On the order of the day for going into a committee on this bill, Mr. Manning said, he did not deny the right of the House to look into the former offences committed at Penryn, but he denied the justice of punishing the present electors for what was done so far back as 1807. Only five persons had been proved to have taken bribes at the last election, and this was not sufficient to induce the House to disfranchise a whole borough. If the punishment of these electors was to be increased in consequence of what had taken place in 1807, he did not see why the House might not refer to any period, however remote. He denied that Sowell had been employed as his agent.
§ Mr. Legh-Kecksaid, he would have called Sowell to the bar, but for the disinclination of the House to hear evidence at the late hour to which the examination had been protracted. He, however, had not any expectation of getting much information from him. In 1819 the House laboriously endeavoured to elicit from him evidence, but in vain. The hon. member for Penryn had declared, that this Sowell 1043 was not an agent employed by him. He congratulated the hon. member upon the fact; for, had it been otherwise, he would not now have had the opportunity of addressing the House. That hon. member ought not to refer to the former corruption of Penryn, when the last examination fully established the present existence of bribery in its worst sense. This was proved, as well by direct evidence, as by the efforts which other witnesses made to misrepresent facts, or to suppress truth. If this were not a case which required parliamentary interference, it was beyond his conception when parliament could interfere to check corruption.
§ Mr. Fergusonsaid, that if this was not a case in which parliament ought to exercise its power of disfranchisement, it would be utterly impossible to conceive circumstances in which that mode of proceeding ought to be adopted. He could not agree with the hon. member for Penryn, that nothing was proved against the borough. It was fully established, that an agreement for the sale of the borough had been signed by a member of that House, who had stipulated to give each voter twenty-four guineas for voting for an hon. baronet. Mr. Swan had given each voter 5l.; but he had refused to give them the breakfast; by which was meant a bribe of 24l. The last report of the committee proved a variety of instances in which money was paid for votes. After alluding to the evidence of Stanbury, the hon. member went on to express his surprise that Mr. Freshfield, who was unknown in the borough, and who, it was said, had employed no agent, should have met with such signal success. It was clear from the evidence, that it was impossible to represent Penryn without bribery. This fact was also amply proved by captain Pellew, who had been for years a resident in the borough. If they should decide upon disfranchising that corrupt borough, the next question would be, to what district they would transfer the elective franchise. For himself, he thought it would be right to give it to Manchester. If they transferred it from Penryn to the adjoining Hundreds, the whole power would, he understood, be vested in the hands of two or three great men.
§ Mr. J. Denisonsaid, there never was a grosser case of bribery and corruption than the present, The borough of Penryn 1044 had been guilty of similar practices in 1807 and 1819. The right hon. gentleman at the head of the government had, on a former occasion, stated that if a case was made out against any borough, he would support a motion for its disfranchisement. He was, he said, ready to sacrifice Grampound in order to preserve Old Sarum. Now, he called on the right hon. gentleman to adhere to his promise, to attend to the recommendation of the committee, and to disfranchise this corrupt borough. If this was not done, they could never attempt to assail corruption, however undisguised, on any future occasion. If they decided upon the disfranchisement of Penryn, he should advise, that the right of returning members to parliament should be transferred to the wealthy, intelligent, and populous town of Manchester. To transfer the right of voting to the two adjoining hundreds, would be of little avail. Cornwall, as a county, had already more than a sufficient number of representatives.
§ Mr. A. O'Neillobjected to the course pursued with respect to Penryn. Allusion had been made to what took place in that borough in 1807 and in 1819. Now this, he thought, unfair. Were they to keep a paltry running account against this, that, and the other, borough? He called upon the House to put out of their recollection the details of what took place in 1807 and in 1819, and to decide upon the evidence now before them.
§ Sir C. Burrellsaid, that the evidence now before the House was conclusive; although it would be rendered more satisfactory in the other House, as their lordships could examine witnesses upon oath. It was a singular anomaly, that a Select Committee of the House of Commons should have power to examine witnesses upon oath, and yet that the whole House possessed no such power. This, he thought, was a matter which called for immediate alteration.
