HC Deb 04 July 1833 vol 19 cc129-44
Mr. Mark Philips

rose to propose the Motion of which he had given notice. He had no private motive in bringing forward this Motion. In a population of 200,000 in Liverpool, it appeared that there were 11,000 electors, of whom a large proportion were voters under the ancient franchise. There was still, in his opinion, a wide door left for corruption, both in the counties and the boroughs. His great anxiety was, to eradicate these practices entirely from Liverpool, and to prevent them from spreading to other boroughs. In support of the course which he was pursuing, the hon. Gentleman quoted the opinions delivered upon former occasions, of the hon. member for Montgomeryshire, and other hon. Members; and concluded by moving that a Select Committee be appointed to pursue the inquiries entered into by the Committee appointed on the 6th of March, to take into consideration the Petition presented to the House on the 21st of February, from certain inhabitants of Liverpool complaining of bribery and corruption in that borough.

Mr. Langdale

contended, that it would he exceedingly unjust to appoint the proposed Committee unless the House were satisfied that the evidence taken before the Committee which sat two months established the fact of the existence of a gross system of extensive and systematic bribery in the borough of Liverpool. It had never been understood that the inquiries of the Committee were to be directed to the expediency of carrying the principles of which the Reform Bill was founded into further effect in the borough of Liverpool. However he might regret that when the Reform Bill was in progress, its provisions were not extended in that respect it was certainly now too late to re-open the discussion on that point with reference to a single borough. Such being the case, and the only question for the House to consider being whether or not there existed in the evidence taken before the late Committee, a case of extensive and systematic bribery and corruption against the borough of Liverpool, he had no difficulty in saying that he did not think there existed any such case. In support of this opinion, the hon. Member entered at some length into an examination of the evidence as contained in the Report of the Committee, and maintained that it by no means bore out the allegations against the borough. For these reasons he should oppose the Motion.

