HC Deb 21 April 1834 vol 22 cc1060-77

Mr. Bernal moved the third reading of the Hertford Borough Bill.

Colonel Evans

rose for the purpose of proposing an Amendment to the Bill. He objected to the mode in which the large addition was to be made to the constituency of the borough of Hertford. It was proposed to add a large agricultural district to the present borough; and he had heard no reason assigned which could justify such a mode of proceeding. He was convinced, that adding agricultural districts to boroughs would be found to be highly inconvenient. By the Reform Bill an arrangement was made as to the number of Members to be returned by the several classes of the community. They had in some instances made additions of the adjoining agricultural districts to boroughs; but the principle was objectionable. It had made a great change in the constituency of many boroughs, and, in point of fact, had given a great additional influence to the agricultural interest. It was proposed by the Bill to add the twelve adjoining parishes to the borough of Hertford; but eight of those parishes had no connection whatever with the borough, and their population was purely agricultural. If it were necessary to increase the constituency of that place, they might do so by adding a town constituency; but it would, in point of fact, be giving the complete control to the landed interest to carry the Bill in its present shape. He also found that there was no ground for supposing that they would be able to get anything like a good and independent 10l. constituency from the eight parishes he had alluded to. He also objected to the Bill on the ground that it would open the door again to that species of influence which had been so much complained of in this particular case, and which it was the ostensible object of the Bill to avoid, namely, to get rid of the ascendancy of the great landed proprietors. It was generally supposed, that one great landed proprietor had exercised an improper influence in the elections of the borough of Hertford, and which had led to so many complaints. He had no objection to the addition of Hoddesdon and Ware to the borough of Hertford, and so much of the intermediate ground as was necessary to connect them; but he protested against the addition of extensive districts, which were purely agricultural. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by moving as an Amendment, "that a Select Committe be appointed to consider the expediency of making a new boundary for the borough of Hertford."

Mr. Tennyson

said, that he had not heard anything in the original statement of the hon. member for Rochester on introducing that Bill, nor in what had since taken place in the House, to induce him to agree to make such a boundary for the borough of Hertford as was proposed in the Bill. In point of fact, such an addition would be a complete destruction of everything like independence in the borough. The freemen and 10l. householders had not been guilty of those acts of corruption which were stated in the Bill; on the contrary, they were specially exonerated in the Report of the Committee. He thought, that the first clause of the Bill was all which ought to pass. It would place the borough of Hertford on the footing contemplated by the Reform Bill. It had been clearly shown by his hon. and gallant friend, that there were not any grounds for making such a preposterous, and he must say even ludicrous, addition as was proposed, to the borough of Hertford. To make such an addition to the borough would at once place it under the control of the agricultural interest. If it were desirable to make such a change it, should have been done under the Reform Bill, but to do so now would be highly objectionable. Those who framed the Reform Bill, and, above all, his noble friend the Paymaster of the Forces, adjusted the representation to the state of the different interests in the community. This adjustment would be destroyed if they proceeded in such an off-hand manner to throw large agricultural districts into boroughs. He agreed to the proposition of the right hon. member for Tamworth on a former occasion, and he regretted much, that it had not met with the approval of the House. He had no objection, however, to extend the constituency of Hertford, if he could find any persons of the same class as the present voters for that borough in the immediate neighbourhood. On that ground, therefore, he did not object to add Hoddesdon and Ware to Hertford, and give the ten-pound householders of these places votes for Members of Parliament. By the latter course, as their interests were the same as those of Hertford, he did not destroy the arrangement made under the Reform Bill, but rather promoted it, by adding to the constituency without swamping the town voters in the borough. That Bill, however, would increase the influence of that interest which it had been repeatedly asserted had already too much influence. It was stated, that there were at present only a very few voters in some of these agricultural parishes. It might be the case; but what was there to prevent the landowners dividing their land into a number of small tenements as had been done elsewhere, for the purpose of making voters? It had been stated in a petition presented by the hon. Baronet, the member for Buckingham, that 18,000 acres had been added to that borough by the Reform Bill. A noble Duke, the owner of land in that neighbourhood, had made a great addition to the number of voters in the borough by dividing a large piece of land. He had built cowhouses, sheds, and other small buildings, and had thus made voters, all of whom were his own tenants-at-will. In the present case, however, not less than 32,000 acres were to be added, and he would ask whether it would not open a door to the exercise of the most improper influence? Would it not enable the landed proprietors in the district to swamp or sluice the town voters? It might be said, that the only additional voters the agricultural interest would get for these eight purely agricultural parishes was eighty-nine, while the number of new voters for the other five parishes would be one hundred and seventy-six, and that, therefore, a much greater number of town than country voters was made to the constituency of Hertford. Admitting that to be the case at present, what was there to prevent the number of voters in the former parishes being increased to almost an indefinite extent? The Bill of his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Bernal) went, in point of fact, to amend the Reform Bill, without any cause having been shown. If they agreed to that Bill, any Member might rise in his place and propose an addition to the voters of a borough, with- out assigning any reasons, or having any Committee. If the principle proposed to be acted upon in the case of the borough of Hertford were acted upon, the smaller boroughs would, in point of fact, become little counties for the purposes of representation, and would be under the sway of the landed Gentlemen of the neighbourhood. Under the Reform Bill there were fifty boroughs which had an addition made to their boundaries, and there could be no reason for increasing that number. The motion of his gallant friend (Colonel Evans) was made with the view of arresting the progress of such proceedings; and he (Mr. Tennyson) trusted, that the House would see the expediency of supporting the Amendment, and consider what would be the consequences if such propositions as the present were acted upon.

