HC Deb 21 April 1836 vol 33 cc5-18
Sir Andrew Agnew

rose, in pursuance of his notice, to move for leave to bring in "a Bill to extend to all classes of his Majesty's subjects the privilege of protection in the due observance of the Lord's day." The hon. Baronet said, that he would not trouble the House with many observations in support of his Bill, unless it were the intention of hon. Members to oppose the motion for leave to bring it in.

Mr. Gisborne, and several Members: I intend to oppose that motion.

Sir Andrew Agnew

must then beg the indulgence of the Mouse, while he made a few observations. This was now the third time he had taken the liberty of intruding on the House upon this subject, and as the question was now well understood in different parts of the country, and as various petitions most respectably signed had been presented to the House, praying it to pass the Bill which he had before introduced, he should not consider it necessary to enter at length into the details of the Bill which he now intended to propose for the consideration of Parliament. The desecration of the Sabbath had excited much attention in the country before he was in Parliament. In 1832, the House granted him a Committee on the subject and much evidence from the metropolis was heard. Though the evidence was not complete, so great was the impression it made on the country at large, that the table was loaded with petitions on the subject. He felt himself called upon to introduce a Bill so framed as to offer that protection from Sabbath labour for which the numerous petitioners prayed. But the Bill was rejected on the second reading; and as the objections were professedly to the extent of its clauses, and not to its principle, the late excellent Member for Bodmin (Mr. Peter) strove to meet the wishes of the House, by bringing in a Bill omitting all the provisions which had been most strongly objected to by hon. Members, hoping thus to secure their support; but very different from his expectations was the reception he met with, for he had to complain of the opposition of the identical parties whom he strove to please, who laughed at the inconsistency of the concessions which they had themselves asked for, and he abandoned his Bill. Again, in the year 1834, he obtained leave to bring in a Bill, which, as before, was intended to comply with the prayers of the petitioners to this House. It was, however, thrown out on the second reading. Notwithstanding the great number and urgency of the petitions which the people had sent up, it could not obtain a deliberate consideration of its details in a Committee. On that occasion, two hon. Members were misled by the declared objections to the extent of this measure, whereas experience proves, that the distaste felt is to the principle of Sabbath legislation altogether, at least by some of the hon. Members opposite, who had taken the most prominent part in opposition to the Bills for the observance of the Sabbath.— The hon. Members for Preston and for Shaftesbury were destined to meet the same treatment as Mr. Peter had encountered the year before, notwithstanding the very moderate provisions of their Bills. He gave his best support to the Bill of the hon. Member for Shaftesbury, wishing to shew that he was ready to accept any been from the House, however small, which was right in principle; but the hon. Members on the other side, watchful in their opposition, rendered the Bill in Committee, by their amendments, so very objectionable, that he and his Friends were constrained to vote for throwing it out on the third reading. In 1835, he was desirous again to bring forward such a general measure as should hold out that protection from the oppression of Sabbath labour, which, to judge by the petitions presented, was so extensively desired; but he abstained for the purpose of giving full and fair play to the limited measure for which the hon. Member for Shaftesbury had given notice, in order that the country might have the opportunity once more of seeing, practically, whether the ground of the opposition was the extent of the details, or distaste for the principle of Sabbath legislation. He gave his best support to the limited measure, which was rejected, however, on the second reading, notwithstanding every offer of concession, if it were permitted to go into Committee by the hon. Member for Shaftsbury. At the conclusion of the last Session, he placed a notice on the books of a motion for the introduction of a Bill for extending to all classes of his Majesty's subjects the privilege of protection in the due observance of the Lord's day. The precise words of his notice had been widely circulated throughout the country: and that they were approved of is evident from the multiplicity of petitions which since the commencement of the Session had been presented to the House. A large number of the petitioners had done him the honour to mention his name in their petitions, and many more adopted, in the prayer of their petition, the identical words of his published notice. These parties were chiefly the trading classes who, by experience, know the oppression under which they labour by the present habits of trade, which, in many neighbourhoods, make it almost an impossibility to detach themselves from all the trafficking, or what I would rather term, the desecrations which surround them. Hon. Gentlemen, who were masters of their own time, did not so much experience this, and therefore might not enter into the petitioners' feelings under the grievances of which they complained. Let the Bill go into Committee, and let the House, in its wisdom, determine to whom this protection should be given and from whom with held. The Bill was so framed as to admit of some parts being retained and others rejected. It was not for him, an humble individual, to say from what classes of his Majesty's subjects the protection should be withheld; it was for the House itself to make that selection. In answer to the objection, that his Bill went too far, he could not do better than refer the House to ten petitions from Chelsea, where this question had been fully considered during the last three years; and as the petitions came from distinct trades, they furnished a picture of the public mind where the question was understood. It had been asked, why persist in a course which had been so often repudiated by Parliament? And surprise had been also expressed that such a question should have been reserved for a Reformed Parliament, which it was supposed would be less inclined to religious questions than the former House of Commons. He had always replied to such inquiries, that he supported the Reform Bill, from the conviction that it would, by enfranchising all the middle classes, bring to bear on the House of Commons a great accession of moral power. Such a question as that of providing for a due observance of the Sabbath, stood no chance in an unreformed House of Commons, but would have been put down by some hundred gentlemen, who, having no constituents, could not have entered into the feelings of the classes who are constrained to work and were deprived of all the privileges of a Sabbath rest. Every Member of the House had constituents, and in every constituency were some men of moral weight. By the influence of such men he was supported; and, he trusted he should be enabled to stand up year after year in the same cause. Strongly impressed with the duty and necessity of amending Sabbath laws, to afford protection, he would move, first, for leave to bring in a general Bill to promote the observance of the Lord's day; and when that was disposed of, he would move for leave to bring in a second Bill to remove impediments to the observance of the Lord's day, by enabling the local authorities to change Saturday and Monday fairs and markets to other days. This power was to be given under certain restrictions, and it was presumed that the local authorities could have no interest in such a removal apart from the interest of the neighbourhood in which they resided. The Saturday markets inconvenienced the agriculturists, after market hours, who did not reach home, perhaps, until late on Sunday morning, when their labourers were to be paid. Monday markets occasioned much travelling towards them upon the Sabbath, and on that day also much previous preparation in the market towns. The hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to promote the observance of the Sabbath.

