HC Deb 12 March 1838 vol 41 cc765-79
Lord John Russell

moved the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of Supply.

Mr. Hume

, in bringing forward the motion of which he had given notice relative to the appointment of Mr. Primrose as an amendment to the motion of the noble Lord, said, it appeared that a portion of the revenues of the Post-Office were applied to the payment of its officers, and that the House knew nothing of the appointments and salaries of these persons. The House would be surprised to hear that there was deducted from the revenue not less than 7,000,000l. a-year, of which no account was rendered to the House, and which, in fact, never was paid into the Exchequer. He need scarcely observe, that as well with respect to the Post-Office as to other departments of the public service, it was most important that all persons engaged in them should entertain a well-founded expectation of rising according to merit and seniority—that all public officers should be secured the advantages naturally and regularly arising from promotion within that establishment, as an encouragement to attention, and a recompense for faithful services. From the returns that morning placed in the hands of Members, it appeared that the appointment of Mr. Primrose took place under the authority of the Postmaster-General. Now, he conceived, that this course was exceedingly objectionable, and a gross violation of the regulations instituted by the Postmaster-General for the management of that establishment. According to the return to which he had just been calling the attention of the House, it appeared that the first clerk in the Edinburgh Post-office had been twenty-six years in the public service, and the second clerk had been fifteen years and a half—the third clerk had a salary of only 70l. a-year. Mr. Primrose had been appointed to the office of cashier, with a salary of 400l. a-year, without his having ever served a year in the establishment. He found that his clerk, Mr. George Young, who had served seven years, had only 120l.per annum; and Mr. Mason, the accountant, after thirty years' service, had only 200l. per annum. Certain regulations had been adopted by the Government in 1831 for the improvement of this department, and the report on the subject was signed by his Grace the Duke of Richmond, then Postmaster-General. That report established what was thought to be a fixed scale of promotion as to the officers of the establishment. But it stated, that the principal feature in the new establishment was the appointment of an office for the receipt of the public money, which had become necessary in consequence of the abolition of the office of Deputy Postmaster-General, who was also cashier; the salary was to be 400l. a-year, and he was to be allowed an assistant, with a salary sufficient to secure the services of a respectable person. It was due to his Grace the Duke of Richmond to say, that he steadily adhered to the regulations which he had laid down. In another part of his evidence, taken on the first of March, the noble Duke stated, that he had made arrangements by which the office of deputy in the country, when it became vacant, should not be filled out of the office; but that those persons only should be appointed to it who had been a long time in the department, or who were entitled to compensation. The object of this arrangement was to insure, not only economy in the public expenditure, but increased efficiency in the department. The noble Duke stated in his evidence, and no doubt very truly, that he had frequently refused friends and relatives of his own, who made application to him for situations as they became vacant in the Post-office, always strictly adhering to the rule which he had laid down, that no one should be introduced to the service of the Post-Office, otherwise than in the junior departments. On these grounds, then, he did not scruple to arraign the conduct of the present Postmaster-General, in reference to the appointment of Mr. Primrose, as a gross violation of the rules laid down for his guidance by his predecessor. With respect to the office of accountant-general, it appeared that the person who held that office, Mr. Young, had been compelled to retire from ill health, and that his nephew, Mr. G. Young, had performed the entire duty of the office for three years. He contended, that to appoint a person like Mr. Primrose, who had never been in the Post-office, or in fact in any public office over the head of the individual who had acted as deputy for such a length of time was a violation of the regulations of the Post-office, and rendered the situation of clerk uncertain as to promotion, which according to the Duke of Richmond', regulations, would have gone according to seniority. He objected to the conduct of Lord Lichfield, because it was extremely improper in him to appoint so near a relative, and the second son of at Earl, to so paltry a situation, where he superseded so many clerks, who had for many years served their country with honour and fidelity. He objected likewise to the appointment, because in no previous instance had a stranger been appointed to the office of cashier. The Duke of Richmond, when he recommended, that the salary should be fixed at a high amount, did by no means intend that it should form a source of patronage for the benefit of the junior members of noble families, but that it should be looked up to by the humble officer, as a reward for long and laborious services. There were no less than seven or eight meritorious public servants in the department, any one of whom it would have been but justice to have appointed to this office, in preference to Mr. Primrose. Upon the grounds he had stated, on the evidence of the Duke of Richmond, and the circumstances connected with the Edinburgh Post-office, he called upon the House to affirm the resolution with which he should conclude—"That the appointment of the hon. Mr. Primrose to the office of Cashier and Receiver-General of the Post-Office Revenues in Scotland, being a person no previously employed in the Post-Office department, is contrary to the regulations of the Post-Office, as established by the Duke of Richmond, the Postmaster-General, in 1831, injurious to the public service, and prejudicial to the interests o the established clerks and officers in the Post-Office department."