Sir Robert Peel

did not intend to support the Amendment of the gallant Colonel, but thought that some advantage might result if he proceeded to state the course he intended to pursue, and the nature of the Amendment he intended to propose. The House had better know, before they came to a decision on the present Amendment, that other propositions would be submitted to them with respect to that Bill. He particularly requested the attention of the House and of his Majesty's Government to the question now to be decided. His Majesty's Government did not, on former occasions, express any opinion on the judicial question connected with that case, because they did not wish to influence the question by the expression of their opinions, or by the exercise of their influence, but to leave the matter to the decision of the House. That state of things had ceased, and they were now called upon to decide on the general question, and he begged their attention to the statement he was about to make. He agreed in much that had been said by the gallant Colonel; and although he could not vote for the Motion of the gallant Officer, the gallant Officer might vote, with the greatest consistency, for the proposition which it was his intention to submit to the House. If his proposition went to exempt the guilty from punishment, there might be a strong objection to it; but he had no such intention. He was opposed to referring the matter to the consideration of another Committee, because, in point of fact, it would be postponing the matter to another Session, when probably the House would be engaged in other business of great importance, and thus the details of the subject would be forgotten, and Hertford would be left as it was, and those who had been guilty of corruption would escape punishment. What he desired was, that an example should be made in that case. From the large attendance of Members, he was sure, that many hon. Gentlemen were present who knew comparatively little of the nature of the question. He would, therefore, proceed to state, very briefly, the state of the case. The borough of Hertford had its boundaries extended upon the recommendation of the Commissioners who fixed the boundaries under the Reform Bill. They determined a new boundary for the borough; and his proposition was, that the House should respect the boundary then fixed for the borough. Why reverse that decision which had some presumption in its favour? The bill, however, proposed to add a large contiguous district to the town, and annex a rural population to the county town. He was convinced, that the best mode of establishing the influence of the agricultural or landed interest in the borough would be by adding the proposed district to the town. It was very possible that a great portion of the town was in very few hands; but it was of the greatest importance that the townholders should not have land in the adjoining districts. He did not think, that any one would dispute the advantage that would result to those who had property in the neighbourhood by the proposed change. The adoption of the principle would, in point of fact, make the borough purely agricultural; it would cease to have the characteristics of a borough, and would become a little county. He begged the House to recollect that it was proposed to give that addition to the county of Hertford which was purely agricultural. The Members for the borough would be returned by the same influence as the county Members. The effect would therefore be, to give this agricultural county five Members, three for the county, and two for the large agricultural district. He objected to destroying the character of the constituency, and his votes in the Committee on the Reform Bill showed, that he did not think that the influence of agriculture should be increased by adding large rural districts to the boroughs. If they wanted to destroy the balance which existed between the commercial and manufacturing and the landed interest in that House, he knew no readier mode of doing so than by throwing into the boroughs large surrounding dis- tricts. The borough of Hertford had three classes of voters. The first class was the inhabitant housekeepers; this class of voters was between 300 and 400 in number. It was sufficient to pay scot-and-lot to constitute the right of voting. This class of voters, amounting to between 300 and 400, together with the freemen, constituted the old constituency of the borough. The freemen were less than 130; he believed 124 or 125. Then there were the 10l. householders, which was the constituency added by the Reform Bill. A Committee of that House had been appointed to examine into the course of conduct pursued by these three classes of voters at the last election. With respect to those called the scot-and-lot voters—although that was not the exact name which should be applied to them, as they ought rather to be called the class of voters occupying houses under 10l.