Mr. Warburton

said, it was the understanding of the House, that if, on inquiry, it should be found that the freemen of Liverpool had not repented of their corrupt practices, then a general investigation should be instituted into the whole of their past delinquencies. The Solicitor General and the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, expressed themselves to that effect; the latter of whom went so far as to say, that it was not intended that the Committee should confine their inquiry exclusively to the last election, but only that they should devote their attention to it in the first instance. The question, then, was, had the constituency of Liver-pool reformed itself? It appeared, from the Report of the Committee, that bribery and corruption prevailed at the last election; and he believed the desire to be bribed, as far as regarded the old burgesses, was general and undiminished. The hon. Member quoted several portions of the evidence for the purpose of showing the general expectation and desire felt by the old freemen to receive money for their votes. With this evidence before them, he did not sec how the Members of that House could refuse to accede to the proposition for the re-appointment of a Committee of Inquiry. The hon. Member then read the evidence of Mr. Keyhole to prove that Mr. James Ackers and Mr. T. Horsfall, the son of the Mayor of Liverpool, had proposed to give half a day's wages to such of the old constituents of Liver-pool as would receive it, to vote for Lord Sandon and Colonel Sir Howard Douglas. He contended upon the evidence of that witness, which he read at considerable length, that Mr. James Ackers had, from his own knowledge of the old constituency, calculated the purity of each of the old electors at the price of 2s. 6d. a-head. He then admitted that, though it was easy to prove the readiness of those electors to receive bribes, it was a task of more difficulty to prove that bribes had been given to them. Still no man who considered the evidence carefully, could have the slightest doubt that bribes had been given. There was the evidence of Mr. Keyhole that ribands, in which sovereigns had been wrapped up, had been furnished by Mr. Wilson, the linen-draper, to Mr. Ackers, and had been given away by Mr. Ackers to different voters. Mr. Ackers had admitted that he had given away ribands to the electors wrapped up in paper envelopes, which he had received from Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson might have been called to prove that those paper envelopes contained nothing but ribands. The other side, however, had not called him, and what was the inference which the House ought to draw from the non-production of Mr. Wilson? He had quoted and said enough to prove to the conviction of every unprejudiced person that the wholesale disposition of the old constituency of Liverpool to receive money, if money was offered to them, continued to exist. He would also call the attention of the House to the unremitting attention which the canvassers for Lord Sandon and Sir H. Douglas displayed in going up to the poll on the second day of the election with the old constituency, many of whom were in a slate of complete intoxication. Why was this done? Because several of those electors, when the bribery oath was put to them, refused to take if, in spite of the intoxication which overpowered them. There was proof upon proof that these canvassers had pressed many of the electors—whose consciences permitted them to take money, but whose consciences were not sufficiently seared to take an oath that they had received no money—to go again to the polling-booths, and swallow the oath which they had previously rejected. This was proved by the evidence of Thomas Edwards, the bugleman, Lord Sandon, who heard a man, brought up by Lord Sandon's canvassers on the second day, say, when the bribery oath was tendered to him by Mr. Thornley's agent, "No, I'm d—d if I take it," and then leave the booth. The same witness also deposed that he heard another voter, who was brought up by two young gentlemen, declare, on having the same oath tendered to him: "No, I'll not take that oath, by God! for I have been bribed." He further deposed, that when they left the polling-booth he heard the same young gentlemen remonstrating with the man on account of his refusal to vote, when he told them, that they were more in fault than he was; that they knew he was bribed, and that it was wrong in them to bring him up to swear that he was not. The hon. Member also referred to the evidence of Dr. Thornley, the brother of the candidate, which the House would find at page 27. The evidence of this witness (which Mr. Warburton read) was to the effect that a voter, of the name of John Winwood, was brought up to vote for the conservative candidates. The bribery oath was put to him. He repeated the words of the oath till he came to the words "money or promise of money." As soon as he came to the words "promise of money," he stopped, and said, "I cannot swear to this, for I have had promise of money." John Winwood was afterwards called before the Committee to explain this circumstance, and he fairly stated to them, "I refused to take the bribery oath because I had received a promise that I should have money for my vote." After the evidence which he had read, he thought that it was impossible to deny, that he had laid before the House sufficient grounds for continuing the investigation, which had been so well commenced, into the corrupt practices so long prevalent in the borough of Liverpool. He was confident, that if such investigation were granted, the iniquities of the old constituency of Liverpool would be proved beyond all dispute. As the electors of Liverpool bad not at the last election turned away from their former iniquities, nor shown a disposition to do that which was lawful and right, he hoped that the House would inquire further into their conduct, and would, if their guilt were proved, punish them for their misdeeds.

Mr. Houlddsworth

regretted, that the hon. member for Birmingham (Mr. Attwood) was not in his place, as the evidence quoted showed, that an unrestricted paper circulation had increased the price of votes as well as of every other commodity. In the course of a few years the price had increased, according to the cases which had been cited, from 10l. to 40l., and, in some instances, a much larger sum had been given. He believed, however, that the system had not been confined to Liverpool. The bills paid to voters in the city of York had been proved in a Court of Justice; and was it fair that Liverpool should be disfranchised, and York left untouched? In his opinion it was better to see how the Bill of the noble Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces, would work, before they commenced legislating for any particular place. He should vote against the Motion.

Mr. Lloyd

did not agree with those who thought the House should wait and sec whether the Reform Bill would put an end to corrupt proceedings at elections. The question was, whether the privileges intrusted to the freemen of Liverpool had been exercised by the constituency of that town to the public benefit, and not whether depriving them of the privilege would be prejudicial or otherwise to the freemen of Liverpool? He conceived that the measure about to be proposed stood now precisely as it did last Session, when it was postponed in consequence of the pressure of business. He believed, that the noble Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces (Lord John Russell), and the right hon. member for Montgomery (Mr. W. Wynn), then promised, that if it did not pass in that Session, the measure should have their support in the next. He thought a sufficient case had been made out for probing the matter to the bottom; and the Motion should have his cordial support.