Sir Oswald Moseley

rose to second the motion of the honourable Baronet, and in doing so, conceived the task he had undertaken to perform an easy one, inasmuch as he imagined no opposition would be given to bringing in the Bill. He had hoped his hon. Friend, the Member for Derbyshire, would have been the last man to object to a Bill, merely for the purpose of Sabbath legislation, and with respect to which the House could not then know anything. Upon former occasions, however, they had heard enough upon the subject of Sabbath legislation, to anticipate the object of the present Bill. He regretted to say, that in a Christian country, [interruption]—he was really at a loss to know the reason of those cheers of ridicule, and he must confess he was shocked to see the Commons of England treating a religious subject with such a degree of contempt. He certainly had thought that the British Legislature would have given due consideration to a subject of such serious importance, before it would have attempted to treat it with a degree of disdain calculated to produce in him, at least, a feeling little short of disgust. He knew that in supporting the motion of the hon. Baronet he was taking a step necessarily unpopular with the House of Commons, constituted as it was at present; but the duty he had to perform being of a religious nature, and one for which he should have to answer elsewhere, he would not be deterred by any opposition from going through it to the best of his ability. Upon this ground he would trouble the House with a few observations. He thought that every Mem- ber who had read the Report which had been made upon this subject in a- former Parliament must, if he read it with care and attention, see the necessity of having some legislative enactment to enforce the due observance of the Lord's-day. If there were any Member present who had not read that Report, he would say, that he was not competent to vote upon this occasion, and he was sure that those who had read it must conscientiously admit that it was both expedient and necessary to adopt a measure of the kind, in order to give to the public a greater security for the observance of the Sabbath. It had been said, indeed, that in this country we might go through the streets, to and from church, perfectly undisturbed, and without meeting with anything to offend our feelings of religion. That might be true, as regarded the heart of the Metropolis and the West-end. ["No!"] Then the hon. Member admitted that such was not the case in the West-end; but on going to the other side of the Regent's-Park, would they meet with no violation of the Sabbath? In the heart of the city it was otherwise, because on Sundays it was less populous than any other portion of the town, its inhabitants, for the most part, devoting that day to pleasure in the country. He, therefore, thought that great credit was due to the hon. Baronet for bringing forward the question on the present occasion, after so many previous repeated attempts. Notwithstanding the manner in which he had been laughed at; notwithstanding all the ridicule which had been heaped upon him, and the opposition, of every description, he had met with, the hon. Baronet still persevered, and they certainly had a right to give him credit for his perseverance, in again introducing a motion which was undoubtedly for the good of the country. It had been said, that no legislative enactment could make men religious, but he contended that was not the spirit in which they ought to deal with a measure of that kind, which was not one for the purpose of compelling men to be religious, but for the purpose of putting a restraint upon those disgraceful proceedings which were of constant recurrence on the Sabbath-day. Drunkenness and dissipation were prevalent on that day. Beer-shops were opened, and gin-palaces flourished. The greatest immorality, in fact, followed from the licence given to gin-shops and beer-shops being opened on Sundays. The hon. Member for Dublin might laugh at this; but that hon. Member must know there was great immorality in the gin-shops. [Mr. O'Connell: I never was in one.] He did not suppose that the hon. Member ever was in one, but then, why should the hon. Member for Dublin favour him with his sarcastic laugh. He should conclude by saying, that he was quite sure that, on his supporting the motion of the hon. Baronet, he was but coinciding in the opinions and the feelings of a great majority of the well-thinking people of this country.