—the Committee reported an almost unqualified condemnation of their conduct, saying, that such general corruption prevailed amongst them at the last election that they ought to be disfranchised. Those who supported the Bill were anxious to punish the corrupt voters. He also agreed that those who had been guilty of corruption should be punished; but he begged the House to recollect that there were two other classes of voters, namely, the freemen and the 10l. householders. The Committee, the Report of which he was about to refer to, was presided over by the hon. and learned member for Rochester, in whom the House had so much confidence as to make him as it were their Deputy Speaker, as he presided over their proceedings while in Committees of the whole House. The Committee on the Hertford Election had, he believed, every desire to arrive at the truth, and to act with the utmost impartiality, and that impartial tribunal made this Report to the House on the conduct of the freemen and the 10l. householders. "On the other hand your Committee have not been able to discover, that the general body of freemen or the 10l. householders, except perhaps in some few cases, have been at all affected by or concerned in corrupt practices." That was as complete an acquittal as could possibly be pronounced by this impartial tribunal. They acquitted the whole of the freemen and 10l. householders, with the exception that he had stated, of indulging in corruption. Surely the noble Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces, should be gratified that the new constituency which he had given to the borough by the Reform Bill had passed through the ordeal with impunity. They had seen the general prevalence of corruption amongst one class of voters, and although inducements were held out to them they escaped without imputation. Their integrity being proved, he called upon the noble Lord to protect them. Now what was the number of these untainted voters? On the next election not less than 500 voters, if the corrupt voters were disfranchised and the boundary of the borough not extended, would exist in the borough. There would be 124 freemen, and the remainder would be 10l. householders; just such a constituency as the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) contemplated, as the final and permanent constituency for the borough of Hertford. They all agreed to shake off the guilty class of voters, but he trusted that the House, seeing that there was a sufficient constituency left, would consent to leave the borough as he proposed. It should be recollected that the class of freemen would gradually die off, and the election would then be in the single class of 10l. householders. Now there was little doubt that if the boundaries of the borough were not enlarged the number of the latter class of voters would be at least 500. He (Sir Robert Peel) would ask the House to compare this with other towns, and to recollect that there were not less than thirty boroughs left untouched by the Reform Bill, and having fewer voters than Hertford. There were 500 voters in Hertford who were qualified under the Reform Bill. They had been exposed to temptation, and had passed through the trial without a stain. They, therefore, stood on higher ground than untried voters; they, therefore, ought to have the franchise intrusted to them. The charges against them had been submitted to a severe tribunal, which thoroughly investigated the matter, and acquitted them. He, therefore, put it to the House, with confidence, to say, upon what principle they ought to be punished. He did not wish to enter into any details on the subject; but he was extremely anxious to state to the House the real question under consideration. It was not a judicial but a political question, and he trusted that the House would only regard it in that light. Under the Reform Bill the boundaries of the borough of Hertford had been fixed; and, as no charge had been proved against the permanent constituency of the borough, therefore there could be no necessity for the large addition to the borough. He was satisfied that the hon. and learned Gentleman was proceeding on an erroneous principle; and he begged the House to recollect the objections that existed against making the smaller boroughs, as it were, agricultural districts. He trusted, after what he had said, that he should induce the House to adopt his proposition. He entirely concurred in the proposition to punish the guilty, but it would make the measure more generally acceptable to the country if they excepted the innocent from punishment. The Amendment he should propose was, that the remainder of the Bill, after the first clause, should be struck out. He should not then press his Amendment, but he intended to do so that evening. He repeated, he was as anxious as any one to punish the guilty, and if they did so they would leave the borough of Hertford with a constituency of not less than 634 persons, who had been put to their trial and found to be incorrupt.

