Lord Normanbysaid, that he rose on the present occasion with less reluctance than formerly, having so fully experienced the indulgence of the House, to the dry detail into which he had felt it his duty to enter. If the question rested now on the same grounds as when he last addressed the House, he should not trespass upon their patience further than by making his motion. But, if he had now a stronger claim than before to the attention of the House, it was the conduct of those who opposed the motion, and not of those who supported the motion, on which he rested it. It was their arguments, not his, on which he rested his claim. It was their arguments, not his, which had rendered the question important. It was their arguments, not his, which had made the matter a subject of conversation from one end of the kingdom to the other. It was their arguments, not his, which, at every public meeting that had since taken place 299 to consider of the public distress, and to censure the conduct of the representatives of the people, had called forth the most severe animadversion. He had to thank them both for what they had said, and what they had omitted to say. He had to thank them for that novel and most extraordinary doctrine, that useless places were indispensable to keep up the just influence of the Crown. That declaration bad had a more startling effect upon the country, than had been produced even by those numerous motions of an hon. friend of his, which, unlike the spectral phantoms of Banquo and his offspring, did not "shew the eye," however they might "grieve the heart," of an alarmed secretary of the Treasury, who, doubtless, imagined that "the line would stretch to the crack of doom." He had thought it necessary to premise thus much to account for his again bringing the subject under the consideration of the House so soon. With regard to the arguments which had been used on the former occasion, the manner in which they had been urged shewed that they were not considered to possess much weight by those who used them. Looking at the act of Anne as that by which the office of postmaster-general was established, be denied that its antiquity was such as justly to screen it from abrogation. Many offices, much more venerable by age, had not been spared on that account. The increase of business in the post-office was another argument which had been urged in favour of the double office. Now, that might be a good argument for the increase of Mr. Freeling's salary, or of the number of clerks employed; but how it could bear upon two noble lords, who never partook of those additional duties, he was at a loss to conceive. It could not be denied, that if by any occurrence those two noble lords should be provoked into a superintendance of the business of the post-office, nothing could be more baneful to the public service, than the alternate vicissitude of interference which would necessarily take place, in an office requiring singleness of purpose—and uniformity practice. He confessed he felt some surprise at the tone assumed, on the late discussion upon this subject, by the noble marquis opposite, who talked of the rash innovation, and the signal revolution which would be effected by his motion. He was the more surprised at these remarks, because it turned out that the 300 noble marquis himself was the rash innovator, and the signal revolutionist; he having sent lord Clancarty abroad for above two years, during the period at which that noble lord held the office of joint postmaster general. He would not however, retort the charge upon the noble marquis. On the contrary, he entirely acquitted him; believing as he did that the noble marquis did not exactly know what he was doing; as it appeared that, until the night on which he (lord N.) made his motion, the noble marquis was not aware that lord Clancarty held the situation of joint postmaster general when he went as ambassador to the Netherlands.—He should now say a few words with respect to the bills introduced in 1812 and 1813, for the abolition of certain offices. In both of those bills the principle upon which his motion was founded, was recognised. This principle was either right or wrong. If right, then it made in support of the motion he was about to propose. If wrong, it was a little singular that though, during the discussion of the bills of 1812 and 1813, persons had been found to defend the chief justiceship in Eyre, and the office of justice general of Scotland—not a single voice had been raised in defence of the office of Joint Postmaster General of this country, and how the continuance of that office could now be defended upon the grounds of reason and argument, he confessed himself at a loss to divine. In bringing forward his motion on a former night, he had omitted to propose the reduction of the second postmaster general for Ireland. His motion was however founded, as was the address which he now meant to move, upon the bills of 1812 and 1813, and if he should be so fortunate as to carry the present address, no doubt the reduction of the second Irish postmaster would follow as a matter of course. Before he ventured to attack the strong hold of his opponents, namely, the in road which such a motion as the present was likely to make upon the just and necessary influence of the Crown, he should say a few words to those members who were wavering in their bigotted adhesion to that doctrine. Whatever might have been formerly felt upon this subject, those fears were now removed, and he defied the ingenuity even of the