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

rejoiced, that this matter had at length been brought forward, and in such a manner by the hon. Gentleman who had borne such favourable testimony to the admirable administration of the Post-Office under his noble Friend, the Duke of Richmond. The hon. Gentleman was entirely under misconception with respect to the main facts on which he rested his argument. It was admitted the office to which Mr. Primrose had been appointed was no sinecure. Security was required to the extent of 5,000l., and the cashier was obliged to be ill attendance from ten o'clock until three or four. The office was created under a letter written by the Duke of Richmond to the Treasury in 1831, on the abolition of another office—the Deputy Postmaster-General of Scotland—almost a sinecure of 800l. a-year. The office of cashier could not be dispensed with; it was then made efficient for the public service. There was the authority of the Duke of Richmond, therefore, both for the creation of the office itself and for the amount of salary paid. The hon. Gentleman had raised no objection to the appointment of Mr. Primrose on the score of propriety or competency, but rested his case solely on the Duke of Richmond's regulation, which had been violated, and on the prejudice which he thought would result to the interests of the established clerks and officers in the Post-office. But no direct regulation had ever been entered into by the Duke of Richmond on this subject his intentions, however, were to be collected from the evidence which the hon. Gentleman had read, and more especially from the acts of the noble Duke himself. But the evidence cited by the hon. Member was wholly inapplicable to the present case; indeed, the conduct of the noble Duke in an analogous appointment distinctly showed, that evidence would not bear out the argument of his hon. Friend. While the Duke of Richmond was at the Post-office there were several vacancies in the offices to which the evidence referred, and to which deserving clerks were to be appointed. The offices of Bath, Bristol, Norwich, Warrington, and Nottingham, were filled up in that way. Even in the town of Brighton, when a vacancy had occurred, and when it might have been expected he would have followed another line, so far from making an appointment in favour of his own friends, the noble Duke appointed on the principle laid down in his evidence. No man ever showed more self-denial in the exercise of his patronage than the Duke of Richmond; his sole object, in all cases, was to select individuals from the department who were most deserving of reward and best calculated for the duty. But that rule did not apply to this appointment; and he would show by the Duke of Richmond's own conduct in an analogous case that the rule was not intended to apply. There were three situations in the United Kingdom—in England the Receiver-General; in Ireland the Receiver-General; and in Scotland the Cashier; the holders of which were to act as a check on the department. In 1831 a vacancy occurred in the office of Receiver-General in Ireland, and if the principle contained in the evidence of the noble Duke had applied to such a case, it must have been filled up by the clerk next in seniority. But it was not filled up from the department, because it was necessary to have a check officer; and upon the suggestion of Lord Althorp, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and at the recommendation of the Irish Government of Lord Anglesey, Mr. Worthington, a complete stranger to the office, was appointed. Such was the construction which the noble Duke himself had put upon his evidence—strictly adhering to his regulation in all cases to which it was applicable, but departing from it where check officers were to be appointed. In like manner, when the office of Receiver-General in England had become vacant, it was not filled up by promotion from the Post-office, but by the appointment of a Mr. Young, wholly unconnected with the Post-office. In the present instance Lord Lichfield, finding the office had been declined by Mr. Mason, the next in succession, had appointed Mr. Primrose. Of the other officers in the establishment one had been so long in the public office that he was applying for a superannuation, and another received 500l. a-year, to whom, therefore, it would have been preposterous to have offered such an appointment. It was not in all cases that the Government attended to the principle of promotion; sometimes it was obliged to adopt the principle of selection. He showed that this had been the case by the selection of Colonel Stuart in the War-office, of Mr. Backhouse in the Foreign-office, of Mr. Stephen in the Colonial-offices, and of other gentlemen in the Treasury and in the Excise. In all these departments, the officers, who had to exercise a check over the accounts, were not taken from the ordinary clerks belonging to the offices, but were selected from persons unconnected with them, distinguished for their talent, integrity, and high character. The present arrangement was not only economical, but also the most convenient for the public service, and that it was therefore impossible he thought for the House to take the step recommended by the hon. Member for Kilkenny. He likewise hoped that he had satisfied the hon. Member that his noble Friend, Lord Lichfield, had not grasped, as he was pleased to call it, at this piece of patronage. With respect to different systems of conveying remittances, all he could say was, that the subject had undergone inquiry, and the result was, that Lord Lichfield found any alteration would cost more than the present system, and, besides that, no other plan would be so convenient or practicable. On the whole, he trusted that the House would go with him in thinking that there were some offices of which the possession should not be obtained by seniority; for if all offices were to be so obtained, the Crown would be deprived of the opportunity of disposing of its patronage for the public advantage.