Mr. Gisborne

must ask the House to consider whether this was or was not a religious question. He must say, that in his opinion, the interests of religion would not be promoted by passing a Bill of this description. He did not intend to enter into any general discussion of the principle of the Bill, but to state in a simple manner to the House the course which the attempts at Sabbath legislation had taken, up to that time; and he put it to the House whether, after the repeated decisions which the House had come to on this subject, it was desirable to proceed? It was his intention to move the previous question on the hon. Baronet's motion, because he considered it was not desirable, after the repeated attempts that had been made—all of which had proved abortive—to again renew the question of Sabbath legislation. Several Bills had been brought in by the hon. Baronet since 1833, and none of them had reached, or gone beyond a second reading. There was one year in which the hon. Baronet did not appear before the House as a promoter of a Bill on this subject, but then it was taken up by the hon. Member for Shaftesbury (Mr. Poulter); and what did the House suppose was the extent of printing which this subject had given rise to? He could tell them: it extended to no less a number than 84,000 pages. There was one Sabbath Bill introduced into the House of Lords by a noble and learned Lord, who usually coincided in opinion with the majority of that House; but their Lordships did not do the Commons the favour to send that Bill down to them; they disposed of it themselves. He thought the hon. Baronet could not have any serious expectation of passing the Bill, and, therefore, it was not necessary that leave should be given for its introduction. He had always expressed his opinion that this was an unfit subject for legislation—the House had so decided on former occasions— and, therefore, he thought that it was undesirable that the valuable time of the House should be occupied, or the public business delayed, by following up such futile attempts. One great advantage had resulted from the conduct of the eminent individual who presided over their proceedings, in putting a stop to the getting up of unnecessary discussions on the presentation of petitions; and he thought it was very desirable that the House should adopt a similar course with respect to this Bill; that it ought to show a proper degree of moral courage, and oppose the introduction of a measure, the principle of which it was not proper for Parliament to entertain. A Bill of this description would not promote religion; and considering it, therefore, wholly preposterous to suppose that it could pass, he should take the liberty of moving the previous question on the hon. Baronet's motion.