Mr. Walter

said, that having been a Member of the Committee, whose proceedings were so well known to the House, he felt it his duty to say a few words on the present occasion. With respect to the change of boundary, he had no particular objection to it, except that he thought it would not answer the intended object. It would present such a tortuous and disputable outline to the constituency, as could hardly ever be settled; and the constituency which would be excluded, consisting of persons who lived in the country, bore so very small a proportion to those in the towns, that it was not worth while to exclude them. He did not deny, however, that the principle against which the hon. Gentleman wished to legislate prevailed in too many boroughs. With respect to the Bill before the House, if its object had been to disfranchise the borough of Hertford altogether, he did not know that much could be said against it; as it was clear from the evidence that the corruption, though not universal, was so general as to render the influence of the untainted electors altogether unavailing. The object of the Bill was to render the constituency of Hertford less within the means of any individual to corrupt; and to give to the old independent and honourable electors, allies of the same character with themselves in the new constituency. He would not enter into the subtle and superfluous question whether the House was acting judicially or legislatively, but he knew what were the facts of this case, and how the present Bill, if left unmangled and suffered to perform its duty, would remedy the mischief complained of. It would be tedious to repeat all the corrupt practices which had taken place at the late election, and which had been detected since its close; but considering the opposition now made to the Bill, he could not help fearing that, from the length of time which had elapsed since the subject was first brought forward, Gentlemen were beginning to forget their enormity. However innocent what was called "polling-money" might have originally been, as described on a previous night by a former Representative of the borough, yet it had of late years ceased to be so, both because the amount had been more than doubled, and because the whole election depended upon it. In truth, the neglect of this payment would have been considered a violation of the rights of the electors. The House would not forget the clubs which were instituted three-quarters of a year before the election, and which were finally merged in one of greater consequence and extent, held at what was appropriately called "Rats' Castle." Hither all the tools and agents of the more monied party resorted to hold their orgies: hither the Mayor of the corporation resorted, and showed the exuberance of his joy at the liberality of certain candidates and their supporters, by dancing and indulging the electors with assurances of another such festivity, in the event of their friends succeeding. The object of these meetings was expressly declared by the chief agent to be the giving that gratification to the electors which another candidate was unable to give them. "What," said this agent, "has Duncombe ever done for the borough? You (the electors) have only got by him a Bill which will send you to the poll with long beards and empty stomachs." This fault, however, of leaving the electors to hunger was not to be imputed to the party to which this agent belonged, for the House would recollect that during the long period he had mentioned, a host of minor agents were employed in scattering a species of note called "Refreshment Ticket," but which ticket was applicable to many other purposes besides that of procuring refreshment for the stomach. It might be exchanged at any shop in the place, or sold for apparel or any article of domestic use that might be wanted. It had been, indeed, asserted by the chief agent that these practices were not sanctioned by him after the writ was issued; nevertheless, the same proceedings continued, and rather increased in activity and expensiveness, though at least a dozen innkeepers and alehousekeepers had the confidence to assert upon oath before the Committee, that they did not know who was to pay them. In deciding this case, the House would have to deal not only with bribery and corruption, and the more awful crime of perjury, but also with menaces applied to the electors. Several cases of threats to turn out people from their habitations were stated before the Committee, and if the evidence was untrue, the agent of the noble Lord who possessed the property, and from whom the threats issued, ought to have been produced to contradict it. They had also heard of the fourteen days' leases granted by the same noble Lord to tenants who were electors—a circumstance so novel that it might be said to form an era in the history of electioneering, and unconstitutional interference. The House had been told, that these leases were applied only in the cases of the scot-and-lot voters; but what was there to prevent them from being hereafter applied to voters above 10l., if no counterbalancing power were raised to impair the corrupt influence of that noble Lord whose name was so familiar during the election? One argument mainly relied on by two right hon. Gentlemen, who had spoken against the Bill, appeared to him rather to impugn than support their opinion. They had asserted, and he believed correctly, that the 10l. constituency would be still about 600: the only inference he could draw from this assertion was, that the preponderance of the borough would still remain very great under the increased constituency, and that the change, therefore, was the more lenient, and would be the less felt. Upon the whole, he conceived that the House would appear to wink at what had occurred at Hertford, unless with a view to check the crimes which he had enumerated they adopted the measure now before them. It was impossible that the old condition of Hertford could be longer tolerated. The necessity of a ballot would follow, unless intimidation were rendered fruitless by introducing to the elective franchise those who were beyond the sphere and range of it. The elections must always be carried, as in the late instance, by corruption, unless the number of electors was increased and their character raised, so that corruption could not reach the majority. He trusted, therefore, that the House would feel, that no satisfactory remedy could be applied short of that which the Committee had recommended.