hon. member, who, in endeavouring to conjure up a mighty bugbear, was so good as to make him an unworthy member of the trio who formed it, to 301 produce a recurrence of those fears. What, he asked did ministers mean to state to the country? Did they mean to say, that they would here take their political stand, and oppose all further reduction? Were they actuated on this occasion by the same feeling which induced them to oppose the reduction of a junior lord of the admiralty! But, that reduction having been carried, they could go no farther! Had ministers drawn that nice and delicate line of demarkation which shewed that, beyond 2000l. a-year, they could not—ought not—to go in the way of reduction? He would put it to the House whether it would not have been more for the honour of government that that motion should have passed in the first instance, rather than be again brought forward after a lapse of five years? Public opinion had been so decidedly expressed upon his former motion, that, even should he fail in this instance, which he did not anticipate, he had no doubt of the ultimate success of the measure. It was acknowledged on all hands, that the country was in a situation which required relief. If any doubt existed on this point, he should at once refer to the statement made by the noble marquis on a former evening. And if that statement had any analogy, it was to the shifts and expedients of a ruined spendthrift, who in his proceedings displayed an intimate acquaintance with the practice of persons of another creed, and proved that he was well versed in all the mysteries and intricacies of X, Y, Z. In all cases of comparative distress, it was difficult to chuse between two luxuries. But, he put it to any gentleman who had had the misfortune to be reduced from his former station, whether, in the event of his having a duplicate of luxuries, he ever found a difficulty in giving up one of them? And he should in the same way put it to the House, whether any injury was likely to arise to the country from ministers foregoing the luxury of a double postmaster general? A right hon. friend of his (Mr. Robinson) must be aware that the influence of the Crown had considerably increased, from the increased amount of our debt, as well as the extension of our colonies. He should be sorry to appeal personally to his right hon. friend, for whose opinions he had the highest respect, as he knew that he was put forward to speak the opinions of government, but that those opinions were no more his own than they were 302 those of any other person whatever. He had on a former occasion put it to gentlemen opposite, to say whether they had found in the people a disposition to canvass the measures of government. What, then, was the remedy to be applied? The people watched the conduct of parliament, because they had become more acute and discerning. They were distressed, and therefore they became more jealous both of parliament and of the government generally. He would ask, then, whether it was wise, in such a state of things, to retain a few places which had become odious to the people, and which the increased influence of the Crown from other circumstances rendered unnecessary? He would put it to the House to consider what instrument was used by ministers in thus retaining those places? It was the House of Commons. Why then should it be wondered that the House was distrusted by the people? Why should they wonder at hearing the cry of reform raised from one end of the country to the other? No matter whether the raising of that cry was right or wrong, none could say that it was not now general—no one could say that it was confined to a few manufacturing districts—no one could deny that it now extended even to the solitary ploughman. [Hear, hear.] How, then, were they to remedy this evil? Was it by denying all that the people asked? Would it not be better, by acting with moderation, to teach the people obedience? Had they not better show to the country, that while they were determined to oppose every thing that was wrong, they were equally ready to concede what they knew to be right? Would it not be wiser to act thus than to display a total apathy to the wants and wishes of the people? Or were ministers determined to shut their eyes and ears to every thing save a false and jealous alarm, lest the influence of the Crown should be diminished? It was in the power of ministers, by wise and skilful management, to direct and regulate the progress of freedom in this country; but if they attempted to oppose its progress, they would only widen its channels and aggravate its force. [Hear, hear.] He thought it would be most wise to concede on the present occasion, not so much because the motion was in itself of the utmost importance, as because its rejection would destroy the lingering hopes of the people, and strengthen their worst suspicions against that House. The 303 noble lord concluded by moving, "That an humble address be presented to his majesty, representing that his majesty's faithful Commons, relying upon his majesty's gracious disposition, expressed in answer to former addresses of this House, to concur in all such measures of economy as the exigences of the times require, and in such reductions in the civil department of the state as may be consistent with a due consideration for the public service, humbly pray, that his majesty will be graciously pleased to give directions that the Office of one of the post-masters-general may be abolished, and the salary thereby saved to the public."