Mr. Nicholl

contended, that as the Report now stood no man who was acquainted with the rules of evidence in our Courts of Justice could say, that a case had been made out, or that any proof had been given of bribery beyond the amount of three guineas. One part of the proof was, that a man had received 7s. a-day for services performed during the election; but if cases like that were to be taken as proofs of bribery, there was no election in the country that might not be set aside. It was, he contended, cruel to drag up witnesses from Liverpool in cases of this kind. The House should consider this was not an election petition. In that case the expense would be thrown on the parties, but here it would be thrown on the public; and he would ask the House was there any case made out to show that such an expense ought to be incurred? The hon. Member contended, that whatever bribery had been proved was confined to an extremely narrow compass, and that no case of general bribery had been shown to warrant a further inquiry, or to put the country to any further expense.

Mr. Aglionby

said, that the principal error which had been made by the hon. and learned Member who spoke last, consisted in his having overlooked the fact, that corruption could exist where no direct proof of bribery was possible. With respect to the condition of Liverpool in this respect, let him only ask the House whether it was not distinctly understood, when the Committee was appointed, that their duty was not confined to the examination of bribery cases, but extended also to the question of the corruption of the freemen of Liverpool generally? He could also refer generally to the evidence taken before the Committee, as affording strong proof in support of his opinion with respect to the corrupt state of that borough; and he considered it was imperative on the House to notice it. He begged at the same time to disclaim any connexion either with a disappointed faction in that town, or, indeed, with any person interested in the matter; his observations and his vote were solely guided by his determination to perform his duty to the public as a Member of that House, and by no other consideration whatever. He was of opinion, that, unless some further proceedings were instituted upon this report of evidence of the Committee now before the House, the whole of the inquiry up to the present moment must be looked upon as a farce; and with these views he should certainly vote for the Motion before the House.

Mr. Milnes Gaskell

contended, that the Motion of the hon. member for Manchester, (Mr. M. Philips) not only involved the interests of the town of Liverpool, but affected the security of the elective franchise in every town throughout the Empire. He knew the unpopularity which attached to an indisposition to concede Committees of this description, but he could not concur in the opinion, that it was always the safest course to grant them, when he remembered the ruinous expense which they entailed, and the local irritation which they tended to promote. They were told, that investigation was the peculiar province of a reformed House of Commons; and he admitted that they were placed by that circumstance in a situation of considerable delicacy; but he was so far from thinking that it ought to increase their predisposition to suppose guilt, which was always too great, that he thought, on the contrary, it ought to increase their caution, and make them doubly jealous of advancing a single step in cases which were not supported by the clearest and most undeniable evidence. He characterized the petition which had been presented against the freemen as a wanton and ungenerous attack upon the part of their political opponents, and as insolent in the highest degree as regarded that House, and expressed his opinion that if any real proofs of bribery had existed, they would have shown themselves in an attempt to unseat his noble friend, (Lord Sandon). The House, too, should bear in mind that no opposition had been offered to the original appointment of the Committee, upon a distinct understanding that no further steps were to be taken, if the petitioners should fail in substantiating their allegations; and yet, in violation of this express contract, it was proposed to revive the inquiry. The success of the present Motion would be attended, in his opinion, with no one practical advantage, but would have the effect of endangering the peace of Liverpool, and of every town which was large enough to contain the elements of electioneering rancour. He should, therefore, give it his decided opposition.