Lord Granville Somerset

could not help making a single observation, in answer to the remarks of the hon. member for Berkshire. The hon. Member had spoken of the treating at Hertford; but neither he himself, nor his friends in Berkshire, seemed, during the last election, to have been afflicted with empty stomachs. The hon. Member's observations on Hertford were much to the point; but the voters of that borough would be sufficiently punished for their corruption, even if the Amendment of his right hon. friend (Sir Robert Peel) were adopted, for by that four or five hundred of them would be disfranchised. That, however, was not the case with the constituents of the hon. member for Berkshire, not one of whom had been subjected to the slightest penalty. There was a Bill in its progress through the House, which had been introduced by the noble Paymaster of the Forces, the object of which was, to punish all the voters in boroughs who might be guilty of any sort of corruption. He (Lord Granville Somerset) was sorry that the provisions of that Bill did not extend to counties as well as to boroughs, in order that it might include the constituents of the hon. member for Berkshire, and other county constituencies, many of whom were as corrupt as any borough constituency in England, Scotland, or Ireland. He could not but think, that a county constituency which misbehaved ought to be subject to punishment as well as the constituency of a borough. The question before the House, at present, however, was, not whether there had been corruption in the borough of Hertford. The real question was, whether they should punish the innocent as well as the guilty in that borough. A Committee had sat on the subject, who reported to the House, that the general body of the freemen of Hertford were not, in any way, connected with the corruption which had taken place; yet now they were called on to punish those freemen, who, by the Report of the Committee of that House, were declared guiltless. He (Lord Granville Somerset) would willingly consent to the punishment of the guilty, but he would never consent to the punishment of those who had been acquitted by the Committee appointed to investigate the case. As the honesty of the general body of the electors was admitted, he hoped that the House would not allow them to suffer; and that, in a proper anxiety to punish the guilty, they would not be unjust to the innocent.

Mr. John Stanley

said, that the noble Lord had called on the House to pass judgment on the constituents of the hon. member for Berkshire, whom he had presumed to call guilty, though they had not been put upon their trial; yet he declined to punish the electors of Hertford, who had been proved to be guilty of the grossest corruption. All that he, and those who acted with him, wanted, was the punishment of the guilty,—the punishment of those who had been found guilty of bribery. He would ask the hon. member for Cambridge, whether they wished for the punishment of any others? The Bill went to punish the lower class of voters in Hertford: he knew not in which way it went to punish any others. It went to punish the dependents of a great aristocratical proprietor. The House was first called upon to act judicially, but now it was called upon to act legislatively, and to remove this borough from the domineering influence of a great landed proprietor. He would ask whether, under this Bill, the Marquess of Salisbury's voters would vote in favour of the county or the town? How were these dependents of the noble Marquess created? Was there no punishment, no slavery in their fourteen days' leases? Did not these dependents, up to the last moment of the Reform Bill, nay, after it, suffer with the greatest severity? Much had been said by the noble Lord about treating, but had they it not in evidence, that, in Hertford, the port wine was sent in casks, that the voters drank it out of quart pots, and that one man actually died of intoxication on his way home? After these orgies, the gipsies and bullies were brought in, and the whole party were drilled and marshalled by the fugleman of Lord Salisbury's corps. Was it not notorious that the noble Marquess took an active part at the election, in spite of the entry of a resolution in their Statute-book against the interference of Peers at elections? Would to God that that Resolution were erased from their Journals, rather than be made the laughing-stock of every electioneering Peer in the kingdom! Was it not notorious that, in spite of all this, the noble Marquess appeared at the election wearing the colours of his own candidates, with a convicted thief placed on one side of him and a returned felon on the other. It was true: it had been proved on oath before the Committee. It was necessary that steps should be taken not to allow the borough to remain under such influence; but, by the infusion of a better class of voters, to give it that independence which all constituencies ought to have.

