§ SIR J. HANMER rose to move the Second Reading of the Borough Elections Bill (No. 2). He had been impelled by a sense of duty to bring forward this measure, in consequence of the several cases that had recently come before the House of corrupt practices in connexion with borough elections. To some of those cases he had called the attention of the House, as they had arisen. He alluded to the cases of Horsham, Harwich, Derby, and others. It was in consequence of a pledge he had given in reference to the case of Derby that he had brought forward this measure. It was not a wholly new measure, as far as its principle was concerned. He had framed it on such precedents as the records of Parliament afforded. The precedent he had chiefly followed was the course taken by Parliament in the case of Sudbury, in which, however, he had made some alterations strictly analogous to the object. This was a Bill for inquiry. Parliament would not part with any portion of its discretion; the measure was merely one which authorised inquiry when seats were declared vacant through corruption. It was drawn up in accordance with the experience of the House on these matters; and there was therefore little necessity for speaking at any great length upon its provisions. But he had been asked why it was that he stirred in this affair; why it was that he, who had always disliked, and he hoped should ever continue to dislike organic changes, should have undertaken the proposal of such a measure as this? As 1183 far as he was concerned, he had no intention to forward such changes; for he thought it was just and right to rest upon great settlements. He believed that it was to a disposition on the part of the people of this country not to disturb great and memorable settlements, that we owed no small portion of our security and prosperity. He had been asked why it was that he, entertaining such opinions, should have at such a time as the present called the attention of the House to imperfections which some said were inevitable and appeared to be inherent in human nature? He begged leave to say that, in 1842, when the noble Lord brought forward that most efficient and excellent Bill, of which he considered this to be absolutely and entirely the supplement (for it conflicted with it in no way whatever), Parliament did not say that the proposal of such a measure was contrary to the understanding entered into at the great settlement when the Reform Bill was passed—Parliament did not then say that the proposal of a measure the better to prevent bribery and corruption at elections, was contrary to the spirit of their previous legislation on Parliamentary Reform. And there was nothing peculiar in circumstances at home, whatever might be the condition of affairs in other parts of the world, to prevent them from considering that it was just and wise to legislate upon the subject. He did not think that Parliament could wisely delay the consideration of this matter. In the preamble of the Bill brought in by the noble Lord in 1842, it was asserted that bribery and corrupt practices at elections had become notorious. Now that was immediately after a contested election of a very peculiar character. There had just been a great party contest, perhaps the most serious that had ever been engaged in by any Member of that House. Upon that occasion two questions were involved, viz., "who shall be Minister?" and "what shall be the policy of the country?" Everything that could stimulate the ambition of men aspiring to legislate for their country was involved in that contest. But at the election which took place in 1847 there were no such stimulating circumstances, there was no such party contest. Indeed, there was no such party contest at all, for parties had disappeared. The country was in a calm and reasonable mood. If there was any party spirit whatever, it rather related to what might be the germ of future combinations than to what was then dis- 1184 tinctly formed. One would have supposed that, under such circumstances, there would have been little corruption, especially after the passing of the Bill of 1842, as it had attracted considerable attention. He happened to represent a very widely-scattered constituency, and as he had to employ agents (the locality which he represented extending over fifty miles), he went to the office for the sale of Parliamentary papers, and purchased the last six copies of that Act, and forwarded them to his agents with an intimation that it contained the whole of the instructions with respect to any future Parliamentary election. If hon. Members went into the library of the House and opened any of the Statute-books of 1842, they would find them open at the very place in which that Act was printed; at least, every time he had taken them in his hand, he found that to be the case. It would therefore be seen that that Act did not pass without attracting a great deal of attention in the House, and throughout the country; and one might have supposed that bribery would not thereafter be notorious; that, in fact, a great reformation would be the result. But he was sorry to say, that no knowledge that he possessed would warrant him in coming to that conclusion. He thought, then, that a great necessity existed for taking effective steps to remedy the present corruption. To remedy that, he did not come forward and say, "You must have an extension of the suffrage;" he did not come forward and say, "Unless you make certain constitutional changes, you will never get rid of corruption;" but he did come forward and dwell upon that which was undoubtedly his opinion, that without altering the franchise at all, they might make very considerable reform. Without dwelling upon that, or