HC Deb 04 July 1820 vol 2 cc176-90
Mr. Hume

said, in rising to make the motion of which he had given notice, he was actuated by no hostile feeling to his majesty's ministers, who, by granting the accounts for which he had moved, had shown a disposition to admit discussion and to court inquiry. Though his own calculation differed from the official accounts in some respects, he preferred adopting the latter in all cases, to avoid any controversy on that head. The first resolution which he had to submit was merely to pledge the House to a vigilant superintendence of the public expenditure, and to a minute investigation of the mode of collecting the revenue. This, in substance, though not in form, was similar to the resolution proposed by the chancellor of the Exchequer, when he had called on the House to impose three millions of new taxes. He hoped the House would now repeat this pledge, as it was by small savings on the multiplied items of expenditure alone that economy could be effected. He could have only wished that this subject had been brought forward by an hon. baronet, who had proposed similar resolutions in the last session, and from whom they would have come with greater weight. The second resolution was a comparison of the expenses of collection of the revenue at three different times. The account of the expense at the first period was taken from the Reports of the Finance Committee, of which the late Speaker was chairman (1796–7); of the second, from the Report of the Committee, of which the member for Corfe-castle was chairman; and of the third, from the annual accounts presented to the House. The third resolution was a comparison of the nett amount of the revenue at three different periods, taken from the same sources. As the gross receipt of this revenue had been, in 1796, twenty-three millions; in 1810, forty-five millions; and in 1820, fifty five millions, it was to be expected, he thought, that the amount having much increased while the officers and boards of the revenue remained the same, the percentage should have been diminished more than it appeared it had been. The rate per cent-age on the gross receipt in the year 1796 was 5l. 0.s9d.; in 1810, 4l. 12s. 6d.; and in 1820, 6l. 1s.3¾d.; so that the rate of collection, to speak in round numbers, had increased in the proportion of 20 per cent. He was satisfied that every one who; examined the subject would find, that during the; warfare in which this country was engaged, a considerable increase had taken place in-the expenses of. collection. In 1796 the charges of management amounted to 1,174,525l.; in 1810, to 2,591,615l.; and in 1820, to 3,341,283l. Mr. Pitt had stated himself, in parliament, that he felt it his duty to increase the rate of pay allowed to all the individuals connected with those offices, in consequence of the great rise which had taken place in the price of provisions. But the question now to be considered was, whether, as we had restored the metallic currency of the country, and arrived at a period of profound peace, the salaries so advanced would not admit of a considerable reduction, which would of course operate as a reduction in the charges of collection? He knew it to be a fact, that in all mercantile concerns, individuals were able to carry on double or treble their former business, without the addition of one half to their expenses in consequence of such increase, and he thought it only fair that the House and the country should expect a similar capability from the ministers, and should demand it from them. They had a report on their table from one of their own committees, which pointed out the astonishing increase in the charges of collection, and the reasons assigned in the report as accounting for that increase, were such as he had already described. Some few modifications were then suggested, which might have been attended with some benefit, but what that benefit was, could only appear from the result. An annual paper had been laid on the table about three days ago, from which it appeared, that instead of any reduction having taken place in the number of individuals employed, there was in the whole service of the government an addition of 72 persons, and an increase of salaries to the amount of 4,900l. He was justified, therefore, in concluding, with that paper on the table, that no reduction had taken place, but the contrary; and he thought that the House ought, on an early day, in the next session, to take the subject into their consideration, not as the commissioners had done, but on a principle more extended. He did not wish to cast any censure on the commissioners, whose labours were beneficial as far as they went, but the subject was one that required other and larger views of regulation. On coming to his third resolution, he had to state, that the quarantine expenses were excluded from the account of the year 1820, and yet that an increase of 82,000l. had taken place. The gross amount of the ordinary revenues of the United Kingdom, in the year ending the 5th Jan. 1820, was 60,318,273l. and the nett produce 54,425,037l. which were collected at an expense of 4,226,735l., or at the rate of 7l. Os. I ¾d. per cent on the gross receipt, and 8l. 1s. 9½d. per cent. on the nett produce. In taking the amount of the rate per cent. at which the revenues of Great Britain and Ireland were collected in the year ending the 5th Jan. 1819, he had kept out the account of the post office, and the hawkers' and pedlars' dues, not- withstanding which they would find that a greater increase had taken place in the customs than in any other department —And the average of the total revenues in each county, in England, was 5l. 17s. l0d; in Scotland, 9l. 6s. 11d.: and in Ireland, 15l. 8s. 11¾d. The only way in which he could account for the greater increase in the customs was by this circumstance, of its being placed under the patronage of the Treasury, while the Excise was placed partly under commissioners, who had no connection with the Treasury department. It was a wise principle in the regulation of the Excise, that promotion, with a view to the merit of the parties, was more frequent there than in any other offices under government, in most of which he regretted to say, that other interest was required. He should state one