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the noble lord had taken a very unusual course in bring the same subject before the House twice in the course of the same session. Although the motion had been so framed that it did not immediately go against the standing order of the House, yet in substance and in object it was unquestionably the same. This was inconvenient, not as regarded the present question, but as it affected the general business of the House; for if the practice were to become common, the same subjects might be brought forward day after day, and the time thus consumed might obstruct the progress of measures which were of importance to the interest and safety of the country. The former motion had not been rejected solely on the ground that it was desirable the Crown should have at its command such appointments as that at which it was aimed to reward merit. The office had been defended as one that it was desirable to keep up for the protection of the revenue, and the superintendance of the concerns of the post-office. Would it be nothing, that a revenue of 2,000,000l. should be placed under the control of a single individual? Could any individual fitted to fill the situation of post-master, desire to have such a responsibility thrown on him? The question, whether the management and control of the post-office, would be better vested in a board, than in post-masters-general, had come before the committee of 1797; and it was then decided that the former was not to be preferred. At any rate, the establishment of aboard in the place of the post-masters-general, was not to be preferred on the score of economy.—The true question now was, whether it would be advisable to place the post-office under aboard of four or five 304 persons of inferior rank, or whether it should continue as at present constituted, under the superintendance of two noblemen of high rank and great responsibility? To his mind, the arguments in favour of the present system predominated over the considerations which would go to sanction a change. There was, however, some difficulty in deciding on the details connected with this question, and he had therefore, proposed to refer them to the consideration of a parliamentary commission. The Treasury would not trust itself to go into the minute details, and he had therefore determined to call for a parliamentary commission. When the report of that commission should be received, the House would be more competent to decide on the merits of the case than it was at present. It was admitted on all hands that the business could not be better conducted than it was under the management of the post-masters. Under such circumstances, pending the inquiry which he had mentioned, he would put it to the House if it would do well to agree to the present motion.
Mr. Bankesthought his right hon. friend must be convinced that the public derived no benefit whatever from the appointment of two individuals to the office of joint-post-master-general. If, indeed, a board was necessary in that department, then there should be an umpire, or third person, to give the casting vote. But here there were only two noblemen, men equal in authority, and, it was to be presumed, in tenacity of opinion; and therefore, instead of being a convenience to the public, they were likely to clog the wheels of every mail-coach which ran through the kingdom, and bring the whole business of the office to a stand still. In a discussion on the navy estimates, a case had been mentioned, where there were two storekeepers employed in one office. They were equal in authority, and had a common key to the desk. One of them fell sick, and the other, who had the use of the key, in his absence robbed the till. He was far from applying this case to the noble postmasters-general, but he did it to show how absurd it was to expect any additional security from having two persons in office. If the amount of the revenue was to be looked to as a reason, then the office of paymaster-general, which was regulated by the bills of 1812 and 1813, was of tenfold importance. This office had been previously held by two persons: but what did parliament do? 305 They abolished one of the appointments, wisely judging, that as there must be one individual upon whom the responsibility of office must fall, one was sufficient to hold that office. The responsibility of the second officer could not be considered as any thing more than nominal. If the office were an office of trust, which it was, there could be no doubt that that trust might be safely reposed in any one of the noble lords. He was glad that an opportunity was now afforded to the House to reconsider its former vote; and he hoped that they would consult their better judgment. The hon. gentleman next alluded to certain measures which he had proposed in 1812 and 1813, for the abolition of particular offices, of which the office under the consideration of the House was one. The right hon. the late president of the board of control, the present president, and his right hon. friend (Mr. Huskisson), all supported the principle of those measures; namely, that all offices that could be abolished without injury to the public service ought to be abolished. Had the finances and the general resources of the country so far increased as to justify a departure from that principle? The House was bound, in consistency with their address, of last session, to agree to the present motion. When sinecures were to be abolished, could any one say that the office of a second postmaster-general ought to be preserved? It was a simple pure sinecure. He had heard with regret an hon. gentleman say, on a former occasion, that he would support the office, because the reduction of it would diminish the influence of the Crown. He trusted that the House would not act on such a principle. It was the duty of parliament to show a conciliating spirit towards the people. In this instance, concession might be made without the slighest detriment to the public service.