upon any steps which Parliament might think proper to take, he called upon them to establish, by dint of this Bill, founded upon precedent, a clear and satisfactory mode of progressive improvement. He asked them to inquire, when a just occasion might arise, into the state of Parliamentary constituencies. He asked them not to commit the great practical absurdity of placing the greatest trust which citizens could possess, without the smallest inquiry, in the hands of persons with respect to whom they had had clear proof laid before them that they had made a very bad exercise of it. He asked them to do that which was practised for many ages in this country before the 1185 revolution; for it was for a long time the practice of the Crown, and not the Parliament, to inquire into the state of boroughs and their conduct at elections. Some Gentlemen, perhaps, would say, "After all, public opinion has become clearer, more enlightened, and sounder upon this subject: and you may safely trust Parliamentary elections to the influence of that sound public opinion; you will be able to put down corruption without any further legislation." He entertained, and upon good grounds, a directly contrary opinion. He was quite certain, that unless they administered to "the enlightened and respectable inhabitants," of whom some people talked, the stimulus of a new law, and reminded them, by some regular enactment, of the duties which they had to perform, they would not be able to drive away corruption from Parliamentary elections. The people must be assured that there was no possibility of their escaping from certain punishment for corrupt practices, else their corruption would continue in full force. He did not deny that there was in these times a sound and enlightened public opinion. He admitted that there were a great many inhabitants in boroughs who did honestly and sincerely give their votes upon one side or the other, as they thought proper, and according to their views of public duty, and their confidence in public men. But then they would shrug their shoulders and say, "We cannot help ourselves, there is a certain class of voters of whom we cannot get rid; they are ready at any time to turn the election; and their demands must be complied with." Some candidates might, no doubt, be able to escape the net of corruption; but, with regard to the great majority of constituencies, he might assert generally that it was impossible to escape from it. Why, let them only consider the case of Mr. Strutt, of Derby. Did any man suppose that if such a Bill as this had passed before the last election in 1847, the friends of Mr. Strutt would have been compelled to commit the indiscretion which had forfeited his seat? He did not wish to bring before the House the evidence adduced in any particular case; the proper time to do so would be when the Bill had been allowed to go into Committee. But he could not help cursorily noticing a return made for Lincoln. A gentleman who, by dint of great energy and industry, had raised himself to a position which justified his aspiring to represent the city in which he dwelt, was re- 1186 turned to the present Parliament as a colleague of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, the Member for Lincoln (Colonel Sibthorp). He appeared to him to be a Gentleman in every way qualified to fulfil the important duties which that position devolved upon him. But it appeared upon examination before the Committee appointed to inquire into the validity of his return, that he (Mr. Seeley) was guilty of bribery. His partner in trade was examined, and he frankly stated to the Committee that it was impossible to have been returned otherwise than by bribery and treating; that such was the whole system of election at Lincoln. There was another case, that of Bewdley, which also exhibited in clear colours the present system of bribery and corruption. It appeared that, at the last two elections, bribery and treating were carried on to an enormous extent; bills for thousands and thousands of gallons of ale, at every public-house in the borough, were laid before the Committee. Every public-house was opened; voters were forcibly carried away; and rioting was carried on to a serious extent. The various candidates appeared to have made arrangements previous to the election as to the disposal of armies of navigators, to render them aid in "carrying the day." He could not then imagine how any Member in that House could think of opposing further legislation upon this subject. He was sure it was the interest of every one in that House to pass a measure having a tendency to put down such disgraceful scenes as those to which he had slightly referred. He could safely state that he could produce evidence for the purpose of proving that the return of many of the most honoured names in that House would not have been worth four days' purchase, if inquiry had been made into the conduct at their elections; their compulsory vicarious compliance with the prevailing system of corruption must at once have ejected them from the House had their returns been opposed. It was the personal interest, then, of every man, be his political opinions what they might, to join in putting an end to the present state of things. He would not detain the house further. He asked the House to affirm the principle of this Bill, which rested entirely upon precedent, and which he had brought forward not on any private grounds, but merely from a sense of public duty. Should the House consent to the second reading of the Bill, he should be very 1187 happy, in Committee, to give the most careful and respectful attention to any suggestion that might be made for its improvement by any hon. Member.