Mr. Wallace

dissented from almost all that had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and could not assent to much of what his hon. Friend, the Member for Kilkenny, had stated. He must say, he thought the office in question had not been properly bestowed. At the time the Duke of Richmond gave the evidence alluded to, he had but recently entered office, and, therefore, could not have a sufficient knowledge of the business of the department over which he presided. He, therefore, laid very little stress on the testimony which the noble Duke gave. It could not he denied that the office of Postmaster General was a job, and for his own part he did not hesitate to say, that this appointment of cashier was a still greater job. If such an office ought to exist, were there not plenty of men in the department not only fully equal to the performance of the duty, but as well deserving of the situation as Mr. Primrose. It was, he thought, clear, that the Duke of Richmond meant to act on the principle of promoting well deserving officers to the vacancies as they occurred in the department, and any one who read his evidence attentively could arrive at no other conclusion. There was at present an accountant in the Post-office in Scotland. That was a check officer, and therefore if the appointment were to be made at all he was the party to whom it should have been given. He asserted that if the Postmaster-General had discharged his duty properly he would have looked through the department generally, whether in England, Ireland, or Scotland, to see if he could not find some fit and proper person for the office, rather than nominate a stranger to it. With respect to what the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said as to the economy of remitting money under the present system, what was it that the right hon. Gentleman wished the House to believe? Why, neither more nor less than that it was cheaper to forward remittances by a circuitous than a direct route. Both the Excise and the Customs forwarded their remittances direct to London, and for his part he could see no good reason why their example should not be followed in the Post-office. When the office of cashier was first created, the Duke of Richmond had but just been inducted into office. It had been said, that these appointments were never made without consultation with the Treasury; but if that were so, how did it happen that neither the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor any other Minister connected with the Treasury was acquainted with this appointment? Mr. Young had filled the office at a salary of 400l. and the party who had done the duty since his illness received only 120l.; and yet, when the country were crying aloud for a reduced rate of postage, an increase in the expenditure of 400l. was made. Now was this commonly fair? This was an appointment which was to continue for life, and the gentleman who had been appointed was at present only twenty-four years of age. He wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in case in the course of a few years this office should be found to be of no use, the individual holding it would on the office being abolished have a compensation allowance? He had been informed that this office had been filled by deputy for a considerable time, with a view to keep the appointment open for this individual, and, notwithstanding all the reliance that had been placed on the authority of the Duke of Richmond, even when that noble Duke was in office he appointed his own brother (Lord Sussex Lennox) to be Postmaster-general of Jamaica. He would support the motion.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, in reply to the question of the hon. Mem- ber for Greenock, that if the office was abolished, this gentleman would not be entitled to compensation. He would not be entitled to a retiring allowance until he had been for at least ten years in the service.

Colonel Sibthorp

said, that if the hon. Member for Kilkenny divided the House, he should feel bound to support his motion. The hon. Member had said, that he would prefer having the management of the Post-office placed in Commission, but to that he (Colonel Sibthorp) was opposed, because he agreed in the opinion that a Commission would only open the door to an increase of jobbing. The right hon. Gentleman who had addressed the House on the part of the Government had given no satisfactory explanation. Their whole system was one of jobbing, and they applied the patronage of the Crown with a view to the increase of their own power. The clerkship of the Ordnance had been kept open, waiting for the highest bidder; waiting for whoever would give the most service in return. The whole system was one which any man ought to be ashamed to defend. He hoped the hon. Member would take the sense of the House upon the present motion.