§ Mr. Huskissonsaid, his hon. friend had referred to the proceedings on the bill to abolish useless sinecures, but he had left an important blank in the history which it was important to supply. Having for several sessions brought forward the subject and failed, his hon. friend had, in 1817, been fortunate enough to find it favourably entertained by a committee. That committee investigated the matter with great diligence. It was suggested, that the office of joint-postmaster-general came within the denomination of useless sinecures; but the committee, after due 306 consideration, declared that it was a place that ought not to be abolished. Under these circumstances, thought he had supported the bill and its object, he (Mr. H.) felt himself at perfect liberty to be guided by the decision of the committee. The committee thought it fit that there should be more than one responsible officer at the head of the Post-office; and it was felt also that this place might be made the means of rewarding an individual, who, without salary, discharged the duties of some other situation. It would, he conceived, be much better to have the necessity of continuing the joint-post-master investigated by a parliamentary commission. He would, therefore, recommend to his right hon. friend (the chancellor of the exchequer) to move for the re-appointment of the committee which was now about to expire, and to make the constitution of the Post-office the immediate object of its investigation.
Sir J. Sebrightsaid, that since he had sat in parliament, he never had heard language which tended so much to degrade the House as had been used on this occasion. He never could consent, that the Crown should enjoy a corrupt influence. The arguments on the other side must have the effect of degrading the higher orders of society; for they induced a belief, that situations were given to men of exalted rank in the state, for the purpose of securing their support to the existing system. Was it not disgusting to be told that great and illustrious names could not be induced to do their duty to their king and country, unless they received 2 or 3,000l. a year? As well might they put into the estimates the amount of pension which it required to procure the support of those individuals. In this point of view, the motion was of importance, and he would support it.
§ Mr. Sumnersaid, that though there seemed good ground for supporting the two offices for the sake of the revenue, he fairly owned his reason for formerly having opposed a motion like the present was a different one. He had observed previously to, and during the session, that county meetings had been held professedly to take into consideration the distress of the country, though at very few of them the professed object of the meeting had been gone into; that designing men were traveling over the country to excite disaffection; and that the senti- 307 ments of those persons had been put into instructions to representatives. Something like the system pursued at these meetings seemed to be followed in the House. Motions were made for repealing this and that tax, apparently to reduce the revenue to inefficiency, and the same sort of attack was made on the institutions of the country. One day there was a motion to reduce two lords of the Admiralty; another day to reduce a postmaster-general. Where it would stop he could form no judgment. Though, therefore, a reduction proposed might be proper, it would not be made in a proper manner under the influence of such a spirit, and on that ground, and not on the consideration of the individual case, he gave his vote. He should do it with the more satisfaction, after the pledge of the chancellor of the exchequer, that the post-office should come under the revision of a commission.
§ Mr. Brightcontended, that the House was perfectly competent to decide on the subject, and ought not, therefore, to delegate their power to any commission. They were bound to show the people, by a strict performance of their duty, that they really were the guardian of those interests which were committed to their care.
§ Mr. Tremaynesaid, a pledge had been given, on the passing of the pension bill, to reduce all sinecures—a pledge which he should never consider redeemed, while the two postmasters general remained.
§ Mr. Stuart Wortleysaid, he had, on a former occasion, given his vote on this subject with considerable hesitation. If it had been a simple question, whether the situation of second postmaster-general should be abolished, he would have given up the point. But, when he saw that the House had the day before addressed the Crown to remove two public officers; when he observed that a motion, attacking an entire board, stood for a succeeding day, and when he coupled these circumstances with the tone and temper of the country, which laboured under the delusion that these alterations would afford relief, he considered it hid duty to negative that motion. The Crown to perform its duties properly, must have influence; and the only question was, what portion of influence was necessary for the efficient execution of those duties? He asked for no more than what he conceived to be the due proportion of influence which the Crown ought to possess in the 308 state; but he never would consent to strip it of its just attributes. Admitting this, and perceiving that circumstances, as far as regarded the mind of the country, were considerably changed; he thought, taking the present as a single question, that the House ought to give way to that extent. The people were very much disabused as to the idea that relief should be sought by the removal of a vast portion of taxation. They felt that the business of the country could not go on, unless a competent revenue were preserved. This was a great change; and as the House was not called on, in a headlong manner, to consider the present motion, he was ready to vote for it. If, however, it were understood, that a parliamentary commission would inquire faithfully into the nature of this office—that their report would be laid before the House—and that they would afterwards have an opportunity of deciding on it—he would be content to wait for that report. But if the question was now, ay or no, whether there should be one postmaster-general instead of two, he would give his vote in the affirmative.