§
COLONEL SIBTHORP opposed the Motion. Lincoln cathedral had been attacked in that House the other night, and Lincoln city was to be attacked that night. But one humble representative of that city stood before the House and the country, fearless of whatever charges might be made against him as the representative of the city, and equally fearless of any charge that might be made against that Church. The hon. Member who brought forward this Bill was formerly Member for Hull. Why the hon. Member was so no longer he would not say. The hon. Gentleman had, however, addressed the Hull constituency as a Conservative candidate, promising to protect their vested interests, and never to be backward in giving an explanation of his Parliamentary conduct. The hon. Member never went there again. The hon. Member had also represented Shrewsbury. He had not gone there again, perhaps for the very same cause. He was now the representative of the Flint boroughs; and it was to be hoped that the result would be as satisfactory to his constituents as to the hon. Gentleman himself. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had given way to the hon. Member; why, he (Colonel Sibthorp) knew not, unless it was that the noble Lord's own election proceedings had raised a fellow feeling on his part. The noble Lord had, during his Parliamentary career, represented Tavistock four times, Devonshire, Huntingdonshire, Bandon Bridge and Stroud once each, and the city of London twice, and as it was said, similes similibus gaudent. This similarity perhaps influenced the noble Lord in giving way on this occasion. ["Question!"] The hon. Gentleman who called "Question," was in a similar position himself, and the subject was therefore disagreeable to him. But for his own part he could say—
Let the galled jade wince, My withers are unwrung.
Under this Bill it was intended to appoint Commissioners, who were, no doubt, as usual, to be paid, and paid very extravagantly; and, as he was reminded by an hon. Friend near him, they were to get travelling expenses in addition. A man who left his business to vote could not get sixpence for expenses without being accused of bribery; while these Commis-
1188
sioners would have their five guineas a day and expenses. They would, no doubt, be appointed at the recommendation of the hon. Member himself. As far as he was concerned, he did not care how soon one of these Commissioners went to any of the respectable firms who held his books, and who acted as his agents, or to any of the labouring men in his neighbourhood; they would find that he never bribed, and never would bribe. He might perhaps receive a visit from one of these gentlemen at his own house; but if he did, he hoped that he would act as any man of British spirit would act, and kick him out. He was never guilty of bribery, but he paid the legal expenses of his elections, and he hoped that the hon. Member could say the same. He wished to know why the Government had not themselves brought forward a measure for checking bribery. He believed, however, that they had come to an understanding with the hon. Member. When a man changed from one side to the other — when a professed Conservative, aye, and a member of the Conservative Club, left his party without any justifiable cause, as far as he Colonel Sibthorp) could see—he could not help suspecting such a man of being not very settled in his opinions and views. He wanted to know what was the necessity for this proposed inquiry? What were the expectations of the hon. Member in bringing forward this measure? He would not say that the hon. Baronet expected a commissionership for himself; bnt did he not expect one for some relative, or friend, or supporter? As he thought it best to take the most direct mode of opposing the progress of so objectionable a measure, he should beg to move as an Amendment that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, believing as he did, that it was an absurd, ridiculous, and inquisitorial measure, and one that ought never to be allowed to pass through any House of Commons.