example which had come to his knowledge. It was that of the landing survey or ship of Aberdeen, which was given to a young man, the son of the chamberlain of Edinburgh, though the inferior officer who stood next had merited the promotion by an active service of 10 years. He thought, that if the Customs were placed under a board of officers, unconnected with the Treasury, a great reduction of expense might be made, even greater than in the Excise. The fact however was, that since 1810, when the act of Superannuation passed, a considerable increase had taken place in that branch of the expenditure also. In 1810, the whole amount of the superannuations was 10,000l., but they had since gradually gone on increasing until now that they were upwards of 80,000l. The commissioners had recommended an alteration in this re- spect, but it gave an increased patronage to the government, and probably, was on that account continued as before. From the difference that appeared in the rates of collection in the three countries, he was induced to conclude, that much larger reductions might be made. He regretted that the right hon. member for Waterford was not present, as he would be able to state more accurately than himself, the facts relating to Ireland; but if the right hon. gentleman wished to make inquiry, with regard to Scotland, he was confident that much better information might be obtained, than by sending down some person not connected with the country. The Post-office he admitted was the most economically managed of all the departments under government; and this was chiefly to be attributed to the circumstance of its being unconnected with the Treasury. The next resolution contained a self-evident proposition, which was, that the charge of management and the charge per cent on the nett receipts from the tax on salaries might be altogether saved, by the reduction of the salaries equal to the amount of the tax, as recommended by the finance committee, in 1797.—He now came to the subject of the receivers-general of the land and assessed taxes, which he confessed was the most important branch of his motion. It was important in two views—as an expense to the public, and as an increase of the patronage of ministers. He knew it was a delicate thing to interfere with that patronage of which they stood in so much need, and expected that many persons would be startled when he stated that his object was, to abrogate altogether 160 sinecure places. His first proposition upon this subject, after stating the nature of the office, went on to assert that the service for which it was appointed might be performed at a less charge to the public, with equal security against loss, and equal efficiency to the public service. The next proposition stated that there are 6.5 receivers-general of the land and assessed taxes in England and Wales, who received an allowance of 40,717l. and 41,34.8l. in the years ending the 5th Jan. 1818 and 1819, for the duties of their office, though the greater number performed the duty entirely by deputy, and retained balances of cash in their hands, which on an average of three years exceeded 374,000l. per annum. These were facts that could not be disputed, and- it was notorious that the deputies advanced money to the receivers-general for being allowed to do their duty. He would ask, was that consistent with the avowal of economy made by government? Besides, it should be recollected, that when the office of receiver-general was first established, there were difficulties in the way of remitting money, which existed no longer. There were now upwards of 850 banks throughout the kingdom, which facilitated the means of remittance, and therefore removed the necessity for allowing the balances to remain in the hands of the receivers-general. As these facilities increased, the percentage ought to be reduced. He wished to point out the means by which his majesty's government might do away the per centage altogether, and allow a salary equal to what might be the trouble of the office, coupled with the risk incurred in undertaking it. Why should not ministers adopt the same course which they were allowed to do by the act which regulated the collection of the post horse duty? Let the offices be put up to sale, and tenders received from persons who were willing to discharge the duties of receivers-general. The amount of the security at present demanded by government was unnecessarily large, for there was no necessity that it should exceed the amount of the sum in the hands of the receiver general at the end of each quarter. He was persuaded that in this branch of the public expenditure a saving might be effected to the amount of 60,000l. a year. The next branch of the subject was that relative to the distribution of stamps. It appeared that there were 95 distributors of stamps in Great Britain, who received poundage amounting to 85,303l. for the year ending Jan nary 1818; 88,337l. for that ending Jan. 1819; and that the balances of cash retained in their hands, upon an average of three years, exceeded 110,000l per annum. He was persuaded that individuals of equal respectability might be found who would do' the duty for one-eighth of this amount.—The hon. member then entered into an enumeration of the different rates of poundage allowed to distributors since the year 1694. At present it was 4 per cent for England, and 6 for Scotland; but this rate was increased by the additional charge of penny in every shilling, a charge which was illegally exacted by the persons who sold the stamps, for it was to be recollected that the persons who pocketed the poundage, performed no part of the duty themselves. The income of some of these distributors was enormous; one of them received 5,000l. in the last year, and the collector at Aberdeen received upwards of 1,455l. in the year 1818. He would pledge himself to find individuals of equal respectability in this town, who would do the duty as well for 3 or 400l. If these duties were farmed in the same manner as the post-horse duties, the country would derive the greatest benefit from such a system, not only in a pecuniary but a constitutional point of view, since it would remove some position of the overgrown patronage which was now in the hands of his majesty's ministers. The

