the freemen. He objected to the substance and principle of the proposed change, and his objection was so strong, that he would rather give up the intended advantage to the freemen than assent to any change in the electoral privileges created by the Reform Act.

The House divided on the original question:—Ayes 189; Noes 172: Majority 17.

List of the AYES.
Adam, Sir C Erle, W.
Aglionby, H. A. Evans, De Lacy
Ainsworth, P. Evans, W.
Anson, hon. Colonel Fenton, J.
Archbold, R. Ferguson, Sir R.
Baines, E. Fergusson, Sir R. A.
Bannerman, A. Fergusson, rt. hn. R. C.
Baring, F, T. Fitzalan, Lord
Barnard, E. G. Fitzroy, Lord C.
Barron, H. W. Fitzsimon, N.
Barry, G. S. Fort, J.
Beamish, F. B. Goring, H. D.
Belfast, Earl of Grattan, J.
Bellew, R. M. Grattan, H.
Berkeley, hon. C. Grey, Sir G.
Bernal, R. Grosvenor, Lord R.
Bewes, T. Grote, G.
Blackett, C. Hall, B.
Blake, M. J. Handley, H.
Blake, W. J. Harland, W. C.
Blewitt, R. J. Hawkins, J. H.
Bowes, J. Heneage, E.
Brabazon, Lord. Heron, Sir R.
Briscoe, J.I. Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.
Brotherton, J. Hobhouse, T. B.
Brownrigg, S. Howard, F. J.
Buller, C. Howard, P. H.
Buller, E. Hume, J.
Busfield, W. Humphery, J.
Byng, G. Hutton, R.
Callaghan, D. Kinnaird, hon. A. F.
Cave, R. O. Labouchere, rt. hn. H.
Cavendish, hon. G. H. Lambton, H.
Cayley, E. S. Langdale, hon. C.
Chalmers, P. Lefevre, C. S.
Chapman, Sir M. L. C. Lennox, Lord G.
Chester, H. Lennox, Lord A.
Chetwynd, Major Lister, E. C.
Chichester, J. P. Loch, J.
Clay, W. Lushington, C.
Clements, Viscount Macleod, R.
Clive, E. B. Macnamara, Major
Collier, J. Maher, J.
Collins, W. Mahoney, P.
Craig, W. G. Maule, W. H.
Crawford, W. Melgund, Visct.
Currie, R. Mildmay, P. St. J.
Dalrymple, Sir A. Milton, Visct.
Davies, Col. Morpeth, Visct.
Dennistoun, J. Murray, rt hn. J. A.
D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C. Nagle, Sir R.
Divett, E. O'Brien, W. S.
Duckworth, S. O'Callaghan, hon. C.
Duke, Sir J. O'Connell, J.
Duncan, Visct. O'Connell, M. J.
Duncombe, T. O'Conor, Don
Dundas, C. W. D. Paget, F.
Dundas, F. Parker, J.
Easthope, J. Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.
Ellice, Capt. A. Parrott, J.
Ellice, rt. hon. E. Pattison, J.
Elice, E. Pease, J.
Pechell, Captain Style, Sir C.
Pendarves, E. W. Talfourd, Sergeant
Philips, M. Tancred, H. W.
Ponsonby, hon. J. Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.
Power, J. Thornley, Thomas
Price, Sir R. Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Protheroe, E. Tufnell, H.
Pryme, G. Turner, E.
Redington, T. N. Turner, W.
Rice, E. R. Vigors, N. A.
Rice, right hon. T. S. Villiers, C. P.
Rich, Henry Vivian, J. H.
Rippon, C. Vivian, Sir R. H.
Roche, E. B. Wakley, T.
Roche, W. Wall, C. B.
Rolfe, Sir R. M. Warburton, H.
Russell, Lord J. Ward, H. G.
Salwey, Colonel Wemyss, J. E.
Sanford, E. A. Whalley, Sir S.
Seale, Colonel White, A.
Seymour, Lord White L.
Slaney, R. A. White S.
Smith, J. A. Wilbraham, J.
Smith, R. V. Williams, W.
Somerville, Sir W. M. Williams, W. A.
Speirs, A. Winnington, T. E.