§ MR. R. C. HILDYARD said, he should not have trespassed upon the House if he had not heard the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Hanmer) say that he had based this Bill upon a principle recognised by that House. But he thought that the House in these cases did not act without having a special report from the Committee; and he found that, in the case of Sudbury, the Committee had reported that gross and systematic bribery had existed there, and recommended that a Bill should be brought in for the disfranchisement of the borough, 1189 and that in the meantime no writ should be issued. That report had been approved by the House; and consequently Sudbury had been, in his opinion, most properly disfranchised. But what had the hon. Member (Sir J. Hanmer) proposed? In the first place, he dealt with five or six boroughs—[An Hon. MEMBER: Nine]—the number was of no importance—not one of which had been recommended by the Committee to be disfranchised. That was a broad distinction between the practice of the House and the principle involved in the Bill of the hon. Member; and there was, moreover, a clause in the Bill which gave it a prospective operation, as to all boroughs in which a Committee should report that corrupt practices existed, whether that report contained a recommendation of disfranchisement or not. If a Committee reported that there was reason to believe that systematic corruption existed in a borough, such a special report would justify the House in investigating the subject, and in punishing those who had been guilty of the practices; and if any corrupt practices were brought home to the sitting Member, that was a ground for vacating his seat. Upon this ground he had voted that the freemen of Yarmouth should be disfranchised; and, on the same principle, the other night he had voted with the minority on the question of the issue of a writ for the borough of Horsham. There was a broad distinction between these cases and the principle which the hon. Member had adopted in his Bill. First, the Committee investigated the charges of corrupt practices brought before it, and decided whether, as in the case of Sudbury, the evidence justified a special report; and, on the other hand, if the evidence was not sufficient, the Legislature might empower Commissioners to investigate the matter themselves. The practical result of this Bill would be, that in every instance where there was a report made to the House that a seat was vacated on account of corrupt practices, the House, deciding judicially, would be bound by the report of a Commissioner sent down to investigate the case; the House delegating to a hired Commissioner the important duty of saying whether or no every borough in the kingdom was to be deprived of the highest right a borough could enjoy. His (Mr. Hildyard's) own conviction was, that there was something more than a detestation of the offence of bribery mixed up with the sympathy exhibited in the 1190 House for this Bill. There was a body of Gentlemen maintaining that the small boroughs ought not to have the right of electing Members; and those Gentlemen knew the difficulty of accomplishing their object — they remembered the solemn pledge of the noble Lord, that the Reform Bill was to be a final measure, and they wished to pass a Bill which might one day be abused, for he had known times when political power was most grossly abused, and such times might come again. He thought it would be much better that they should see the laws already possessed carried into execution, instead of being constantly engaged in making new ones. He believed the effect of such a measure as this would be to relieve the Committees of this House, which were at present working well, from the responsibility that now pressed upon them; and that they would be transferring their authority from their own tribunal to a paid Commission, who were to rove from one place to another. These, however, were details; but he opposed the Bill on the principle that the Election Committees were bound, if they saw ground to believe that corruption existed in any given place, to pursue the inquiry to its full extent, and report upon it to the House.
§ MR. HUDSON objected to the Bill, on the grounds which his hon. and learned Friend had stated. He remembered an inquiry such as this Bill proposed, which took place in a borough with which he was connected. In that case the inquiry lasted seven weeks: the Government paid the expenses on both sides; and after costing the country some 6,000l. or 7,000l., a large blue book was produced, but no other result whatever. The hon. Baronet only proposed that the expense of the prosecution should be paid by the Crown; but he was at a loss to understand why the expenses of the defence, falling, as it otherwise would do, for the most part, upon very poor persons, should not be equally defrayed by the Crown. And, after all, was the House itself so pure that it could go honourably into the present inquiry? He knew that various appliances were used towards hon. Members, in order to support the Government, which he considered to be as much acts of corruption as the electors receiving bribes from candidates. When he had the honour of a seat on the other side of the House, he knew that various little appointments were put in his way; but since he sat on this 1191 side of the House none had been offered him. If this Bill were, therefore, to pass, he hoped the Government would give an assurance that, henceforth their patronage would be dispensed without reference to party. Besides, the hon. Member for Montrose had a Bill on the Notice-book that was intended to remedy these defects; and he thought it would be better to suspend this measure till they saw the fate of the hon. Gentleman's Bill. He opposed the measure because he thought it would lead to expense without any practical result; and if it should pass a second reading, he gave notice that he would move in Committee that the expense of the defendants should be paid, as well as the expenses of the prosecutors.
§ MR. HUME said, if the House gave him fair reason to hope that his Bill would be carried, he should not press the present one, for he was satisfied that his measure would put an end to a large portion of the corruption that now existed. But that was not the question before the House, but rather whether the House would enforce its own standing orders and the laws that had been passed against bribery; and he thought it was unfair to attack the Government for supporting this Bill, because in doing so they only supported the character and dignity of the House.
§ MR. JOHN STUART called upon the Government to explain why they had abandoned the Horsham Bill, amidst loud and impatient cries of "Divide!" The hon. Gentleman, finding it impossible to proceed, moved the adjournment of the debate.