§ Mr. D. Barclaysaid, that the present electors of Penryn were about to be punished for the acts of those who had gone before them. He admitted that, at former periods, much corruption prevailed in Penryn, but a great reform had taken place in the borough since that period. It was too bad to condemn this borough upon hearsay evidence, and not upon that which was established before them. If the process of disfranchisement was employed 1045 against Penryn, why was it not to be carried into effect with respect to Old Sarum, Gatton, and a hundred others infinitely more corrupt? How could the House determine to proceed against Penryn, where there were five hundred voters, and delay to proceed against Gatton, where there were two seats that were always openly sold? If the House proceeded in the one case, it was impossible, with any degree of consistency, that they could refuse in the other. He thought that the reference to Manchester had only been introduced to prejudice the discussion. The committee that had sat to decide the merits of the present election, had agreed, that there was no proof of corruption against either himself or his colleague. He begged to recal to their recollection, that out of the five last elections, three had passed without any charge of bribery being made.
§ Lord Miltonthought the borough of Penryn had been so well defended by its present member, that, at first, he really believed the favour of the House had been transferred from the hon. gentleman who had just sat down to the borough itself. But that effect had been weakened by further consideration of the case. He did not think it proper to look merely to a few recent elections; but at the general history of the borough. If, from such an examination, all the elections, or nearly all, were found to have been purely conducted, it would be an act of injustice to disfranchise the borough for one accidental offence. But the examination would prove exactly the reverse: and he did think that, after the gross corruption proved against the Borough in 1807, its repeated practices of bribery ought not now to be overlooked. In that instance, a committee on behalf of the electors and sir C. Hawkins, now a member of the House, actually entered into an agreement, counter parts of which remained in possession of the respective parties. In the present instance, the bribery had been as real, though it was not conducted with the same formality. It was said, that there were five hundred voters; but it should be recollected, that of these, one hundred and fifty came in from the neighbouring parts on the approach of an election, attracted by the 24l. and the breakfast. The general system of the place was corrupt. In treating this subject, he wished the House to proceed according to the 1046 wisdom of ancient times, and the actual principles of our government, rather than to adopt any of the new-fangled theories which had crept in of late years. He wished to see them restore, as often as circumstances would permit, the old foundations of the representative government of the country. In proposing, however, to remove the franchise from Penryn, he did not do it on the supposition, that Cornwall was too well represented: he hardly believed that it was enough so. But, to take away the franchise from Penryn, could not be to take it from Cornwall, any more than it was to take it from Jamaica. If half the Cornish boroughs were disfranchised, that would not affect the actual representation of Cornwall; because, the members who obtained seats for those boroughs, by means which he would not more particularly notice, did not represent them: practically speaking, they were the representatives of very different and distant places.
Mr. Van Homrighsaid, he had been one of the members of the committee, and he thought it his duty to declare, that no act of bribery was proved against the two gentlemen who represented that place. Boroughs were not always corrupt; for he could distinctly declare, that he owed his election to the unbought, unsolicited, suffrages of the town he represented. He thought it would be a most extraordinary act to disfranchise a borough, when there was no proof of corruption against its two representatives.
§ Lord Althorpthought the argument of the hon. member was a very extraordinary one; and the more so, as that hon. member must have recollected, that, although the committee exonerated the two members from the charge of corruption, they had unanimously decided, that gross bribery had been practised in the borough. He felt that the House ought to revert to the former acts of the borough. The case of a borough was not like that of a man on trial for a particular crime; when it would certainly be most unjust to set the former acts of life in array against him. The case of a borough was to be determined on its constant practice; and, in the present instance, there was a practice of corruption for the course of twenty years. As a member of the committee, he must declare it as his opinion, that Penryn furnished a gross case of corruption.
Lord John Russellstated, that, after what had been said about Manchester being introduced into the discussion to prejudice the question, he should think it the more convenient course to declare; first, that Penryn ought to be disfranchised; and then, when the bill was again in the committee, the proper time would arise for considering the place to which its franchise should be transferred.