Year. Gross Receipt of Revenue. Nett Receipt of Revenue. Amount of Charges of Management. Rate per Centage on Gross Receipt. Rate per Centage on Nett Receipt.
£. £. £. £. s. d. £. s. d.
1796 … 23,306,718 20,281,017 for 1,174,525 or 5 0 9 and 6 1 7
1810 … 45,602,601 41,299,023 for 2,591,615 or 5 13 7¾ and 6 5 6
1820 … 55,096,744 49,992,394 for 3,341,823 or 6 1 3¾ and 6 19 0¾

3."That the gross amount of the ordinary revenues of the United Kingdom, in the year ending 5th Jan. 1820, was 60,318,273l., and the nett produce 54,425,037, which were collected at an expense of 4,226,735l., or at the rate of 7l. Os.1¾d. per cent on the gross receipt, and 8l. 1s. 9l½d. per cent on the nett produce.

4."That the gross amount of the ordinary revenues of Ireland, in the year

Country. Customs. Excise, Stamps. Land and Assessed Taxes. Average of the Total Revenue in each Country.
£. s. d. £. s. d. £. s. d. £. s. d. £. s. d.
In England 9 3 8 3 19 7 2 10 8½ 3 15 4 5 17 10
Scotland 16 9 0½ 7 4 10 3 17 1 5 19 4 9 6 11
Ireland 16 13 9¼ 12 9 11½ 8 5 3¾ 16 19 10 15 8 11¼

6."That the office of receiver-general of the land and assessed taxes is one of deposit, and for remittance of the taxes from district collections to the Exchequer; and, in the present state of the finances of the country, that service may be performed at a less charge to the public than is now incurred, with equal security against loss, and with equal efficiency to the public service.

7."That there are 65 receivers-general of the land and assessed taxes, in England and Wales; who received an allow-

hon. member concluded by moving the following Resolutions:

1. "That with a view of accelerating the period at which relief may be afforded to the country from a part of its burthens, a continued and vigilant superintendence ought to be exercised over the expenditure of the state in all its several departments; and that a minute investigation should be instituted into the mode and expense of management and collection in the several branches of the revenue, in order that every reduction may be made therein, which can be effected without detriment to the public interest.