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, he had beard nothing that evening which had in any degree altered the view he had previously taken of the subject. Whether he looked at it in an administrative, a financial, or a constitutional view, his original opinion remained unchanged. The question was, in what course ought this subject to be put, to ensure a just and sound consideration of it? If this point were fairly argued, the hon. member for Corfe-castle would find, that those who opposed him stood on the 'vantage ground. Ought the office to be continued or not? The authority of his hon. friend (and surely he could not object to his own opinion) was in favour of continuing the office. It was true, in the parliament of 1813, he expressed a different opinion; but that opinion was reversed by a subsequent parliament: he participated in the sentiment, and therefore it was fair to infer that his calmer and more matured judgment was in favour of the office. Except that one objection of his hon. friend, which was afterwards removed, the whole stream of parliamentary proceeding was in favour of those who urged the necessity of keeping up the office. His hon. friend stated, that this, amongst other offices, was last year included in the address to the Crown. The question then was, had that address had no effect? It had pro- 309 duced a Treasury minute, directing the necessary inquiry to be made. The hon. member for Yorkshire was of opinion, that this point should be conceded, because the ferment of the public mind had subsided. But, he could not conceive where that hon. member saw the signs or this abated fervour, when a second motion was made on this subject in the same session. He would ask his hon. friend whether the House was likely to look into the office of joint-postmaster-general with the same dispassionate coolness which would distinguish a parliamentary commission, acting on oath? The hon. member for Yorkshire was willing to let the question rest for the present, provided it was understood that the report of the commissioners would be submitted to parliament. How could that step be prevented? It must come before parliament; and he felt that the report of five commissioners, acting on oath, would be a greater mill-stone about his neck than the bill of his hon. friend in 1813. He could not at all partake of the conviction which had so suddenly burst on the hon. member for Yorkshire, that the public mind had subsided into a state of quietude. He had no reason for believing that the gentlemen opposite would not go on attacking office after office. He could, however, assure the House, that if the motion were negatived, the subject of the post-office should be referred to the commissioners with as little delay as possible. After this plain declaration, he trusted the motion would be met by a negative. He must reprobate the idea, that men of exalted rank could be base enough to accept of such an office merely as a job.
§ Mr. Wilberforceagreed with an hon. baronet, that this motion became of far greater importance in consequence of the arguments by which it was resisted. It was alleged, that the office was necessary for the influence of the Crown. What! Preserve offices for the exclusive purpose of influence? What was this but what was called in plainer terms corruption? Avowedly, the ground of continuing the office was to induce members of parliament to support government, right or wrong. He admitted the distinction between accepting office because a person agreed with ministers in their views, and supporting those views because they obtained office; but the public were not always ready to make that distinction. This appeared to him to be a proper time 310 for considering the subject, with reference to the consequences that might follow from the principles on which it was supported; and, to support the office on the ground that it was necessary to the influence of the Crown, seemed calculated to produce a bad impression on the public. These were times which attacks on the constitution were made through the House of Commons. What could tend more to countenance such attacks than to decide upon keeping up, the situation from the motive adduced in support of it? He should support the motion, because he felt it to be peculiarly incumbent upon the House, in the present times, to be careful of; its character, and to endeavour, by all just and honourable means, to secure the respect and affection of the people.
§ Sir F. Blakewould cordially support this motion, and after it should be carried, he would maintain, that a great deal more remained to be done. If the House understood the state of the country, they would pass such motions by acclamations. His real opinion was, that the hon. member for Montrose did as much good as all his majesty's ministers put together. The hon. member had made those see who could not see before; or, if they could see, would not see. Like the weight of a clock, the hon. member had made ministers go better and better by winding them up. He had not heard one single reason for continuing two postmasters. It was said, that the two postmasters must be continued in order to preserve the influence of the Crown. Against whom? Against themselves; and not only against the present, but against every future House of Commons. Was it not preposterous to call upon them to commit suicide on themselves?
§ Mr. R. Martincondemned the conduct of the opposition, which, he contended, was rather dictated by a desire to annoy the government, than by any consideration of the abstract merits of the question. Even if it could be demonstrated on abstract principles, that one postmaster-general was enough, he would oppose the motion, if it had a tendency to shaker-the present administration.