The House having resolved itself into a committee,
Lord John Russellproposed, by way of amendment, that in the first clause of the bill the following words should be introduced—"That the borough of Penryn be hereafter excluded from the privilege of returning burgesses to serve in parliament." The question of disfranchising the borough would depend upon the House being, or not being, satisfied that great corruption had taken place. He thought that, after the evidence given before the committee, there could be no doubt upon that subject. The abuse of the elective franchise had been sufficiently great, to justify the House in taking it away from the borough. The next question to be determined was, to what place it should be transferred? Some members had intimated, that it should be transferred to a large town now unrepresented; while others had proposed, that it should be given to the inhabitants of the adjoining hundreds. It would aggravate the defect to give the franchise to the hundred; as it would throw the right of election into the hands of a few large proprietors. This mode of reforming corrupt boroughs in fact created little counties, and did not tend to the general extension of the right of election. It had often been said, that trade and manufactures were not sufficiently represented in parliament; and, when cases of this kind occurred, advantage ought to be taken of them, to afford representatives to large and industrious masses of the population. A remedy would thus be gradually supplied to the acknowledged defect of the House. He therefore proposed by one bill to deprive Penryn of the elective franchise entirely; and by another, to transfer that franchise to Manchester. He moved, "That the borough of Penryn, hereafter, be excluded from returning Burgesses to parliament."
§ Mr. Legh-Keckobserved, that the present bill was the same as that passed by the House in 1819, and thrown out by the 1048 lords; and it was now supported by additional evidence, taken before the late committee, and at the bar, to shew the existence of bribery and corruption. In his conscience he was satisfied, that the safest mode was to give the franchise to the hundred. He contended, that the manufacturing interest was already sufficiently represented in parliament; and that although the resolutions passed at Manchester were most temperate, it became the House to beware of establishing an evil precedent. If, on every occasion of this kind, the franchise was given to some populous manufacturing town, what would become of the much-talked-of balance between the manufacturing and landed interests in parliament? As the experiment was of injurious tendency, and as the course pursued in former instances, of extending the franchise to the neighbouring hundreds had not been complained of, he should support a like course in the present instance. If the contrary was the opinion of the committee, he should bow to it.
§ Mr. C. Barclayadvised his hon. relative not to press the question to a division, seeing that it was undoubtedly the opinion of the committee that Penryn should be disfranchised. He should give his support to the proposition of the noble lord; as he was satisfied that to transfer the right to Manchester, under certain restrictions, would be highly beneficial. One limitation he wished was, that no person should have the power to vote for a member who was not rated to the support of the poor to a certain amount. In Southwark, which he formerly represented, this plan was found to work well, for there, by certain local acts, on all houses under 20l. a year, the landlord paid the poor-rate, and the tenant, consequently, had no vote. Yet Southwark was considered a scot and lot borough. He had had no reason to complain of the electors of Southwark, and certainly he never knew a body of men better able to think for themselves, and to decide upon any great political questions.
§ Lord Miltonsaid, that, by the disfranchisement of Penryn, a vacancy in the representation would be occasioned, which vacancy might be supplied upon two principles; population and taxation. With reference to both it might be urged, that a large and wealthy district of the metropolis was unrepresented—the parish of Mary-la-bonne; and he thought that it 1049 had, perhaps, as good a title to the franchise now to be disposed of, as any other place. He protested against the principle which the hon. gentleman who spoke last wished to establish—that of confining the right of voting to an aristocratical portion of the community. The abandonment of the ancient system of the constitution in this respect, as far as regarded Leeds, and, by wishing to confine the right of voting to a certain rental, had had the effect of depriving that important town of the opportunity of returning members, and had given it to the county of York at large. He objected strongly to these fanciful devices to exclude the inferior orders from representation, whose interests most required protection. He liked to witness the influence of the inferior orders in the House. The more extensive the right was made, the less chance there was of corruption. If the franchise were general, votes would not be worth purchasing.
§ Mr. G. Philipsbelieved, that the feeling in Manchester was, that the right of voting should be given to such only as were rated to the poor, for houses of the annual value of 15l. or 20l. It seemed to him that the present was a very favourable opportunity for introducing the principle of such a qualification; and the constituent body in Manchester would then consist of from five thousand to seven thousand persons.