2. "That the ordinary revenues of Great Britain were collected, in the years 1796, 18l0, and l820, at the following rates:

1820, was 5,221,529l. and the nett produce 4,432;643l., which were collected at an expense of 884,912l., or at the rate of 16l. 18s.11¾d. per cent on the gross receipt, and 21l. 2s. 4¼d. per cent on the nett produce.

5."That the revenues of Great Britain and Ireland were collected in the year ending the 5th Jan. 1819, at the following rate per cent on the gross receipts, viz.

ance of 40,717l., and 41,348l., in the years ending the 5th January 1818 and 1819, for the duties of their office, although the greater number of these receivers-general performed that duty entirely by deputy; and retained balances of cash in their hands which, on an average of these years, exceeded 374,000l. sterling per annum.

8."That it appears by the returns before the House, that ten receivers-general were, since 1790, in arrears at the time of their death, or of leaving their office, to the amount of 304,337l. 12.s 4d. of which amount a balance of 117,115l. 1s. 8d. now remains due to the public.

9."That there are 95 distributors of stamps in Great Britain, who received allowances, or poundage, amounting to 85,303l. for the year ending the 5th Jan. 1818, and 88,337l. for 1819; and also retained balances of cash in their hands, which on an average of these years exceeded 110,000l. sterling per annum.

TAX. Nett Receipts. Charges of Management. Rate per Cent on the Nett Receipts.
£. £. £. s. d.
Of One shilling in the pound 19,353 491 2 17 4¾
Of Sixpence in the pound 10,037 241 3 2 0
Total 29,390 732

"Which charge may be altogether saved, by the reduction of the salaries equal to the amount of the tax, as recommended by the finance committee in 1797.

"The first Resolution being put,

Mr. Lushington

was anxious to occupy as short a portion as possible of the time of the Committee' in stating the grounds of his objection to most of the resolutions of the hon. gentleman. His first resolution was unnecessary, since one to a similar effect had been voted in the last year. The second resolution was unfit to appear on the Journals of the House, in consequence of a material error which affected the calculations of the hon. gentleman. The hon. gentleman had compared the revenue of the last year with that of 1796. Now, in the revenue for 1796, the whole expense of collecting the post-horse duties was omitted; and it was obvious that this omission must have a material effect upon the whole calculations. No results could be accurate which were founded upon a comparison of the revenue in a year of peace with that in a year of war. Besides, upon a more accurate examination of his figures, the hon. gentleman would find that he had a material error in his calculation of the percentage. He had, in fact, taken one line of figures for another, and as this error vitiated the whole calculations, a proposition founded upon them was unfit to appear upon the Journals. To his third resolution he was ready to accede, but he thought it right that it should be accompanied by another resolution which he should submit to the House. With respect to the other resolutions of the hon. gentleman, if he suc

10."That in the present state of the finances of the country, the duty of distributor of stamps may be performed at a less charge to the public than is now incurred, with equal security against loss, and with equal efficiency to the public service.

11."That the amount of revenue from the tax on salaries in the year ending 5th January 1820, and the charges of management, were:.

ceeded in showing; that government had paid the most vigilant attention to the means of diminishing the public expenditure, and that in fact a diminution had taken place to a considerable amount in the last year, he thought the House would agree that the hon. gentleman had laid no ground for his motion. The hon. gentleman had complained that no material reductions had followed the reports of the committee; but reforms of the nature alluded to could only be conducted in a gradual manner, and were necessarily the work of time. The expense of collecting the revenue in Scotland and Ireland had been compared with that of collecting it in England; but when the immense amount of the revenue of this-country, compared with that of Scotland and Ireland was considered, it would be seen that those countries afforded no just ground of comparison. The lion, gentleman had objected to' the allowances to receivers general of taxes, and had suggested other means of collecting the revenue, which he thought would be more beneficial to the country; but he (Mr. L.) totally differed from the opinion of the hon. gentleman, and he thought the House would also differ from it, when he stated that out of the immense sum of 330,000,000l. of the public revenue from the year 1790 up to the present period, the nominal balances in the hands of receivers general amounted only to 117,000l., and that out of that sum 100,000l. would be collected, so that the only desperate balance was 17,000l. That there should be so small a deficiency out of so enormous a sum as 330,000,000l. was a fact which spoke abundantly in fa-