Mr. Edward Gladstone

was glad to hear some hon. Members cry "Question!" for he was bound to conclude, that those who called for the question had at least read the evidence. As it was his fortune to be intimately connected with the town of Liverpool, he was desirous of making a very few observations on the question under consideration. The facts proved before the late Committee, when contrasted with the bold and menacing accusations previously made was so ridiculously small, that he should not have the smallest apprehension as to the vote of any hon. Gentleman who had made himself acquainted with the Report, if it were not for a circumstance connected with the borough of Liverpool, which brought this question to trial under great disadvantages. He alluded to the election of 1830. The proceedings at that election were certainly sufficient to secure for the town of Liverpool an immortality of disgrace, and the recollection of the transactions connected with that election had produced a predisposition in the minds of many to give easy credence to charges against the borough of Liverpool, to which, under other circumstances, they would not be so readily disposed to listen. The disgraceful acts at that election were, however, in a great degree, attributable to an accidental combination of events, which would have produced very nearly the same results upon any constituency in England. Previously to that election, the freemen of the town of Liverpool, composed chiefly of the labouring classes, had been accustomed to vote, not under the influence of bribery, but in conformity with the example of their masters. These elections might have been carried on in a manner exceedingly to be deprecated; there might have been a considerable degree of treating; and there might have been payment of wages; but direct bribery had not prevailed extensively or systematically. It was not the moving spring of the election. In 1830, two candidates presented themselves, who entertained similar political opinions; no principle was involved; and the people of influence did not actively interfere. This left the poor freemen exposed to the offers of those who wished to tempt them, and they almost universally accepted bribes; but it was not fair to assume that they had before taken bribes, and would again take them when political feeling could have opportunity to operate. He must complain of the nature of the evidence adduced in this case, both on the score of quantity and of quality. The fact of such a witness as Elizabeth Robinson, whose name had already been mentioned, being introduced by the peti- tioners, showed the weakness of their case. She refused, throughout her evidence, to give any names or circumstances which would have rendered it possible to put her assertions to the proof. Not only did she decline giving the names of parties, but she actually told those who brought her up to London before she left Liverpool, that she would give no names. Thus the fact of their having brought up such a witness to give such testimony, showed how destitute the petitioners must have been of any evidence more worthy of attention. It was admitted, that the quantity of cases proved was altogether trifling, and insufficient to justify any proceedings thereupon. To what suppositions then had Gentlemen resorted, in order to supply this woeful deficiency in the actual proof! In the first place it was said, that evidence could not easily be got, because the machinery of bribery and corruption was worked under ground in perfect concealment. But what proof was there of this assertion? In support of it, it was said, that applications for money and drink were made to the canvassers of Mr. Thornley. This was contradicted by the evidence on the other side, and it did not amount to the allegation of a general practice, whilst there was a circumstance which went far to explain any casual applications of that kind. It was an admitted fact, that these burgesses were generally in favour of Sir Howard Douglas; and it was common with persons of the lower classes, when solicited by adverse persons of a higher rank on these occasions, partly from bashfulness and respect to their station, and partly from a desire to get rid of their importunities, to say that they could not give any promise. There might have been some direct applications for drink, or even money, the remains of the corrupt practices of 1830; but they were exceedingly partial, and were probably, in many cases, adopted as means merely of getting rid of the importunity of a canvasser against whom they determined to vote. An hon. Member had dwelt upon the organization of the canvassers—a supposition both uncharitable and gratuitous, if it were meant to imply that the organization was for the purposes of bribery. Would the hon. Member inform him how it was possible, with 11,000 voters to canvass effectually, without organizing the canvassers almost like an army? There was one circumstance relied on by the hon. member for Bridport, as favouring the attack made upon the freemen, which, in point of