Colonel Anson

was afraid that those who brought forward this motion were as much influenced by personal as by political feelings. The hon. Member for Kilkenny was guilty of many mistakes with respect to this appointment. He was quite mistaken in stating the place to be a sinecure; but though the hon. Member in one part of his speech did state it to be a sinecure, in another, he gave a description of the duties to be performed. The hon. Member for Greenock had made a statement, to which he was surprised how he could have given credit, namely, that this situation had been filled by a deputy to keep it open for its present occupant. This was a statement too ridiculous to merit reflection and he was surprised how any one could be imposed on by it. However, he could say, that it was totally unfounded. Though this situation was described as of no importance, such was by no means the fact, and he would direct the attention of the House upon that point to what was stated in the report of the Commissioners of revenue inquiry, and which had already been referred to. The Duke of Richmond thought the situation so important that in 1834 he separated the duties, and made this a distinct office. He did not deny but that a junior officer in a public department might naturally look forward to promotion to higher offices, but it could not be disputed but that circumstances might often arise which would make it more beneficial to the service that this rule should not be adhered to. He claimed for the head of every department the right of appointing those individuals whom he thought to be most fit and best able to perform its duties. There were receivers-general appointed in England and in Ireland, and if either of those offices became vacant, the Postmaster-General would not be consulted as to the filling them up; for these offices would be filled up by the Government without the interference of the Postmaster-General. He thought that Lord Lichfield was perfectly justified in the appointment he had made. He had hitherto spoken of the principle of the appointment; he would have spoken of the individual appointed. But, with respect to this appointment, before it was made, Lord Lichfield offered the situation to Mr. Mole and to Mr. Mason, of the General Post-office. Mr. Mole would not accept it because he was in the receipt of 500l. salary, and because it was necessary that he should give security, to the amount of 5,000l. Mr. Mason refused it because he enjoyed a salary of 300l., and he did not think it worth while to go to the trouble of getting security to the amount required. There were only two others who had applied for the situation—one a postmaster, who certainly possessed considerable claims, and the other a junior clerk, who had been only appointed a year before, and whose ambition suggested to him that if he could get the appointment he might ultimately become one of the Commissioners for the management of the Post-office itself. Undoubtedly he thought that this was a situation which should be filled by a person for whose integrity the public had sufficient guarantee, and who was of some rank in life, and on whom dependence could be placed. He was surprised at the personal objection made to Mr. Primrose. He was a young man who had been bred up to the law, and who was likely to have a sufficient knowledge of business to enable him to fill the situation with advantage. In his mind, if anything could be said with respect to the payment of the situation, it was rather underpaid than overpaid. But if a different course had been pursued, and Mr. Mole or Mr. Mason appointed, there would still have been objections: they would hear it said that appointing this individual was keeping up the old official system, and that instead of promoting these old officials fresh matter ought to be infused. He thought neither with respect to the principle nor the individual was the appointment objectionable.