vour of the present system. As to the suggestion of the hon. gentleman, that country bankers might supply the places of receivers general, he would only observe, that it was a special instruction of the committee, that no country-banker should be a receiver, and all the cases of failure which had occurred, arose from the connexion of receivers-general with country banks. It was true that their duties were executed by deputies, but the receivers were the only responsible persons. He would add but one word upon the subject of superannuated allowances. Since the year 1810, in consequence of the abolition of fees, and the substitution of public salaries, superannuated allowances had gradually increased, but he would venture to assert, that this increase was upon the whole beneficial to the public, because persons who had become unfit for their public duties, were replaced by active officers. Upon all the resolutions of the hon. gentleman, excepting the third, he should move the previous question; and in addition thereto, he should move the three following:

"That the gross amount of the ordinary revenues of the united kingdom, in the year ending the 5th Jan. 1819, was 62,230,527l., and the nett produce 55,741,098l., which were collected at an expense of 4,367,750l., or at the rate of 7l. Os. 4¾d. per cent on the gross receipt, and 8l. 3s. 4¾d. per cent on the nett produce-

"That the gross amount of the ordinary revenues of the united kingdom, in the year ending the 5th Jan. 1818, was 60,450,767l., and the nett produce 52,195,214l., which were collected at an expense of 4,283,408l., or at the rate of 7l. 6s. 5d. per cent on the gross receipt, and 8l. 10s. 5¾d. per cent on the nett produce.

"That the expense of managing and collecting the revenues of the united kingdom in the last year, ending 5th Jan. 1820, has been diminished, as compared with the years ending 5th Jan. 1819, and 5th Jan. 1818; that a minute investigation has been instituted into the mode and expense of management in several branches of the revenue, in order that every reduction might be made therein which could be effected without detriment to the public service, and that a continuance of the same vigilance is essential to the best interests of the country"

Sir H. Parnell

maintained that the cir- cumstances which had been stated by the hon. secretary of the treasury, did not account for the fact, that the percentage on the collection of the revenue, which was 6l. in 1796, was 9l. in 1820. Certainly, there had been some retrenchment; but the question was, whether all had been done that might be done. He was persuaded that it had not. Great efforts ought to be made to reduce the expense still more. If it could be brought down to 5l. per cent it would give an addition to the revenue of no less than 1,200,000l. In Ireland, very great abuses existed in the collection of the revenue.

Mr. John Smith

thought the first resolution the best. In the present state of the finances of the country, he was persuaded that-no man could quit the House without a wound to his conscience who did not vote for it. He had been very sorry therefore to hear the hon. secretary object to it. In Ireland among other misgovernments, the collection of the revenue was made a job; the consequence of which was, that the charge amounted to 16 per cent on the nett revenue, and 22 per cent on the gross revenue. He was one of those who thought that the whole subject of the revenue and the expenditure of the country ought to come once more under the cognizance of parliament. He had a great respect for the members of the former committees of that House on the subject, but he must say, that in some respects they had strained at a gnat and swallowed a camel. The collection of the Customs was especially expensive. He had a friend high in the Custom house, who was well acquainted with all the details, and who had told him that he would be very glad to farm the collection at one-fifth of the present charge. Much was lost to the country by the large balances which were unnecessarily left in the hands of the receivers of the land tax. The great evil was, that the government was a government depending on influence; and that ministers were afraid to retrench lest they should lose their influence. He was persuaded, however, that if they would apply economy as a principle pervading every branch of the state, they would soon obtain more real power and popularity than by the distribution of any places which they now had it in their power to give.