Mr. O'Connell

I feel it quite incumbent upon me to assure the hon. Baronet, that I had not the least idea whatever of laughing at him, or at any one else, on that side of the House. The hon. Baronet is far too respectable, and too much respected, for any one to laugh at him. I will tell him precisely the ludicrous idea at which I could not help smiling when he was speaking. The lines of some poet occurred to me. They are to this effect:— In conventicle once looking very blue, I saw two knights, Oswald and Agnew; The first he was a very strange one; T'other a rigid Puritane-one, Who hanged his wicked cat on Monday, Because she killed a mouse on Sunday. This was what I could not help laughing at, and I hope the hon. Baronet will excuse me for doing so. Now, if you could make out the case that this country was not a religious one—that it was a country in which the Sabbath was grossly violated—that it was one upon which every indecency was committed—in which no religious sentiment existed—in such a state we might be persuaded that there was a possibility of effecting some good by legislation; but even in such a case I do not think that you could mend the matter much by legislation. But if the truth be, as I believe it is, that there is no country on the face of the earth, in which the Sunday is so well observed, by all persuasions, as in England, and I believe there is not one; I should be glad to see other countries imitate the example set them by this. I wish that every country in Europe manifested the same decent respect for the Sunday as is shown in England. I am sure that if the example were followed, those countries would be infinitely better. Surely, then, in a country like this, the attempt to legislate between men's consciences and their God, the legislation upon religious observations, cannot be sanctioned. It was too much the custom, at one time, for men to persecute each other. Every sect in power stained itself by blood, and in doing so violated the first principles of the Christian religion. The Catholics, in the time of Mary, persecuted by blood; the Protestants persecuted by blood in the time of Elizabeth; the Presbyterians, in the time of the Usurpation, persecuted by blood. The crime has been an universal one. The time for persecution by blood has, thank God, gone by; but are we now to let ourselves be harassed by the miserable vexation of one set of men against another—by those who claim exclusive piety to themselves— who consider themselves superior beings— who call themselves the friends of God, and denounce as enemies to God all those who oppose them. In this House there occurred at a former period the case of Naylor; he was at the Bar of this House for six weeks, every one was raging to show that he was a better friend to God than another; and what was the result? At the end of six weeks, instead of putting Naylor to death, they passed, to prove their piety and Christianity, what was called a mild sentence. What was that mild sentence? His nose was to be split, his tongue bored through, his forehead branded, one of his ears cut off, and he was then to be whipped from Cheapside to Charing-cross. Every one is struck with horror when he hears, that Parliament was concerned in such a proceeding as that. Every one now can gain a livelihood, if he chooses it on Sunday. What is it then that makes the people so religiously observe the Sunday? It is the force of religious feeling. [From Sir O. Moseley: "they are forced to work."] Who forces them—is there any law to force a man to work on a Sunday? It is their own choice if they work. If then there be a conscientious objection to working, what necessity for your Bill? There is nothing now to prevent a man from obtaining the filthy lucre of his day's hire, but his conscientious feelings. Is, then, that a class to legislate for? So we, who oppose that legislation, are to be blamed for the ribaldry and laughter upon such a subject. No, but those who seek to introduce measures upon such a subject are blamable. The Sunday is well observed at present. No man is compelled to work on Sunday. Is there, I ask, any law to compel a man to work on that day? He has his choice, to take wages or refuse them, and they are refused. And it is in this state of circumstances, that we are called upon to legislate, and which if we did could only create a bad spirit. Certainly, summoning a man on Monday for a breach of the Sunday, would do much to promote charity and kindliness of feeling between man and man. In my opinion, it must have directly the opposite effect. It is, in my opinion, better to let well alone. Let moral influence prevail, and let general sentiment enforce the due observance of the Sabbath, as nothing else can do it.

Mr. Potter

observed, that the hon. Baronet had not entered into any of the details of the proposed measure, and therefore he (Mr. Potter) must look for the probable features of the enactments in the Bills which the hon. Baronet had previously brought in. He would contend that these Bills were Bills of pains and penalties, as regarded the working classes, while they gave the utmost latitude for the breaking of the Sabbath by the higher orders of the community. He was in utter ignorance of the details of the present Bill, and if, upon that ground alone, he would oppose the introduction of the measure.

Mr. Plumptre

was ready to acknowledge the fact, that in England the Sabbath was more strictly observed than it was on the Continent; but still there were many abuses which it could not be denied ought to be remedied and removed. He would tell the House that there were many hon. Gentlemen who had liberty on their tongue, but who were most intolerant in their hearts. There was in that House men who wished to have the use of the Sabbath to themselves, but who would not allow one body of men to be protected in the observance of that day. He trusted that the House would allow the hon. Baronet to bring in this Bill, seeing that so many persons had applied to the Legislature for protection.

Lord Arthur Lennox

begged to say one single word. The hon. Member for Wigan had stated, that he was ignorant of the details of the proposed measure. Now it was upon that very principle that he (Lord Arthur Lennox), would support the motion of the hon. Baronet, the Member for Wigtonshire— He cared not whether hon. Gentlemen who cheered disagreed with him, but he hoped and trusted that, at least, he might be allowed on this, and every other occasion, to exercise his own judgement, and to follow the dictates of his conscience. He had voted for the first and second readings of the former Bills, though he had in no instance pledged himself to the details. The petition which he had presented in the early part of the evening was in favour of some legislative enactment to ensure a better observance of the Sabbath; it emanated from a vast number of his constituents, and expressed, he believed, the unanimous feelings of the inhabitants of that city which he had the honour to represent.