§ Lord Althorpput it to the hon. member for Leicestershire, whether it would not be better to agree to the disfranchisement of Penryn absolutely; leaving it to the House to determine hereafter to what place the representation should be transferred.
Mr. Warburtonthought, that to extend the elective franchise to the adjoining hundreds, would be throwing the power of returning the members into the hands of the landed interest.
Mr. Alderman Waithmanexpressed his approbation of the principles which had been mentioned by the noble member for Yorkshire. He fully concurred with him, that, according to the true constitutional system, representation and taxation ought to be combined as much as possible; and that the influence of the lower classes in that House ought not to be diminished, but placed beyond the reach of corruption, by the numbers to whom the elective franchise was extended.
§ Mr. Canningsaid, that, looking to what had on this, and on former occasions, occurred, he thought, that, although the de 1050 grees of guilt in these cases were different, enough had been proved against Penryn to call for the notice of the legislature; but he did not think it had been proved, that the proportion of guilty persons was so large, as compared with the whole population, as to justify the complete disfranchisement of the borough. In a question of this kind, which was no party one, but a matter rather of a judicial nature, each hon. member would form the opinion which he might consider as that which the state of the case called for. In such a state of things, perhaps, the opinion of any single individual might not be held to be of any great consequence; but the unanimous opinion of the committee up stairs was so weighty, that it would require very strong evidence to rebut it. Upon the principle which he had already mentioned; namely, that the case was one of a judicial character, he would abstain from going into any general discussion, but decide as if he were upon a jury, and bound to give a verdict strictly according to the merits of the case. He did not think that such a degree of guilt was established, as to warrant a total disfranchisement. Many were, no doubt, innocent; but, in the situation of committees of this description, the innocent must sometimes suffer along with the guilty; and, upon the whole, he believed that he should do his duty best by supporting the motion of the hon. member for Leicester. As to the case of Gram-pound, he had only to observe that, when it was judged proper to resort to a measure of this kind, and, to a certain extent, to trench upon the franchises of any particular place, the most constitutional mode was, not to adopt an entirely new representation, but to confine, as much as possible, the franchise, which, though strictly a public privilege, was still, in an innocent sense, a valuable private possession, to the same description of interest as that from which it was taken. He admitted the convenience, in point of debate, of separating the disfranchisement from any other question; but, in another view, he thought it was material, that the question of partial disfranchisement, and that of fixing the manner in which the franchise should be subsequently settled, should be decided together, instead of leaving the ulterior question to form the subject of a new vote; and, therefore, without entering upon a discussion of the general principle, either one way or the other, he thought his vote 1051 ought to be given for the motion of the hon. member for Leicester.
Mr. Hobhouseobserved, that when he saw a primâ facie case of corruption, he was glad to cut away the corrupted part. As to the degree of guilt which was sufficient to justify disfranchisement, the right hon. gentleman and himself had different views. He was anxious to detect; the right hon. gentleman to defend. He thought the better course would be, for the present, to disfranchise that borough, and to consider afterwards, what should be done with it. He thought that, if the right hon. gentlemen could be persuaded to separate the two questions of disfranchisement, and how the place thus made vacant should be supplied, it would be disposing of the matter in a way more honourable to the House, and more advantageous to the question itself. He hoped the right hon. gentleman would not press the question of throwing the franchise into the hundreds. Such a case had been made out against the borough of Penryn, that it would be an injustice to the constitution, if it were not disfranchised; and he did not see how this was to be done, if they tampered with that question, by introducing the question how the franchise was to be disposed of. For his own part, he would not vote for the disfranchisement of the borough, if it was to be thrown into the hundreds; and he did hope that these two points would be separated, that the country might not misunderstand the principle upon which the House proceeded.