fact, really made for the defence—he alluded to the proposal made in the Committee of Sir Howard Douglas and his (Mr. Gladstone's) noble friend (Lord Sandon), to give the men half a clay's wages. If there had been any separate or organized machinery for the purpose of conducting the bribery of the election (which was the only hypothesis upon which gentlemen could erect their theory of the guilt of the freemen), such a proposal would never have been thus accidentally and casually made in the public and recognised committee of the candidate; so that this very circumstance showed the non-existence of that which the vigorous imaginations of hon. Members had led them to suppose. He would remind the House, that it was upon the evidence collected by the Committee on this last election, that the question of further inquiry was made altogether to depend. The question they had now to determine was, whether such a body of evidence had been collected with respect to the last election, as to warrant the assumption, that bribery and corruption did, during that election, prevail in Liverpool, either systematically or extensively. Could any man say, that such was the case? An hon. Member had quoted the evidence of several witnesses, and among others that of a man named Grogan, who said he had been an agent of Sir Howard Douglas. Now, what was the fact? He was a canvasser, and dismissed for making an extravagant charge of eleven guineas, whereas he was paid only four; and was such a man to be quoted as impartial and unexceptionable testimony? It was very important that the House should consider the remedy proposed, as well as the evil complained of. Had the punishment been inflicted for the election of 1830, at the time the hon. members—for Ipswich (Mr. Wason), and Wilts (Mr. Benett)—proposed it could not have failed to receive the approbation of every right-feeling man in the country. But what was the altered position of the case, and how had its aspect been changed by the lapse of time? These people had been permitted to exercise the functions they had so grossly abused three times, and there was now left nothing but a faint relic of the corruption of that period. A portion of the guilty it was not even proposed to touch, for the corruption of 1830 was not confined to the poor alone. It was notorious, that out of 3,000 persons bribed, a full proportion were of the higher classes of the freemen, up to the wealthier shopkeepers; so that, if any inference at all was to be drawn from that election as to the incompetency of the freemen to exercise the franchise aright, such inference must, in fairness, extend, not only to the lower order—not only to those whose rent amounted to 10l.,—but likewise to those who rented at 100l., and to men in the best ranks of shopkeepers of the town. But these it was not proposed to punish, or to preclude from voting in the character of 10l. householders. Was it fair, then, upon one and the same offence, to exempt the wealthier class, and to disfranchise the poorer? But, besides, were they to let the bribers go unpunished? If there were guilt in bribery, which there undoubtedly was, both moral and political, why were the principal instruments to escape? Why should they let the bribers and those who profited most by the guilt, and who were chargeable with by far the greater shave of it, escape scot-free? He did not wish to cast any imputation upon the motives of the petitioners, but he could not help observing, that when inquiry was first asked for, some of them did their utmost to stifle it; and he had seen in the paper a speech of one of these Gentlemen applauding the hon. member for Liverpool for his skill in stopping Inquiry. When the hon. members for Ipswich and Wiltshire first took up the case, they were prosecutors in a just and righteous cause; but to persevere in it now invested them—he trusted he might say it without offence—with the character of persecutors. He did not mean to say, that their motives were changed, but time had wrought such an alteration in the circumstances and relations of the parties accused, that the greatest injustice might now be the result of a punishment originally just. These Gentlemen keeping their eyes fixed on the object they had had in view, might not be the first to observe the change wrought in their own position, or to discern the time when prosecution became persecution; but the House should watch that change, and see that injustice was not done even in the act of seeking to do justice. If the cases of bribery were so miserably few—if the cases of corruption, of asking for bribes, and of a disposition to receive them were equivocal, and limited to the allegations of one side, and contradicted, as far as the nature of the case admitted, by the other—he implored the House of Commons, in the name of principle, in the name of equity, in the name of common sense, to refuse further inquiry; and not to immolate, on such insufficient pretexts, the rights of the freemen; he implored them not to offer so poor a morsel to appease the hunger of Reform.