§ MR. DISRAELI could not exactly agree with the noble Lord. There were explanations to be given before the Bill could be passed, which the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir J. Hanmer) seemed to imagine might be passed over; but he could not forget that a Bill had been brought forward with regard to the borough of Horsham, if not by the Prime Minister, at least with his sanction, and that it had been subsequently withdrawn. Surely the House had a right to expect that some explanation would be given why that Bill had been abandoned—why that Bill, occasioned, it was said, by circumstances of a very extraordinary nature, and brought forward by an authority of great consequence, should suddenly, and in a manner so mysterious, be absorbed in the project of law of a Gentleman who had described himself as a "private Member of Parliament," though he (Mr. Disraeli) 1192 was at a loss clearly to understand what that character meant. But when Her Majesty's Ministers did not condescend to enter into the slightest particulars of explanation—and when, upon the first occasion that a single critical observation was offered from a Gentleman so eminently qualified to give his opinion upon such a subject, he was met by the most crude and unmeaning clamour—he had a right to say it was not unreasonable to move the adjournment of the debate. The Bill of the hon. Baronet, if not of a very important character, was at least a very ambitious one; and he did not think it ought to pass sub silentio. He therefore protested against the manner in which the observations of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Stuart) had been received; and he repeated that the House had a right to expect from the Government some explanation of the circumstances under which the Bill relating to the borough of Horsham had been allowed to drop.
§ LORD J. RUSSELL said, it was very difficult for him to say what were the circumstances which the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and the hon. and learned Gentleman who preceded him, wished to have explained. He (Lord J. Russell) thought, that upon former occasions, when the Bill with regard to the borough of Horsham was before the House, repeated explanations had been given of the reasons for deferring the measure. They were so extremely similar now, that he would state again what was the position of that Bill, and the position of the present measure. When the House decided that the writ should be suspended, he was asked by several Members, both among those who agreed with the suspension, and those who did not, to introduce a Bill upon the subject himself. He consented; but afterwards there were other writs, especially Derby, suspended, and special reports made. The hon. Baronet the Member for Flint boroughs undertook to bring in a Bill with regard to Derby and other boroughs, and one of the remedies he proposed was inquiry by a commission. On consideration it appeared to him better that there should be only one mode of inquiry for these cases, instead of two. Having taken a part for five-and-twenty years in inquiries relative to corrupt boroughs, he knew very well that after Committees of the House of Commons, and the House itself, were satisfied that bribery prevailed to a great extent, and that disfranchise- 1193 ment ought to follow, the evidence failed to prove a sufficient case of delinquency to satisfy the House of Lords, and the Disfranchising Bill was thrown out. It was evident that the same mode of inquiry was very likely to fail if it was resorted to; and therefore his hon. Friend proposed another mode of inquiry, which had been adopted in the case of Sudbury—an inquiry by Commissioners. When it was adopted in that instance, it was so far successful that both Houses agreed to act upon the evidence produced. Seeing this was the case, he deferred his plan to the inquiry proposed by the hon. Gentleman, which he (Lord J. Russell) considered was the best. There was nothing very mysterious in the matter; and if the House of Commons should think fit to reject this Bill, he should proceed with the one which he had proposed, which he did not consider so good, but from the working of which, notwithstanding, he trusted some useful results would flow. With regard to the impatience of the House: when the hon. and learned Member addressed it, he believed that it arose from the lateness of the hour, the House being anxious to come to a decision. He considered that it was desirable that some decision should be come to, because the writs had been in two or three cases suspended. If the House decided that the principle of this Bill was good, that would be a fair reason for continuing the suspension of the writs; but if the House came to a contrary decision, there would be a good constitutional reason for issuing them. He trusted that the hon. Gentleman would not persevere in his opposition.
§ MR. HENLEY was not surprised at the course taken by his hon. Friend. He must also say, that he considered that the course taken by the Government was hardly fair. It was not a usual thing to establish a sweeping commission to examine into allegations made against eight or nine boroughs, and that without a sufficient amount of evidence before them to justify such a proceeding. The Committees which unseated the Members did not, in any one case, recommend the institution of further proceedings. Taking all these facts into his consideration, he must say, that the hon. Member for Newark was not to be censured for the course he had pursued. He had but claimed his undoubted privilege. Seeing himself clamoured down by the immediate supporters of the Government, the only course left to 1194 his hon. Friend was, an adjournment of the debate. He would support the Motion for the adjournment.