§ Mr. Wynnsaid, that, of all the cases which had been brought before that House, there were few in which bribery had been brought home to so small a number of individuals. At the same time, there was clear moral evidence of a much greater system of bribery having been carried on, than had been brought home. One gentleman had told them, that he left Penryn, because his impression was, that he could not procure a sufficient number of votes without paying for them. Nor could he dismiss from his mind the events which had taken place at other elections at Penryn; from which it was clear, that the bribery was not casual, but systematic, and that it could be removed by nothing but the interposition of parliament. They might, perhaps, have indulged a hope, that the punishment of individuals would put an end to this practice. That experiment had been tried, but still the system 1052 was carried on. This, therefore, was a case in which the House ought to legislate. He would prefer supporting either of the propositions which had been suggested, to leaving matters to go on. He was anxious that the proposition of the hon. member who introduced the bill should be adopted, as it would then be less liable to be lost in another place, where four bills of a similar description had already failed.
§ Lord Sandonthought it would be a pity to neglect so good an opportunity of enabling large towns to send members to parliament. If the principle which some hon. gentlemen had insisted upon was allowed to prevail, the number of Cornish members sent to that House would be as numerous as ever. He should therefore vote for the proposition of the noble lord.
Mr. Wood ,of Preston, said, that, if the hundreds were to be taken in, he would not vote for the disfranchisement of the borough; for, upon that plan, the paramount influence would be given to two great neighbouring proprietors, lord De Dunstanville and sir J. St. Aubyn. He regarded the influence of the great landed proprietors, who sent the rich members into the House, with as much contempt as he did these corrupt boroughs.
§ Mr. W. Marshallsaid, that, if he understood the proposition rightly, it was to allow those persons who had acted in so unconstitutional a manner to keep their votes, but to increase their numbers. He thought that, if any change was made, it ought to be on constitutional grounds, and not a half measure.
§ Mr. W. Lambadverted to the strange change of opinion which had taken place among the parliamentary reformers; for they now cried out against increasing the influence of the landed interest, and the great object of their general plans of reform had before been always stated to be to increase that influence. Such had been the alleged object of the hon. baronet, the member for Westminster, and others; and yet they now appeared to be averse to the extension of the influence of the landed interest. He should support the original motion.
Alderman Waithmanopposed the throwing open the franchise of Penryn to the adjoining hundreds. He would prefer having the abuses of the representation left in their hideous deformity, to the delusive farce proposed to be played off.
Lord Rancliffewas glad of an oppor- 1053 tunity of giving his support to the chancellor of the Exchequer; who had that evening, stated that though he was opposed to the general question of reform, he would assistin effecting any practical good.
§ Sir J. Newportsaid, if ever there was a case that called for the intervention of that House, it was the case before them. Penryn had been proved to be thoroughly corrupt; not at the late election merely, but for a series of elections. Considering the anterior practices, and the evidence of their continuation, he saw no other mode of dealing with the corruption of the borough, than that of rooting, it out, by transferring the elective franchise to some wealthy town at present unrepresented.
Mr. Broughamsaid, that in the course of the debate, both sides had assumed the guilt of Penryn. The only question was, whether that guilt should be punished by letting in the hundreds to share the elective franchise, or by transferring it absolutely to some other place? The latter mode implied a greater degree of guilt; but the former was not consistent with guiltlessness. It was clear there must be some fault in Penryn, else why sluice them with the hundreds? If the electors of Penryn were innocent, why all of a sudden let in on the two hundred voters, who, for the purposes of bribery and corruption, had been made four hundred voters, the two thousand voters of the neighbouring hundreds? That form of punishment assumed that they were condemned, though not so deeply as by the other. The difference of these forms to them would, however, in effect, be very slight. The skilful voter, who looked at the property with an eye to borough objects, and regarded his vote only with a view to sell it—one of the Stanburys and Sowells—would not thank the House for the mitigated form which would let in upon him the two thousand