HC Deb 18 May 1871 vol 206 cc962-3
SIR WILFRID LAWSON

I rise, Sir, on a matter of Privilege. It appears that yesterday, when the division took place on the second reading of the Permissive Bill, the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Wheelhouse) gave in the numbers of the majority as 206, whereas it appears from the Votes that only 196 Members voted against the Bill. I believe, Sir, you have given instructions to have that matter put right, and I think that the hon. Member for Leeds ought to walk up the House and state his mistake. Since you gave those instructions we have made a search for the hon. Member for Leeds, but have been unable to find him. What I now wish is to ask, Sir, whether you will give instructions for a due and proper search to be made for the hon. Member, so that the matter may be put right before the rising of the House?

MR. SPEAKER

It will be necessary for both the Tellers to be present, and when they are present the matter can be easily set right.

MR. BOUVERIE

I am not aware, Sir, what the presence of the hon. Member for Leeds has to do with the correcting of the numbers, or in what respect it is his duty to be here. The two Tellers were agreed. The rule, I believe, is that if the two Tellers, one of whom is selected from each side, are agreed as to the numbers which are given in that is conclusive, at any rate as to the declaration of the division, and there was an end of their duty. If it appears that some mistake has been made in the Division List, I will not undertake to say what should be done to set the matter right in the Journals; but upon this occasion the two Tellers were agreed, and one of them had spoken in favour of the Bill, and was the Teller of the hon. Baronet; and there is no ground of animadversion on the other.

And afterwards—

Lord Claud Hamilton and Mr. Wheel-house, being two of the Tellers in the Division of yesterday upon the Amendment upon the Second Reading of the Permissive Prohibitory Liquor Bill, came to the Table and acquainted the House,

That they had erroneously reported the number of the Noes as 206 instead of 196, which was the proper number, corresponding with the Division List.

Ordered, That the number of the Noes in the said Division be corrected accordingly by the Clerk.