Stanley, E. J. Winnington, H. J.
Stanley, W. O. Wood, G. W.
Stansfield, W. R. C. Worsley, Lord
Steuart, R. Wrightson, W. B.
Stewart, J. Yates, J. A.
Stuart, Lord J. TELLERS.
Stuart, V. Gordon, R.
Strickland, Sir G. Wood, C.
List of the NOES.
A'Court, Captain Canning, rt. hn. Sir S.
Adare, Viscount Castlereagh, Viscount
Alexander, Viscount Chaplin, Colonel
Alford, Viscount Chute, W. L. W.
Alsager, Capt. Clive, Viscount
Arbuthnot, hon. H. Clive, hon. R. H.
Ashley, Viscount Codrington, C. W.
Ashley, hon. H. Cole, hon. A.
Bagge, W. Cole, Viscount
Bagot, hon. W. Compton, H. C.
Bailey, J. jun. Conolly, E.
Baillie, Colonel Cooper, E. J.
Baker, E. Corry, hon. H.
Baling, hon. W. B. Courtenay, P.
Barneby, J. Darby, G.
Bateman, J. Darlington, Earl of
Bell, M. De Horsey, S. H.
Bentinck, Lord G. D'Israeli, B.
Bethell, R. Dottin, A. R.
Blackburne, I. Douglas, Sir C. E.
Blackstone, W. S. Dowdeswell, W.
Blair, James Dugdale, W. S.
Bradshaw, J. Duncombe, hon. A.
Bramston, T. W. East, J. B.
Broadley, H. Eastnor, Viscount
Bruce, Lord E. Egerton, W. T.
Bruges, W. H. Egerton, Sir P.
Buller, Sir J. Eliot, Lord
Burroughes, H. N. Estcourt, T. G. B.
Calcraft, J. Estcourt, T. H. S.
Campbell, Sir H. Farnham, E. B.
Feilden, W. Maunsell, T. P.
Fellowes, Edward Miles, W.
Fitzroy, hon. H. Miles, P. W. S.
Fleming, J. Miller, W. H.
Follett, Sir W. Mordaunt, Sir J.
Forbes, Wm. Neeld, J.
Forester, hon. G. Neeld, John
Freshfield, J. W. Northland, Viscount
Gaskell, Jas. Milnes Ossulston, Lord
Gladstone, W. E. Packe, C. W.
Glynne, Sir S. R. Pakington, J. S.
Goddard, A. Parker, M.
Gordon, hon. Capt. Parker, R. T.
Gore, O. J. R. Parker, T. A. W.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Patten, J. W.
Grimston, Viscount Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Hale, R. B. Peel, J.
Halford, H. Pemberton, T.
Harcourt, G. G. Perceval, Colonel
Hardinge, Sir H. Perceval, hon. G. J.
Herbert, hon. S. Planta, right hon. J.
Hill, Sir R. Powell, Colonel
Hillsborousgh, Earl of Praed, W. M.
Hinde, John H. Pringle, A.
Hodgson, F. Reid, Sir J. R.
Hodgson, R. Richards, R.
Hogg, J. W. Rolleston, L.
Holmes, hon. A'Court Rose, Sir G.
Hope, G. W. Round, C. G.
Hope, H. T. Round, J
Houstoun, G. Rushbrooke, Colonel
Hughes, W. B. Scarlett, hon. J. Y.
Hurt, F. Shaw, right hon. F.
Ingestrie, Viscount Shirley, E. J.
Irton, S. Sinclair, Sir G.
Irving, J. Somerset, Lord G.
Jackson, Sergeant Stanley, E.
Johnstone, H. Stewart, J.
Jones, J. Sturt, H. C.
Jones, W. Sugden, rt. hon. Sir E.
Kemble, H. Thompson, Alderman
Knight, H. G. Thornhill, G.
Knightley, Sir C. Trench, Sir F.
Lascelles, hon. W. S. Vere, Sir C. B.
Law, hon. C. E. Villiers, Viscount
Liddell, hon. H. T. Welby, G. E.
Litton, E. Wilbraham, hon. B.
Logan, H. Williams, R.
Lowther, L. Wodehouse, E.
Lowther, J. H. Wood, T.
Lucas, E. Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.
Lygon, General Young, J.
Mackenzie, T. Young, Sir W.
Mackinnon, W. A.
Maclean, D. TELLERS.
Maidstone, Viscount Baring, H. B.
Master, T. W. C. Fremantle, Sir T.

Bill read a third time and passed.