voters in his neighbourhood. Men of that stamp did not love their neighbours as themselves. They would rather continue the monopoly of votes. He believed firmly that Sowell or Stanbury would just as lief have the borough wholly disfranchised, as retain their votes, if they shared them with their neighbours. What would they sell their votes for when they were only one of twenty-five hundred? He thought, therefore, that the disfranchisement was as complete by letting in the hundreds, as by transferring the elective franchise else- 1054 where. The corrupt interest of the parties punished was just as fully extinguished in the one case as in the other. He would not then enter into the inquiry, whether Penryn deserved to be punished. It was admitted on all hands, that it had incurred guilt. The question was reduced simply to this: whether the House should, by the one form, operate a general disfranchisement, without making any provision as to the parties who should succeed to the exercise of the franchise; or whether the House should adopt the proposition of the hon. member for Leicestershire and, by throwing the right into the hundreds, admit them to share it with the borough? If he voted for the latter proposition, it would only be advancing a few steps in the inquiry; but, if he voted for his noble friend's amendment, and if the effect of that vote did no more than merely to prepare the canvass on which the future artist might inscribe reform, he thought he should be effecting a great practical good. He was ready to admit that the question was one of the greatest importance; but he felt, at the same time, with his noble friend, that the franchise should not be extended to the hundreds, but that those who had been proved to be guilty should forfeit that right which they had too long abused. This, of itself, he conceived, was a sufficient argument in favour of his noble friend's amendment; namely, that it did not pledge the committee to any one line rather than another. Any member might give his vote for his noble friend's proposition; and, on the third reading of the bill, it was competent for that hon. member to introduce, by way of rider, a clause, by which the franchise of Penryn should or should not be transferred to this or that place. What was the naked fact? A party stood accused of malpractices, and a verdict of guilty had been pronounced. All that this bill sought to effect was, to transfer the right of systematically perpetuating a system of abuse, which was so shamefully carried on, that it grew at last too intolerable to bear; and the end by which this desirable object was sought to be effected was, by at once disfranchising the guilty borough of Penryn. Whether that disfranchisement should be total or partial was matter for future consideration; but let the House come to the determination to disfranchise the borough at once, and a great practical good would be effected. How the borough should be 1055 dealt with afterwards, the House in its wisdom could decide; but he thought, if the question of disfranchisement were at once carried, it would not be very difficult to determine where to transfer the right of voting. The House should recollect, that there was such a county as Cornwall that returned no less than forty-four members to parliament, and then there was the whole district of Lancashire that only returned fourteen members. It was the greatest of all possible delusions for hon. gentlemen to flatter themselves that, by extending the franchise of Penryn to the neighbouring hundreds, they would effect any real good. He did not wish to say where the franchise should be placed, because he thought that question could be discussed with far greater advantage in some future stage of the bill; but this much he would say, that, by stripping Penryn of the power which its voters had too long abused, a great good would be effected.
§ Mr. S. Bournesaid, that, if he could believe with his hon. and learned friend, that a verdict of guilty had been pronounced against the borough of Penryn, he would at once agree in the propriety of stripping the borough and transferring its right to some more deserving place. He felt that the question was one of great difficulty; and, if any means could be devised by which those who were guilty could be adequately punished, he would vote for that punishment. But he did not conceive that it would be fair to disfranchise a whole borough for the misconduct, however gross, of not more than half the voters in that borough. If any gentleman could point out any way in which the guilty could be punished without injuring the guiltless, he would willingly adopt that course; but he could not make up his mind to punish both parties alike—a proceeding which, he conceived, would be contrary to every principle of justice.
The committee divided: For the original motion 69; For lord J. Russell's amendment 124; Majority for taking the Elective Franchise from the Borough of Penryn, 55.
§ List of the Majority and of the Minority.