Sir J. Graham

had come down to the House with no determination to take part in the discussion; but he could not agree with the hon. Member who had just sat down in his censure of the hon. Member for Kilkenny for having brought forward his motion. The hon. Member for Stafford had said, that personal feeling was mixed up with this question. If it was his misfortune to be opposed to this appointment he supposed he should be accused of personal malignity. The noble Lord, the Postmaster-General, was an old friend of his, with whom be was intimately acquainted, and the noble Lord the father of the gentleman appointed to the situation in question was also a friend of his; but, notwithstanding, if a sense of duty obliged him to condemn the appointment, he would not shrink from doing so. He had come down to the House doubtful as to the question, thinking that there was something that required to be cleared up, and having listened to the discussion he found it his duty not to concur in the motion of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, for he could not honestly affirm its statements. The resolution stated that the appointment had been made contrary to the regulations of the public service. Now he knew no such regulations which could have effect unless they received the sanction of the Crown. New appointments had been alluded to as having been made by his noble Friend, the Duke of Richmond. The first appointment was that of Receiver-general in Ireland, and the next that of Postmaster-general in Jamaica. Now, with respect to the first appointment, when a vacancy occurred the right to fill the vacancy was generally exercised by the Irish Government. With respect to the Post-office of Jamaica, the situation of Postmaster-General having become vacant, it was offered by the Duke of Richmond to four or five individuals, but those individuals not being able to procure the necessary security of 10,000l., the situation was given, with the consent of the Treasury, to the brother of the noble Duke, Lord Sussex Lennox, on his finding the necessary security. He was not about to pronounce any encomium on the Duke of Richmond, but he believed it would be admitted on all hands that his noble Friend had discharged the duties of his high office with fidelity, zeal, and honour, and with the utmost regard to the interests of the public service. With respect to the appointment in question he did not think it came within the rule laid down by the Duke of Richmond. Lord Althorp had said, that the first measure of the Duke of Richmond's was, when country post offices of sufficient value became vacant they should be given to retired officers of the Post-office, in lieu of superannuation allowances. However, that limitation was confined to country post offices. Motions, like the present, calculated to wound personal feeling, were not the best means of bringing under the notice of the house of Commons any violation of the proper dispensation of the patronage of the Crown. He felt, that the natural tendency of growing power was to augment itself wherever an opportunity offered. Let the question be brought forward in a general manner. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had acted somewhat boldly in referring to cases of a similar nature. If he mistook not, he believed it to be a fact that Mr. Hay had been compelled to retire from the Colonial-office upon a compensation allowance, in order to make way for Mr. Stephen, and that a vacancy was created at the Board of Trade to which Mr. Le Marchant was appointed. He thought the hon. Member for Kilkenny was usefully employed in applying his attention to subjects of this nature. And if, instead of attempting high flights upon questions of colonial policy, he would be content to skim along the mud of official proceedings he would, in calling the attention to such subjects, be usefully employed. Let the hon. Member for Kilkenny give the House an opportunity to ascertain how far her Majesty's Government had carried into effect the promise of Lord Althorp that the reign of patronage was at an end. If the hon. Member afforded that opportunity he trusted he would be able to show that there never was a Government in England which exercised the patronage of the Crown with a more direct and exclusive view to the augmentation of their own political power than the right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. F. Baring

The right hon. Baronet had dealt so fairly with the general question that it was not his intention to trouble the House, but the right hon. Baronet could not sit down without an attack on those valued friends of his of whom he had spoken so kindly. To the attack which the right hon. Baronet had threatened he could only say, that whenever he brought the question before the House he would be ready to meet him, and to rest the defence of the Government either on their own conduct or on a comparison with the conduct of other Governments, whichever way the right hon. Baronet chose to take it. He hoped, however, the right hon. Baronet would be more accurate in his facts than he was with respect to the cases the right hon. Baronet had alluded to. With respect to Mr. Hay, that case had already been discussed in the House, and the right hon. Baronet appeared to forget that the superannuation granted was in the nature of a pension, granted by the Government which had preceded the Ministers in office. He thought the right hon. Baronet had been long enough in office to know, that a gentleman of the name of Lack had, at the termination of fifty years' service, applied for the retired allowance, and that Mr. Le Marchant had been appointed to succeed him.

Mr. P. Thomson

said, that as he was responsible for the appointment alluded to, he begged leave to explain how it was that Mr. Le Marchant came to the Board of Trade. Mr. Stephens had received a salary of 500l. a year as counsel to the Board; and when Mr. Lack, after fifty years' service, applied for superannuation, it occurred to him (Mr. Thomson) that the salary received by Mr. Stephens might be saved by appointing a member of the legal profession Under-Secretary to the Board. It was for this reason that Mr. Le Marchant was appointed.

Mr. Hume

, in reply, begged to disclaim any motives of a personal nature, but he should certainly divide the House on his motion.

The House divided on the original motion:—Ayes 202; Noes 29: Majority 173.