Mr. W. Smith

reprobated the large allowance made to distributors of stamps. He knew one who received 4,000l. a-year. Surely it would be very practicable to get the same duty performed by responsible persons, at a much less expense. He also considered the circumstance that country bankers were allowed to be the receivers general of the land-tax a great abuse, of which abundant proof had appeared during the discussion which he some years ago originated into extents in aid. He concurred with his hon. friend in attributing the reluctance to retrenchment to the circumstance that the government was a government of influence. It had long been so, and such he feared it would continue. It ought not to be, how-ever; and the country ought not to permit it. He also concurred in thinking that any government bold enough to put an end to the existing system, would soon acquire great power and popularity. But before that could be done, many other re-forms must take place, and among them some one which would give the people complete confidence in that House. He despaired therefore of any effectual retrenchment being immediately made.

Mr. Tierney

returned his sincere thanks to the hon. mover for having brought his proposition before the House. He had seldom heard a more clear and dispassion-ate statement, or one evincing greater re-search. He felt, however, the same des-pair on the subject as his hon. friend who had just sat down. The manner in which the hon. gentleman's proposition had been received, was very discouraging in this respect; and he was also discouraged by his own experience when he was a young man, and began to work on the subject of re-venue. When such resolutions were i moved as those proposed this evening, it; had been usual to have them printed, and for the Treasury to move counter-resolutions, which being also printed, a day was fixed for the discussion of both. That, however, was not the course pursued. The first of the hon. mover's resolutions was to be negatived, and in lieu of it the hon. secretary of the Treasury moved at once a resolution, that so much had been done in the way of retrenchment, that it was only necessary to persevere. He strongly reprobated the recent practice of referring the consideration of the finances to a committee of persons appointed by the Treasury. He agreed with his hon. friend near him that at bottom all the abuses on this subject were attributable to influence; and that nothing could make an administration more popular, than fairly and firmly to set about correcting it. But he was sure that such a benefit could never be effected without support in the House, a well as out of doors. The honourable secretary of the Treasury had intimated his intention to preserve the third resolution, and to substitute for the rest a resolution, that a great deal had been done, and that it was only necessary to go on in the same course. It was odd enough to ask the House to go on in the same course without telling them what was that course. No doubt there had been considerable retrenchment, but he must know what it was before he could allow that it had been sufficient. Could any man say that the collection of the revenue ought to amount nearly to 4,000,000l.? On the face of it this was an enormous sum. He had no doubt that of tin's sum a million might be saved to the country. It was evident that great curtailments might be made with reference to the distributors of stamps and receivers-general of the land-tax. If the House negatived the resolution relative to the latter, the country could not place the smallest confidence in the disposition of the House to economise. The number of those receivers might surely be reduced, as well as their emoluments. But they were pretty pieces of patronage, and to all intents and purposes sinecures. The distributors of stamps were in the habit of performing their duties by deputy, and in this department alone a sum of 200,000l. might be saved: but even if it were but 10,000l. it would still be an important saving to the country, and would show the public that something was to be done. He was aware that he had selected the worst possible place in which to argue this question, as he saw around him many persons who were most diligent in the exercise of one of the duties of the department to which he alluded—that of receiving their salaries. If the House would take the trouble of entering into details, they would find that considerable light would be thrown on the subject. This, however, he despaired of prevailing on the House to do. But it was too much that all the resolutions should be negatived without any inquiry. He gave credit to ministers for certain retrenchments which had taken place; but he believed that those retrenchments were quickened by the votes of that House. If the present resolutions were carried, they would not pledge the supporters of them to any specific plan. They contained only a statement of facts connected with the collection of the revenue. They only pointed out the means by which something beneficial could be done next year, or at any future period. This question had been brought forward without any view to party feelings; if then they were to throw the papers under the table, what security could the country have that any retrenchment or economy would take place? It was stated that the first resolution might be carried with some effect. If the hon. gentleman on the other side would propose any amendment, showing the amount of savings which had been made, they might work together, and let the public see that something substantial was to be done for the benefit of the country.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