| MAJORITY. | |
| Althorp, visc. | Baring, W. B. |
| Archdeckne, A. | Baring, sir T. |
| Barclay, C. | Birch, J. |
| Baring, F. | Benett, John |
| Bentinck, Lord W. | Maxwell, J. |
| Blackburne, J. | Millbank, M. |
| Bright, H. | Milton, visc. |
| Brougham, H. | Monck, J. B. |
| Brougham, J. | Morpeth, visc. |
| Burdett, sir F. | Munday, F. |
| Calcraft, J. | Newport, sir J. |
| Calvert, C. | O'Brien, L. |
| Calvert, N. | Ord, W. |
| Campbell, C. | Osborne, lord F. |
| Carter, J. | Palmer, C. F. |
| Cave, R. O. | Pelham, J. C. |
| Clements, visc. | Philips, G. sen. |
| Colborne, N. R. | Ponsonby, hon. F. |
| Corbett, P. | Ponsonby, hon. W. S. |
| Cradock, S. | Ponsonby, hon. G. |
| Crompton, S. | Poyntz, W. S. |
| Dawson, A. | Price, R. |
| Davenport, D. | Proby, hon. G. |
| Davenport, E. D. | Protheroe, E. |
| Davies, T. | Rancliffe, lord |
| Duncannon, visc. | Rice, T. S. |
| Dundas, hon. T. | Rickford, W. |
| Ducane, P. | Robarts, A. W. |
| Denison, W. J. | Robinson, sir G. |
| Downie, R. | Rowley, sir W. |
| Easthope, J. | Russell, lord J. |
| Ebrington, visc | Russell, lord G. W. |
| Euston, earl of | Russell, lord W. |
| Fazakerly, J. N. | Russell, R. G. |
| Fergusson, R. C. | Russell, John |
| Fitzroy, lord C. | Robinson, G. R. |
| Folkestone, visc. | Rumbold, C. E. |
| Fitzgerald, J. | Sandon, lord |
| Graham, sir J. | Sebright, sir J. |
| Grosvenor, hon. R. | Shelly, sir J. |
| Gordon, R. | Slaney, R. A. |
| Guise, sir B. W. | Smith, W. |
| Guest, J. J. | Sotheron, Admiral |
| Heathcote, G. J. | Stuart H. V. |
| Heron, sir R. | Stanley, lord |
| Hobhouse, J. C. | Stanley, hon. Ed. |
| Howard, H. | Tavistock, Marquis |
| Howick, visc. | Thompson, C. P. |
| Hume, J. | Townshend, lord |
| Hurst, R. | Tufton, hon. H. |
| Jephson, C. D. O. | Tynte, C. K. |
| Kekewich, S. T. | Waithman, alderman |
| Kennedy, T. F. | Warburton, H. |
| Labouchere, H. | Webbe, Edw. |
| Lamb, hon. G. | Western, C. C. |
| Lester, B. L. | Whitbread, S. C. |
| Leycester, R. | Wood, alderman |
| Lloyd, sir E. P. | Wood, C. |
| Lombe, E. | Wood, John |
| Marryatt, J. | Wrottesley, sir J. |
| Marjoribanks, S. | Wilson, sir R. |
| Marshall, W. | TELLER. |
| Martin, J. | Lord John Russell |
| MINORITY. | |
| Acland, sir T. | Buck, L. W. |
| Arkwright, R. | Buller, C. |
| Barclay, D. | Butler, C. |
| Batley, C. H. | Burrell, sir C. |
| Binning, lord | Bourne, rt .hon.S. |
| Bonham, H. | Brown, J. |
| Carrington, sir F. | Lambert, J. S. |
| Canning, rt. hon. G. | Lamb, R. hon. W. |
| Chichester, A. | Lascelles, hon. W. |
| Chaplin, C. | Lowther, lord |
| Clerk, sir G. | Macauley, gen. |
| Cockburn, sir G. | Manning, W. |
| Croker, J. W. | Martin, sir B. |
| Curteis, E. | O'Neil, A. John |
| Davis, R. H. | Palmer, R. |
| Dottin, A. | Pallmer, C. N. |
| Douglas, W. R. K. | Palmerston, visc. |
| Duff, general | Petit, I. H. |
| Drake, T. T. | Phillimore, Dr. |
| Eliot, lord | Planta, J. |
| Farquhar, J. | Saunderson, A. |
| Fellowes, W. H. | Scarlett, sir J. |
| Fitzgerald, rt. hon. V. | Sibthorpe, C. D. |
| Forbes, sir C. | Somerset, lord G. |
| Foster, J. L. | Spottiswoode, A. |
| Gordon, John | Talmash, hon. F. J. |
| Grant, sir A. | Tullamore, Lord |
| Grant, rt. hon. C. | Twiss, H. |
| Grant, R. | Tyndal, sir N. C. |
| Halse, J. | Van Homrigh, P. |
| Herries, J. C. | Vernon, G. |
| Hill, sir G. | Wynn, rt. hon. C. |
| Horton, R.W. | Wyndham, W. |
| Holmes, W. | |
| Irving, John | TELLER. |
| King, hon. H. | Legh-Keck, G. A. |