§ Mr. James Macdonaldcongratulated his noble friend on having returned to the charge with a spirit, perseverance and talent which augured well for the public cause. Now that ministers had had leisure for reflection, and an opportunity of col- 311 lecting the opinion of their country friends, he had felt some curiosity to see what new shifting course they would adopt; and that curiosity had been amply gratified by the turn which the debate had taken to night. With the exception of the member for Surrey, there was not a single unofficial person who had ventured to justify the vote which he intended to give against the motion. The tone of the noble marquis was indeed considerably subdued, quantum mutatus ab illo Hectore!" How were the mighty fallen since the last debate on this question! Humble and beaten, and retiring from his former ground, this champion of the influence of the Crown, who had once declared, that without this office it would be impossible to carry on the government of the country, was now ready to refer to certain commissioners a question which had been already twice decided in that House. It had been said, that the office was a part of the necessary patronage of the Crown, and therefore, ought not to be touched; but it was for the House to determine, whether that argument ought to have weight with them. He would ask the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Robinson), who had made so strong an appeal on a former occasion, in favour of the inferior clerks of his own department, whether he could stand up in his place and say, that a second postmaster-general was necessary? Whether he could say to those clerks, that they must be sent adrift, but that a duplicate postmaster-general must be retained? He wished also to know from the noble marquis what he meant by a very favourite phrase, which he had used upon that and many other occasions, "a well understood economy." It reminded him of what Hudibras said of pain—
Tis neither bad, simpliciter, nor good, But merely as 'tis understood.The hon. member then entered into a statement, to show the various sources of influence possessed by the Crown, and concluded with cautioning the House against giving their sanction to the continuance of unnecessary places, with a view to extend that influence.
§ Mr. Moneydefended the office of joint postmaster-general. When he found that, within the last year, 2,000 reports had-been referred to them, on each of which they gave their opinion, he could not think the office without considerable duties and great responsibility. When he like- 312 wise considered the immense patronage connected with the office, he did not think that it should rest in the hands of one person.
§ Lord A. Hamiltonwished to ask the hon. gentleman, what length of time one of the postmasters, lord Clancarty, had been absent from the country? He believed he was away about two years; and this was a complete answer to the hon. gentleman's speech.
§ Mr. Mansfieldsaid, he would rather give 10,000l. a-year to two such persons as now filled the office, than 2,500l to one
§ After a short reply, the House divided Ayes, 216. Noes 201. Majority for the motion, 15.
| List of the Majority. | |
| Allen, J. H. | Crespigny, sir W. De |
| Althorp, visct. | Crompton, S. |
| Anson, hon. G. | Creevey, T. |
| Anson, sir G. | Chaplin, C. |
| Acland, sir T. | Chetwynd, G. |
| Archdale, Gen. | Crawley, Sam. |
| Astley, sir J. | Calthorpe, hon. F. |
| Baring, sir T. | Cooper, R. B. |
| Barnard, visct. | Corbett, P. |
| Barrett, S. M. | Cole, sir C. |
| Beaumont, T. P. | Curteis, J. E. |