Mr. Rigby Wason

contended, that the case for those who insisted upon the necessity of inquiry was completely made out by the evidence which had established the fact, that corruption and bribery had been had recourse to in all elections, not excepting even elections for Magistrates at Liverpool, prior to the period of the election of 1830.

Mr. Hodgson

said, that as far as he could discover from the evidence, there was no serious case of delinquency proved against the borough, and he was not, therefore, prepared to give his support to the Motion for inquiry.

Mr. Wynn

might, perhaps, have agreed to punish the delinquency while that delinquency was fresh; but since the Reform Act, the new constituency of every town had been so mixed up with the old, that he thought, in any attempt to punish the really guilty, the innocent might suffer. It did not appear to him, that, with respect to Liverpool, there had been established any amount of corruption beyond that which was generally inseparable from large communities, in which, as must be well known to the Members of that House, it was by no means uncommon for the electors to apply to the agents of candidates to know what they might have to eat or drink; and though they might not always make that demand in perfect seriousness, yet still it was commonly made; and whether it was made in jest or seriously, if the city of Westminster were to be tried by the same test as was proposed with respect to Liverpool, it would be found that it was not much less open to the charge. He would repeat, that the demand to which he alluded was often made in jest, and when so made, he could only say, that the jest was a very bad joke.

Mr. O'Connell

supported an extensive and searching inquiry, which he would carry not only into the conduct of elections of Members of Parliament, but (in pursuance of the order of the 6th of March) into the management of elections of Magistrates. In 1830 corruption had been carried to an excessive pitch; and if bribery was not so extensive at the last election, it was because the creation of a new constituency had encouraged candidates to offer themselves who would not resort to the practice. There still remained plenty of bribees, but the bribers were wanting. He conjured the Mouse to take steps to prevent the filthy abomination of bribery from staining the robes of justice, and repeated that the elections of Magistrates, no less than of Members of Parliament, should be placed upon an irreproachable footing. After remarking upon the corruption of the freemen, he observed, that as regarded elections fur Members of Parliament, those individuals might be supposed to be rendered powerless by the infusion of an additional constituency under the Reform Bill; but although they had received a paralytic stroke from that measure, the freemen were not wholly dead even at parliamentary elections, and they were fully alive and as vigorous as ever in the elections of Magistrates. In conclusion, he appealed to the House, in the name of justice which had been disgraced, and public honesty, which was tarnished by the proceedings at Liverpool, to probe the matter to the bottom.

Lord Sandon

thought it did not become the advocates of popular rights to visit with severity on every occasion the smallest deviation from propriety that might take place on the part of a few of the poorest voters. He asked the House, whether the whole body of electors was to be convicted of bribery and corruption on such meagre evidence, and upon such a trifling accumulation of instances as appeared in the blue book on the Table? The whole amount of bribery (giving credence to the evidence to the fullest extent) was 34l., employed in corrupting a constituency of between 4,000 and 5,000 voters! Was it pretended that the virtuous 10l. householders could be overborne by the freemen, and by 34l. spent in bribery? Was the House told of treating? Why, the treating alleged only amounted to 6l. 12s. Did Gentlemen talk of the assumed general disposition to receive bribes? And were they going to condemn parties on the mere allegations of three individuals, that the voters were willing to be bribed? Two of the persons who alleged this dis- position to bribery against the electors were strong partisans of the defeated parties, and had had no intercourse with the freemen; and the third individual stated that fifteen or twenty persons asked him for half a day's wages. Could such demands be prevented unless recourse were had to a higher constituency than was to be found amongst 10l. householders? The hon. and learned member for Dublin talked of the seat of justice and the robes of the magistracy being defiled by corruption. He would confess that some years ago, two great contests took place for the mayoralty, and he did not deny, that on those occasions bribery might have been resorted to; but there was no ground for saying that the practice had been continued. Besides, even if it had, what had the proceedings at the election of mayor to do with elections for Members of Parliament?

Colonel Williams

said, that he had known Liverpool for thirty-five years, and had never known but two instances of Magistrates being elected on pure principles. The object at present was not disfranchisement, but inquiry; and although he was an elector of the borough, but never implicated in these transactions, he should be satisfied to be disfranchised amongst the rest, provided the other electors shared the same fate.

Sir Henry Willoughby

opposed the inquiry. He was afraid if the House began it they might never see it brought to a conelusion.

The House divided—Ayes 166; Noes 84: Majority 82.

Committee appointed.

Lord Sandon

then moved, that it be an instruction to the Committee, that inquiry should be made relative to the two last elections, commencing with that of the year 1831, whether general corruption and bribery did exist at those elections; and also for the names of the persons guilty of corruption, and the amount of the sum given to each of them.

Mr. Nicholl

seconded the Motion.

Mr. Rigby Wason

did not see what advantages could result from the Motion, unless it was intended to stifle inquiry. The writ of 1831 was sent down by that House, in order that the noble Lord might have a seat to defend the electors and the interests of the borough.

Mr. Warburton

said, that an inquiry should be instituted as to the corruptions of the sources of justice, and that it was therefore of much more consequence to inquire how the Magistrates were elected, than how Members are elected. He thought the matter should be left to the discretion of the Committee, and that no restrictions be placed on their inquiry.