List of the AYES.
Acheson, Viscount Filmer, Sir E.
Acland, T. D. Finch, F.
Adam, Admiral Fitzsimon, N.
Anson, hon. Colonel Fort, J.
Archbold, R. Freshfield, J. W.
Bailey, J., jun. Gibson, T.
Baines, E. Gordon, R.
Ball, N. Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.
Baring, F. T. Grattan, J.
Barnard, E. G. Grattan, H.
Barron, H. W. Grey, Sir C. E.
Barry, G. S. Grey, Sir G.
Beamish, F. B. Hall, B.
Bellew, R. M. Hawkins, J. H.
Benett, J. Hayter, W. G.
Bentinck, Lord G. Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.
Bentinck, Lord W. Hobhouse, T. B.
Bernal, R. Hodges, T. L.
Bewes, T. Hoskins, K.
Blair, J. Houldsworth, T.
Blennerhassett, A. Houstoun, G.
Blewitt, R. J. Howard, F. J.
Bolling, W. Howard, P. H.
Briscoe, J. I. Howick, Viscount
Broadwood, H. Hughes, W. B.
Brocklehurst, J. Hurt, F.
Brotherton, J. Hutton, R.
Brownrigg, S. James, W.
Bryan, G. Jephson, C. D. O.
Buller, C. Johnstone, H.
Buller, E. Jones, I.
Burroughes, H. N. Kemble, H.
Busfield, W. Kinnaird, hon. A. F.
Butler, hon. Colonel Kirk, P.
Byng, G. Labouchere, rt. hn. H.
Byng, right hon. G. S. Lambton, H.
Callaghan, D. Langdale, hon. C.
Campbell, Sir J. Lefevre, C. S.
Canning, rt. hon. Sir S. Lennox, Lord A.
Carnac, Sir J. R. Leveson, Lord
Cavendish, hon. C. Loch, J.
Cavendish, hon. G. H. Lockhart, A. M.
Chapman, A. Logan, H.
Chute, W. L. W. Lushington, Dr.
Collier, J. Macnamara, Major
Conolly, E. Marshall, W.
Courtenay, P. Maule, hon. F.
Craig, W. G. Melgund, Viscount
Curry, W. Mildmay, P. St. J.
De Horsey, S. H. Morpeth, Viscount
Divett, E. Morris, D.
Douglas, Sir C. E. Murray, rt. hon. J. A.
Duckworth, S. Nagle, Sir R.
Duff, J. Nicholl, J.
Duncombe, T. O'Connell, M. J.
Dundas, C. W. D. O'Connell, M.
Dundas, F. O'Conor Don
Dunlop, J. O'Ferrall, R. M.
Eliot, Hon. J. Paget, Lord A.
Evans, W. Pakington, J. S.
Feilden, W. Palmerston, Viscount
Fellowes, E. Parker, J.
Fenton, J. Parker, R. T.
Ferguson, R. Parnell, rt. hon. Sir H.
Fergusson, rt. hn. R. C. Parrott, J. J.
Pease, J. Speirs, A.
Peel, rt. hon. Sir R. Stanley, Lord
Pendarves, E. W. W. Stanley, W. O.
Philips, Sir R. Stansfield, W. R. C.
Philips, M. Stuart, Lord J.
Philips, G. R. Stuart, V.
Pinney, W. Strickland, Sir G.
Plumptre, J. P. Strutt, E.
Poulter, J. S. Style, Sir C.
Power, J. Surrey, Earl of
Power, J. Talbot, C. R. M.
Price, Sir R. Talbot, J. H.
Protheroe, E. Thomson, rt. hon. C. P.
Pusey, P. Tollemache, F. J.
Rice, rt. hon. T. S. Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Rich, H. Verney, Sir H.
Richards, R. Vivian, Major C.
Roche, W. Vivian, J. H.
Roche, D. Vivian, J. E.
Rolfe, Sir R. M. Vivian, rt. hon. Sir H.
Rolleston, L. Walker, R.
Round, C. G. Westenra, hon. J. C.
Rundle, J. White, A.
Russell, Lord J. White, S.
Salwey, Colonel Wilbraham, G.
Sanford, E. A. Williams, W. A.
Scarlett, hon. J. Y. Wilshere, W.
Seymour, Lord Winnington, T. E.
Sharpe, General Wood, C.
Sheil, R. L. Wood, G. W.
Shelburne, Earl of Wood, T.
Sheppard, T. Woulfe, Sergeant
Shirley, E. J. Wrightson, W. B.
Sinclair, Sir G. Yates, J.
Smith, J. A. TELLERS.
Smith, R. V. Steuart, R.
Somerville, Sir W. M. Stanley, E. J.
List of the NOES.
Aglionby, Major Hotham, Lord
Bagge, W. Knightley, Sir C.
Blackstone, W. S. Mackenzie, W. F.
Brabazon, Sir W. Marsland, H.
Chandos, Marquess of Maunsell, T. P.
Colquhoun, J. C. Round, J.
Dalrymple, Sir A. Rushbrooke, Colonel
Dick, Q. Sibthorp, Colonel
Duncombe, hon. A. Stanley, E.
Fielden, J. Wakley, T.
Fitzroy, hon. H. Warburton, H.
Grimsditch, T. White, L
Grote, G. Williams, W.
Hale, R. B. TELLERS.
Hinde, J. H. Hume, J.
Hodgson, R. Wallace, R.