§ The House divided on the question that the debate be adjourned: — Ayes 69; Noes 215: Majority 146.
§ The House also divided on the question that the Bill be now read a second time:—Ayes 198; Noes 85: Majority 113.
| List of the AYES. | |
| Abdy, T. N. | Dunne, F. P. |
| Acland, Sir T. D. | Ebrington, Visct. |
| Adair, R. A. S. | Elliot, hon. J. E. |
| Adare, Visct. | Estcourt, J. B. B. |
| Aglionby, H. A. | Evans, J. |
| Alcock, T. | Evans, W. |
| Anson, hon. Col. | Fagan, W. |
| Armstrong, Sir A. | Ewart, W. |
| Armstrong, B. | Fellowes, E. |
| Arundel and Surrey, | Ferguson, Sir R. A. |
| Earl of | Fitzpatrick, rt. hn. J. W. |
| Bagshaw, J. | Fordyce, A. D. |
| Baines, M. T. | Fox, R. M. |
| Barkly, H. | Fox, W. J. |
| Bellew, R. M. | French, F. |
| Berkeley, hon. H. F. | Gibson, rt. hon. T. M. |
| Bernal, R. | Gladstone, rt. hon. W. E. |
| Blackstone, W. S. | Glyn, G. C. |
| Bouverie, hon. E. P. | Granger, T. C. |
| Bowring, Dr. | Greene, J. |
| Boyle, hon. Col. | Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. |
| Brand, T. | Grey, R. W. |
| Bright, J. | Grosvenor, Lord R. |
| Brockman, E. D. | Guest, Sir J. |
| Brotherton, J. | Hall, Sir B. |
| Brown, W. | Hawes, B. |
| Browne, R. D. | Hay, Lord J. |
| Bulkeley, Sir R. B. W. | Hayter, W. G. |
| Butler, P. S. | Headlam, T. E. |
| Buxton, Sir E. N. | Heald, J. |
| Cardwell, E. | Heneage, G. H. W. |
| Carew, W. H. P. | Heneage, E. |
| Carter, J. B. | Henry, A. |
| Cavendish, hon. C. C. | Herbert, H. A. |
| Cavendish, hon. G. H. | Herbert, rt. hon. S. |
| Cavendish, W. G. | Heywood, J. |
| Cayley, E. S. | Hill, Lord M. |
| Clay, J. | Hindley, C. |
| Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G. | Hodges, T. L. |
| Clifford, H. M. | Hollond, R. |
| Cobden, R. | Howard, hon. C. W. G. |
| Colebrooke, Sir T. E. | Howard, hon. E. G. G. |
| Conyngham, Lord A. | Howard, P. H. |
| Corry, rt. hon. H. L. | Howard, Sir R. |
| Courtenay, Lord | Hutt, W. |
| Cowan, C. | Jackson, W. |
| Craig, W. G. | Johnstone, Sir J. |
| Crawford, W. S. | Keppel, hon. G. T. |
| Currie, H. | Ker, R. |
| Dalrymple, Capt. | Kershaw, J. |
| Davie, Sir H. R. F. | King, hon. P. J. L. |
| Deedes, W. | Labouchere, rt. hon. H. |
| Devereux, J. T. | Lemon, Sir C. |
| D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C. T. | Lennard, T. B. |
| Duncan, Visct. | Lewis, G. C. |
| Duncan, G. | Lincoln, Earl of |
| Duncuft, J. | Lindsay, hon. Col. |
| Dundas, Adm. | Macnamara, Major |
| Dundas, Sir D. | M'Cullagh, W. T. |
| Meagher, T. | Seymer, H. K. |
| Mahon, The O'Gorman | Seymour, Lord |
| Maitland, T. | Sheil, rt. hon. R. L. |
| Mangles, R. D. | Shelburne, Earl of |
| Marshall, W. | Simeon, J. |
| Martin, C. W. | Smith, J. B. |
| Matheson, Col. | Smythe, hon. G. |
| Maule, rt. hon. F. | Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W. |