Mr. Philip Howard

had observed with regret, that whenever a case affecting freemen or burgesses came under the consideration of the House, it was very far from being an impartial tribunal. The general vagueness of the charges which had been brought against the freemen and electors of Liverpool at the last election, had compelled him to oppose the Motion of the hon. Member for Manchester. He (Mr. Howard) was disposed to concur in the views of the noble Lord the member for Liverpool. As the House would have afterwards to form a judicial opinion upon the merits of the case, it would advance the ends of justice, that the Committee should be guided in the course of its inquiry by some defined rules, and not receive all kinds of hearsay evidence, which might in future, as be feared it had already, unduly bias the decision of that House.

Sir Henry Willough

by knew, from experience, that a Select Committee was a bad mode of inquiring into municipal corruptions.

Lord Sandon

would withdraw his Motion, with the understanding of bringing it forward at a future period.

Mr. Hume

said, after the question had been so fully discussed, the noble Lord ought not to be allowed to withdraw his Motion. If there were any Amendments to be proposed, that was the time for putting them.

Colonel Wood

thought, that the House should treat the noble Lord with common courtesy. As it did not seem disposed to do so, he begged leave to move, that the House do adjourn.

Mr. Ellice

said, that there was no chance that the question could be brought forward again, when there was so much other important business to transact. He should oppose the withdrawal of the Motion; but if the House was called upon to adjourn, that was an evil he should be obliged to submit to.

Lord Sandon

said, that the Motion for Adjournment was only made in consequence of the lack of courtesy of hon. Gentlemen. His gallant friend would, no doubt, consent to withdraw his Motion for adjournment, if he (Lord Sandon) were allowed to withdraw his own Motion.

Mr. Bonham Carter

said, that the noble Lord should recollect that, when a Motion was allowed to be withdrawn, it was upon an understanding that it was not to be brought forward again.

Finally, the Motion for the Adjournment was withdrawn, and Lord Sandon's Motion was put and negatived.