Sir Henry Hardinge

said, that if the object of the hon. Member's speech was to cast imputations he had succeeded; but those imputations, which the hon. Member presumed to cast upon Lord Salisbury might, with equal justice, be directed against Mr. Thomas Duncombe, for he was equally guilty with the noble Lord. As to the Bill before them, what did it do? The first clause punished those guilty of corruption; and that clause he did not mean to oppose; but the second clause punished the innocent as well as the guilty, and it was to that clause he objected. By the second clause the whole of the 10l. voters would be swamped. It was said, that the enlargement of the constituency was no punishment to the present electors; but he considered it a species of disfranchisement. What was the punishment inflicted upon Aylesbury and Crick-lade? A large agricultural population was taken into the borough, so that it could not be argued that this addition to the constituency was not intended as a punishment to the present voters. As to the circumstance of one person having the greater portion of the property of the borough, it had been decided in the case of the new borough of Huddersfield, where the whole parish belonged to one proprietor, that that was no objection to its obtaining the right of sending a Member to Parliament; and that could, therefore, not be objected to in the instance of Hertford. The Members of that House were then sitting in their two fold capacities as Judges and Legislators. Acting in their judicial capacity, it would be unjust if they were to punish the innocent in order that the guilty might not escape; and, in their legislative capacity, they could assign no reason why they should adopt the present Bill, when, in the case of Huddersfield, they had determined that the property of a borough belonging to one person was no reason against its enfranchisement. It could not be said, that it was necessary to extend the constituency on account of the smallness of that constituency; for at Blackburn it had been thought entitled to enfranchisement, although the number of voters in it was only 626, which was not more than the present constituency of Hertford. In Tavistock, too, the constituency was only 247, so that, in point of numbers, the constituency of Hertford would appear, even according to the principles laid down by the Reform Bill, to entitle it to remain as it was at present. Was it right or proper that the constituency of Hertford should be extended to the number of at least one thousand voters, while Tavistock, Malton, Calne, Kendal, and a variety of other small boroughs, were to retain their franchise without addition? He contended that it was not; and if the House wished to establish a character for injustice throughout the country, they could not adopt a better course than by giving their sanction to the present measure. If, however, they were to carry this Bill into a law, the people, they might depend upon it, would go to any tribunal to seek justice, rather than to a Committee of that House.

Mr. Bernal

said, he really did not know what proposition they were entertaining, whether it was that enunciated by the hon. and gallant member for Westminster, or that suggested by the right hon. Baronet.

Colonel Evans

said, that as he understood his Amendment would prevent the Bill from being carried through this Session he would not press it.

Amendment withdrawn. The Bill was read a third time.

Colonel Evans then moved, by way of rider, a clause providing that, at all future elections for the borough of Hertford, the votes should be taken by ballot.

Upon this Motion the House divided: Ayes 82; Noes 182—Majority 100.

Sir R. Peel

then moved the omission of the second clause, with a view to omit the remainder of the Bill.

On this Motion the House divided: Ayes, 109; Noes 143—Majority 34.

Colonel Evans

then moved—"That the boundary of the borough shall only comprehend the present borough of Hertford, together with the towns of Ware and Hoddesdon, and the intermediate tract bounded by the high roads connecting the latter towns with each other and with Hertford, including 100 yards exterior of those high roads throughout the whole length of the said roads."

The House again divided: Ayes 19; Noes 117—Majority 98.

The Bill was passed.