observed, that there was no unwillingness in the House to attend to a subject which was so materially connected with the public interest. The hon. mover had laid before them a number of comparative statements, which the secretary of the Treasury had answered. The collection of the revenue in different countries had been adverted to; but that was not a fair criterion for the direction of the House. It was observed, that the collection of the revenue in France was more economical, than in Ireland; but as the revenue of France was principally a land revenue, it was evidently more easy to collect it than to gather in the revenue of Ireland, which comprised many different heads. An hon. gentleman seemed to reprehend the office of distributor of stamps and receiver-general of land-tax as being sources of permanent influence, and kept up for that purpose. This he entirely denied. The system had been acted on for many years, and had been found to operate beneficially. The receivers of land-tax, and the distributors of stamps, did not realise so much emolument as was imagined. They had often had reason to repent the frauds which had been practised on them without any blame being attachable to them. The balances in the hands of receivers-general and distributors of stamps were very doubtful. Though the nominal amount might be great, yet the real amount, in consequence of the number of persons employed under them, was often reduced to a very small sum.

The previous question was then put and carried on all Mr. Hume's resolutions excepting the third and sixth. The third was agreed to; and on the sixth the House divided: Ayes, 99; Noes, 124 The first and second resolutions proposed by Mr. Lushington were then agreed to; and the third was withdrawn.

List of the Minority.
Althorp, visct. Maberly, W. L.
Anson, hon. G. Macdonald, J.
Boughey, sir J. F. Mackintosh, sir J.
Barnard, visct. Maule, hon. W.
Barrett, S. M. Monck, J. B.
Beaumont, T. W. Moore, P.
Benyon, B. Newport, sir J.
Bernal, R. O'Grady, S.
Burdett, sir F. O'Callaghan, J.
Bury, visct. Osborne, lord F.
Byng, G. Palmer, C. F.
Bright, H. Parnell, sir H.
Corbet, P. Peirse, H.
Calcraft, J. Powlett, hon. W.
Calcraft, J. H. Pryse, P.
Calvert, C. Pym, F.
Campbell, hon. J. Ramsay, sir A.
Chamberlayne, W. Ricardo, D.
Carew, R. S. Robarts, A.
Carter, J. Robarts, G.
Clifton, visct. Robinson, sir G.
Coffin, sir I. Rowley, sir W.
Crespigny, sir W. De Russell, lord G. W.
Davies, R. H. Smith, hon. R.
Denison, W. J. Smith, J.
Denman, T. Smith, S.
Duncannon, visct. Smith, A.
Fitzgerald, lord W. Scarlett, J.
Fitzgerald, rt. hon. M. Scudamore, R.
Fitzroy, lord C. Stewart, W.
Grant, J. P. Stuart, lord J.
Graham, J. R. G. Sykes, D.
Griffith, J. W. Tremayne, J. H.
Guise, sir W. Tulk, C. A.
Heygate, ald. Tynte, C.
Hamilton, lord A. Townshend, lord C.
Harbord, hon. E. Tavistock, marq. of
Heathcote, G. J. Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Heron, sir R. Wynn, C. W.
Hill, lord A. Whitmore, W.
Hobhouse, J. C. Webbe, E.
Honywood, W. P. Wharton, J.
Jervoice, G. P Whitbread, S. C.
Langston, J. H. Williams, T. P.
Littleton, E. Wilson, sir R.
Lambton, J. G. Wilson, T.
Latouche, R. Wyvill, M.
Lemon, sir W. TELLERS.
Lloyd, sir E. Hume, J.
Lushington, S. Smith, W.
Maberly, J.