List of the Ayes on the above Division.
Astley, Sir J. Feilden, W.
Abercromby, J. Fielden, J.
Acheson, Lord Galway, J. M.
Attwood, T. Glynne, Sir R.
Aglionby, H. A. Gordon, R.
Adam, Admiral Grote, G.
Blake, Sir F. Gillon, W.
Browne, D. Gaskell, D.
Blamire, W. Howard, Hon. F. G.
Bouverie, Hon. D. P. Hall, B.
Bellew, M. Hoskins, K.
Bainbridge, E. T. Heathcote, J.
Bewes, T. Handley, B.
Barnard, E. G. Handley H.
Brougham, J. Hay, Colonel A. L.
Buller, C. Hawes, B.
Brigstock, W. P. Handley, W. F.
Bulwer, E. L. Heathcote, G.
Brotherton, J. Hutt, W.
Bannerman, A. Hulse, J.
Burrell, Sir C. M. Hurst, R. H.
Briggs, R. Hyett, W. H.
Briscoe, J. J. Johnston, A.
Barron, H. W. Jervis, J.
Beauclerk, W. James, W.
Biddulph, R. Keppel, Major
Chapman, M. L. Key, Sir J.
Cayley, Sir G. Kennedy, T.
Carter, B. Kerry, Earl of
Galley, T. Lambton, H.
Cayley, E. S. Lloyd, J. H.
Clayton, Colonel Lee, J. L.
Clay, W. Lushington, Dr.
Chichester, J. P. B. Lamont, N.
Denison, W. J. Leech, J.
Dykes, F. L. B. Murray, J. A.
Duncannon, Lord Moreton, Hon. A. H.
Dawson, E. Marjoribanks, S.
Donkin, Sir R. Madocks, J.
Davies, Colonel Macnamara, W.
Dunlop, J. Mills, J.
Ellice, E. Maxwell, Sir J.
Ellis, W. O'Connell, D.
Evans, W. O'Connell, M.
Evans, G. O'Connell, J.
Fenton, J. O'Brien, C.
Finn, W. F. Oswald, R. A.
Fleming, Admiral O'Connor, Don
Fitzgerald T. Ormelie, Earl of
Ferguson, Sir R. C. Ord, W. H.
Ferguson, Sir R. A. Oliphant, L.
Fergusson, R. C. O'Callaghan, Hon. C.
Fellowes, H. A. W. O'Grady, Hn. Col. S.
O'Dwyer, A. C. Torrens, Colonel
Oswald, J. Trelawney, W. L. S.
Pryse, P. Thicknesse, R.
Parkes, J. Turner, W.
Phillips, C. M. Vernon, Hon. G. J. V.
Philpotts, J. Vigors, N. A.
Pease, J. Warburton, Henry
Paget, F. Whalley, Sir S.
Peter, W. Wood, C.
Potter, R. Walter, J.
Parrott, J. Wallace, R.
Roe, J. Wallace, T.
Romilly, J. Wilbraham, George
Romilly, Edward Walker, C. A.
Ruthven, E. Walker, R.
Ruthven E. S. Williams, Col.
Stawell, Colonel Wason, Rigby
Stavely, T. K. Wilks, J.
Sullivan, R. Williamson, Sir H.
Stanley, Edw. G. Wood, Colonel T.
Stanley, R. A. Wood, G. W.
Sharpe, General Whitmore, W.
Strutt, Edw. Young, G. F.
Shawe, R. N. Yelverton, W. H.
Seale, Colonel
Spry, S. T. PAIRED OFF.
Spankie, R. Bernal, R.
Smith, J. Buxton, T. F.
Scholefield, J. Lynch, A.
Scott, W. J. Tynte, K.
Tancred, H. W. Miller, W. H.
Troubridge, Sir T. Perceval, Colonel
Tennyson, Rt. Hn. C. Ridley, Sir M. W.
Traill, G. Steuart, R.
Tooke, W. TELLERS.
Talbot, C. R. M. Hume, J.
Tayleure, W. Philips, R. M.
List of the NOES.
Anson, Hon. G. Gaskell, J. M.
Arbuthnot, Hon. H. Gladstone, W. E.
Ashley, Hon. H. Gladstone, T.
Baring, F. T. Gordon, Hon. W.
Bateson, Sir B. Greene, T.
Bentinck, Lord G. Grey, Sir G.
Berkeley, Hn. C. Grimston, Viscount
Brodie, W. B. Grosvenor, Lord R.
Bruce, Lord E. Halcombe, J.
Bruce, C. Halford, H.
Duller, J. W. Hardinge, Sir H.
Bulteel, J. C. Harland, W. C.
Calcraft, J. H. Hay, Sir J.
Chapman, A. Hodgson, J.
Christmas, W. Hope, H. T.
Corry, Hon. H. L. Houldsworth, T.
Curteis, H. B. Howard, P. H.
Darlington, Earl of Howard, R.
Dillwyn, L. W. Inglis, Sir R. H.
Duffield, T. Irton, S.
Dugdale, W. S. Jermyn, Earl
Egerton, W. T. Jerningham, Hn. II. V. S.
Estcourt, T. G. B.
Ewing, J. Jones, Captain
Fancourt, Major Langdale, Hon. Chas.
Fenton, Capt. Lennox, Lord W.
Ferguson, Sir R. Lowther, Viscount
Finch, G. Lowther, Colonel
Lyall, G. Stanley, Rt. Hn. E. G.
Mangles, J. Stanley, E.
Manners, Lord R. Stormont, Viscount
Marshall, J. Stuart, Lord D. C.
Maxwell, W. Thompson, P. B.
Maxwell, J. Wall, C. B.
Ossulston, Viscount Wedgwood, J.
Palmerston, Visct. Welby, G. E.
Pigot, R. Willoughby, Sir H.
Powell, W. E. Wilmot, Sir J. E.
Rice, Hon. T. S. Wood, Colonel
Ross, H. Wynn, Rt. Hon. W.
Russell, C. Young, J.
Sandon, Visct.
Scarlett, Sir J. TELLERS.
Shaw, F. Nicholl, J.
Smith, R. V. Ross, C.