List of the AYES on Colonel Evans's Motion to take the Vote by Ballot.
Aglionby, H. A. Lloyd, J. H.
Attwood, T. Lynch, A. H.
Baines, E. Moreton, H.
Barnett, C. J. Mullins, F. W.
Biddulph, R. Ord, W. H.
Bellew, R. M. O'Connell, C.
Bish, T. O'Connell, Morgan
Blake, M. Parrott, J.
Blackburne, J. Pease, J.
Bouverie, Hon. D. Penleaze, J.
Briggs, R. Phillpotts, J.
Brotherton, J. Philips, M.
Buckingham, J. Potter, R.
Clay, W. Pryme, G.
Chaytor, Sir W. Rider, T.
Chichester, J. P. B. Rotch, B.
Dawson, E. Roche, D.
Divett, E. Ruthven, E.
Dykes, F. L. B. Ruthven, E. S.
Etwall, R. Russell, Lord
Faithfull, G. Seale, Colonel
Fenton, J. Sinclair, G
Ferguson, Sir R. Scholefield, J.
Fitzgerald, T. Stanley, E. J.
Fitzroy, Lord Sullivan, R.
Fleming, Admiral Tennyson, C.
Gaskell, D. Throckmorton, R.
Godson, R. Tooke, W.
Grote, G. Torrens, Colonel
Gully, J. Tynte, C. J. K.
Hall, B. Vincent, Sir F.
Hardy, J. Vigors, N. A.
Hill, M. D. Wallace, R.
Hodges, L. Warburton, H.
Hutt, W. Wason, R.
Hyett, W. H. Watkins, J. L. V.
Jacob, E. Waterpark, Lord
Jervis, J. Wigney, N.
Kemp, T. R. Wilbraham, G.
Keppell, Major G. T. Williams, Colonel
Langdale, Hon. C. TELLERS.
Lister, E. C. Evans, Colonel
Locke, W. Bulwer, E. L.
List of the AYES on Sir Robert Peel's Amendment.
Ashley, Lord Cooper, E. J.
Ashley, Hon. H. Chetwynd, Captain
Attwood, M. Corry, Hon. H.
Baring, A. Cole, Lord
Baring, F. Castlereagh, Lord
Bankes, W. Campbell, Sir H. P.
Blackstone, W. S. Calcraft, G.
Brudenell, Lord Cartwright, W.
Bruce, C. Coote, Sir C.
Bell, M. Chandos, Lord
Bateson, Sir R. Chaplin, J.
Bethell, J. Conolly, Colonel
Bruce, Lord E. Daly, J.
Bruce, C. L. C. Duffield, Thomas
Bolling, W. Darlington, Lord
Chapman, A. Dugdale, W. S.
Clive, Lord Duncombe, Hon. W.
Clive, Hon. R. Evans, Colonel
Estcourt, T. G. B. Lowther, Hon. Col.
Egerton, W. T. Lygon, Hon. Colonel
Eastnor, Lord Martin, Thomas
Fox, S. L. Miles, William
Foley, E. Maxwell, H.
Ferguson, G. Mandeville, Lord
Finch, G. Manners, Lord R.
Fremantle, Sir T. Nicholl, J.
Forester, Hon. C. Neale, Sir H.
Gladstone, W. E. Norreys, Lord
Gladstone, J. Pollock, E.
Gaskell, J. M. Peel, Rt. Hon. Sir R.
Goulburn, Rt. Hon. H. Palmer, R.
Grimston, Lord Price, R.
Glynne, Sir S. Pigott, R.
Gronow, Captain Perceval, Colonel
Gordon, Hon. W. Reid, Sir J.
Hanmer, Colonel Ryle, J.
Hanmer, Sir T. Stewart, J.
Holdsworth, Thomas Saunderson, R.
Halcombe, J. Somerset, Lord G.
Hardinge, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Stanley, E.
Hayes, Sir E. Scarlett, Sir James
Hay, Sir J. Stewart, E.
Henniker, Lord Tennyson, Rt. Hn. C.
Herbert, Hon. S. Tyrell, Sir J.
Hawkes, T. Trevor, Hon. G. R.
Hodgson, J. Vivyan, Sir R.
Hope, H. Walsh, Sir J.
Halford, H. Welby, E.
Irton, S. Wynn, Rt. Hon. C.
Inglis, Sir R. Wall, C. B.
Joliffe, Hon. Colonel Williams, T. P.
Jermyn, Lord Yorke, Captain
Kerrison, Sir E. Young, J.
Lincoln, Lord
Lefroy, A. TELLERS.
Lefroy, Thomas Ross, C.
Lyall, G. Lewis, Rt. Hn. T. F.