| Becher, W. | Davies, T. H. |
| Belgrave, visct. | Denman, Thos. |
| Bennet, hon. H. G. | Dundas, hon. T. |
| Benyon, B. | Denison, W. J. |
| Bernal, R. | Dugdale, D. S. |
| Birch, J. | Davenport, D. |
| Bright, H. | Doveton, Gabriel |
| Brougham, H. | Ebrington, visct. |
| Boughey, sir J. F. | Ellice, E. |
| Burdett, sir F. | Ellis, hon. G. Agar |
| Bury, visct. | Evans, W. |
| Byng, G. | Farquharson, A. |
| Bagwell, rt. hon. W. | Fergusson, sir R. C. |
| Butterworth, Jos. | Fitzroy, lord C. |
| Blair, J. | Fitzroy, lord J. |
| Bankes, H. | Foley, T. |
| Benett, J. | Folkestone, visct. |
| Blake, sir F. | Frankland, R. |
| Boughton, sir C. R. | French, Arthur |
| Bastard, E. P. | Fellowes, W. H. |
| Carter, John | Forbes, C. |
| Chamberlayne, W. | Fane, John |
| Calvert, C. | Farrand, R. |
| Carew, R. S. | Grosvenor, R. |
| Cavendish, lord G. | Graham, S. |
| Cavendish, H. | Grant, J. P. |
| Cavendish, C. | Grattan, J. |
| Caulfield., hon. H. | Grenfell, Pascoe |
| Chaloner, R. | Griffith, J. W. |
| Clifton, viscount | Guise, sir W. |
| Coffin, sir I. | Gurney, H. |
| Coke, T. W. | Gipps, G. |
| Colborne, N. R. | Gaskell, B. |
| Concannon, L. | Hamilton, lord A. |
| Haldimand, W. | Patten, sir John |
| Heathcote, G. J. | Robinson, sir G. |
| Heron, sir Robt. | Ramsden, J. C. |
| Hobhouse, J. C. | Ramsay, sir A. |
| Hornby, E. | Rice, T. S. |
| Hughes, W. L. | Ricardo, D. |
| Hume, J. | Rickford, W. |
| Hurst, R. | Ridley, sir M. W. |
| Handley, H. | Robarts, A. |
| Hutchinson, hon. C. H. | Rumbold, C. |
| Harvey, sir E. | Russell, lord J. |
| Hotham, lord | Russell, R. G. |
| James, W. | Rowley, sir W. |
| Johnson, col. | Rogers, E. |
| Jervoise, G. P. | Ramsbottom, J. |
| Kennedy, T. F. | Stanley, lord |
| Knatchbull, sir E. | Scarlett, J. |
| Keck, G. A. L. | Scott, J. |
| Latouche, R. | Scott, James |
| Lamb, hon. G. | Scudamore, R. |
| Lambton, J. G. | Smith, R. |
| Langston, J. H. | Smith, J. |
| Lemon, sir W. | Smith, W. |
| Lloyd, sir E. | Smith, G. |
| Lennard, T. B. | Stewart, W. (Tyrone) |
| Lushington, S. | Stuart, lord J. |
| Leycester, R. | Sykes, D. |
| Lockhart, W. E. | Scourfield, W. |
| Lucy, G. | Sebright, sir J. |
| Lester, B. L. | Shelley, sir J. |
| Lawley, F. | Sotheron, Frank |
| Lethbridge, sir T. | Tavistock, marquis of |
| Maberly, J. | Taylor, C. |
| Maberly, W. L. | Taylor, M. A. |
| Macdonald, J. | Tierney, rt. hon. G. |
| Mackintosh, sir J. | Townshend, lord C. |
| Markham, admiral | Tynte, C. |
| Martin, J. | Tulk, C. A. |
| Manic, hon. W. | Talbot, R. W. |
| Maxwell, J. W. | Tremayne, J. H. |
| Milbank, M. | Titchfield, marq. |
| Monck, J. B. | Whitbread, S. C. |
| Moore, P. | Warre, J. A. |
| Marjoribanks, S. | Webbe, E. |
| Marryat, Joseph | Western, C. C. |
| Mahon, hon. S. | Williams, Owen |
| Newman, R. W. | Williams, T. P. |
| Neville, hon. R. | Williams, W. |
| Newport, rt. hon. sir J. | Williams, John |
| Nugent, lord | Wilson, sir R. |
| O'Callaghan, J. | Wilmington, sir T. |
| Ord, W. | Wood, alderman |
| Osborne, lord F. | Wyvil, M. |
| Ossulston, lord | Wilberforce, W. |
| O'Brien, sir E. | Wortley, J. S. |
| Palmer, col. | Whitmore, T. |
| Palmer, C. F. | Whitmore, T. W. |
| Pares, Thos. | Wells, John |
| Pierce, H. | Wodehouse, E. |
| Pelham, hon. C. A. | Wilson, John C. |
| Philips, G. R. | TELLERS. |
| Philips, G. | Duncannon, visct. |
| Power, R. | Normanby, visct. |
| Powlett, hon. W. | PAIRED OFF. |
| Prittie, hon. F. | Abercromby, hon. J. |
| Pryse, P. | Curwen, J. C. |
| Plumber, John | Dundas, C. |
| Ellison, Cuthbert | White, Luke |
| Ford, M. | Wilkin, W. |
| Westenra, hon. H. |