| Milnes, R. M. | Sotheron, T. H. S. |
| Mitchell, T. A. | Stanton, W. H. |
| Monsell, W. | Strickland, Sir G. |
| Mulgrave, Earl of | Sullivan, M. |
| Norreys, Lord | Talbot, C. R. M. |
| Norreys, Sir D. J. | Talfourd, Serj. |
| Ogle, S. C. H. | Tancred, H. W. |
| Paget, Lord A. | Tenison, E. K. |
| Palmerston, Visct. | Thicknesse, R. A. |
| Parker, J. | Thompson, Col. |
| Pearson, C. | Thornely, T. |
| Pechell, Capt. | Towneley, C. |
| Peel, rt. hon. Sir R. | Towneley, R. G. |
| Perfect, R. | Townshend, Capt. |
| Pigott, F. | Trelawny, J. S. |
| Pilkington, J. | Tufnell, H. |
| Pinney, W. | Vane, Lord H. |
| Plowden, W. H. C. | Walmsley, Sir J. |
| Power, Dr. | Ward, H. G. |
| Power, N. | Watkins, Col. |
| Price, Sir R. | Wawn, J. T. |
| Pugh, D. | West, F. R. |
| Pusey, P. | Westhead, J. P. |
| Rawdon, Col. | Willcox, B. M. |
| Reynolds, J. | Williams, J. |
| Ricardo, O. | Williamson, Sir H. |
| Rice, E. R. | Wood, rt. hon. Sir C. |
| Rich, H. | Wood, W. P. |
| Robartes, T. J. A. | Wrightson, W. B. |
| Romilly, J. | Wyvill, M. |
| Russell, Lord J. | Young, Sir J. |
| Rutherfurd, A. | TELLERS. |
| Salwey, Col. | Hanmer, Sir J. |
| Sanders, G. | Hume, J. |
| List of the Noes. | |
| Arkwright, G. | Galway, Visct. |
| Bailey, J. jun. | Godson, R. |
| Baldock, E. H. | Gore, W. R. O. |
| Benbow, J. | Granby, Marq. Of |
| Bennet, P. | Grogan, E. |
| Bentinck, Lord G. | Hale, R. B. |
| Beresford, W. | Henley, J. W. |
| Bernard, Visct. | Herries, rt. hon. J. C. |
| Blakemore, R. | Hildyard, R. C. |
| Blandford, Marq. Of | Hildyard, T. B. T. |
| Boldero, H. G. | Hill, Lord E. |
| Bowles, Adm. | Hobhouse, T. B. |
| Bremridge, R. | Hodgson, W. N. |
| Chichester, Lord J. L. | Hope, Sir J. |
| Christy, S. | Inglis, Sir R. H. |
| Clive, H. B. | Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H. |
| Codrington, Sir W. | Jones, Sir W. |
| Cole, hon. H. A. | Kerrison, Sir E. |
| Coles, H. B. | Lascelles, hon. E. |
| Compton, H. C. | Lowther, hon. Col. |
| Cotton, hon. W. H. S. | Lowther, H. |
| Disraeli, B. | Lygon, hon. Gen. |
| Dundas, G. | Mandeville, Visct. |
| East, Sir J. B. | Manners, Lord G. |
| Edwards, H. | Masterman, J. |
| Floyer, J. | Miles, W. |
| Forbes, W. | Napier, J. |
| Forester, hon. G. C. W. | Neeld, J. |
| Fuller, A. E. | Neeld, J. |
| Newdegate, C. N. | Stuart, H. |
| Newport, Visct. | Stuart, J. |
| Newry & Morne, Visct. | Sturt, H. G. |
| O'Brien, Sir L. | Thompson, Ald. |
| Packe, C. W. | Trollope, Sir J. |
| Palmer, R. | Verney, Sir. W. |
| Pennant, hon. Col. | Villiers, hon. F. W. C. |
| Prime, R. | Vivian, J. E. |
| Repton, G. W. J. | Vyvyan, Sir R. R. |
| Scott, hon. F. | Waddington, H. S. |
| Smyth, J. G. | Worcester, Marq. Of |
| Somerset, Capt. | Wortley, rt. hon. J. S. |
| Spooner, R. | TELLERS. |
| Stafford, A. | Sibthorp, Col. |
| Stanley, E. | Hudson, G. |
§ Bill read a second time.