Mr. Arthur Trevor

said, that without pledging himself to support the details of this measure, in its future stages, he felt bound to give his assent to its introduction; but he wholly dissented from the opinion which had been given by the hon. Member for Derbyshire. He thought that it would be the height of injustice to the hon. Baronet, and a gross dereliction of duty on the part of the House, if they were at once to reject a measure, in favour of which so large a number of persons had petitioned.

Mr. Warburton

said, that the hon. Baronet who thought to introduce this measure, for the better observance of the Sabbath had been highly complimented by the hon. Baronet who seconded the motion for the firmness with which he had persevered in the attempt to pass Bills having this object in view, through the House; and, therefore, he (Mr. Warburton) thought the House could not be much surprised if those hon. Gentlemen who had uniformly objected alike to the principle and details of the former Bills, should, with a degree of corresponding perseverance, follow up their determination to reject this proposed measure. If they were once to allow themselves to embark on legislating on these matters, they would never know to what degree of absurdity their legislation would proceed. They must look, not only at the manner in which the question was introduced, but they must also be alive to the fact, that those parties who were opposed to legislating on this question, were held up as men to be denounced by their constituents. He should give his decided opposition to the introduction of any such Bill as that which the hon. Baronet moved for leave to bring in.

Mr. Baines

would support the motion of the hon. Baronet, who had had the honour (for such he considered it to have been) to introduce several Bills on this subject. There had been that day a greater number of petitions presented in favour of some enactment to insure the better observance of the Lord's day than had been presented on any other subject during the present Session. It would be, on the one hand, a most ungracious proceeding towards the hon. Baronet and an injustice, on the other hand, to the constituencies of this country, if they were at once to reject the introduction of a measure in favour of which so many had petitioned.

Mr. Roebuck

[cries of Question.] He supposed from the cries indulged in by hon. Members, that they looked on this question as one which had been introduced and negatived so often that it was perfectly unnecessary for him to express his dissent from its principle. If he believed the House were willing at once to throw out the Bill, his purpose in rising would be answered, and he should not detain the House for an instant. But it so happened that that was not the intention of a large number of hon. Members, and he thought it requisite to say a few words in opposing the introduction of this measure. It was grounded on a principle which he held to be an improper one: it called for the interference of the House on a subject with which the House had no concern whatever. In the first place, this was a measure of gross hypocrisy. In saying this he did not mean to impute hypocritical motives to those who brought forward this measure: all he meant to assert was, that the measure was applied for, with one view really and with another ostensibly. He should like to know why those who were such strenuous advocates for the proper observance of the Sabbath, consented to employ servants on the Sunday. Was it not a fact that these strict religionists made their servants black their shoes, brush their hats and clothes, and do everything that they deemed necessary to keep their house in order and promote their comfort? [Sir Oswald Moseley: Yes; but we oblige them to go to church.] The hon. Member for Staffordshire said that servants were obliged to go church; but how was it that he forgot that their masters were in all probability driven by their servants to church, and that the very persons who preached at the church were brought there in the same manner? For those who allowed these works to be done were crying out about having the Sabbath better observed: it was a farce from beginning to end, and nothing but sheer, downright hypocrisy. What right had any man to clothe himself with authority by which he considered himself justified in pronouncing his fellow-men irreligious because their acts did not in all respects correspond with his notions? [Sir Oswald Moseley: I have never done so.] Yes: but you do so by implication when you assent to the principle of such a measure as this. What other interpretation can you claim for your conduct than that you assume to yourself that perfect wisdom and consummate judgment which enables you to lay down a rule for the observance of the Sabbath, which must be applied to all other men? It would be much more consistent with true morality that, having determined on a rule of right, you should yourself, in all humility of spirit, abide by it, taking care to leave your neighbour to act just as he pleases. One would suppose that the hon. Member opposite (Sir A. Agnew), having been twice defeated on this measure, would have been satisfied that Parliament was determined to reject it. But as he has thought fit to introduce another Bill on the subject, I shall put the purity of his morality to the test, by proposing an amendment to his Bill to this effect:—First, I shall propose that all frequenters of club-houses on a Sunday shall be fined ten pounds; five pounds to be given to the informer, and five pounds to the King. I mean also to propose a clause that every servant employed to go on a message by his master on a Sunday shall have a right of informing against his master, and fining him ten pounds therefore. I shall propose also to impose a fine against a clergyman of any persuasion who shall choose to be carried in his coach to church on Sunday, of one hundred pounds; and, if any Bishop of the Church of England shall so act on that day, I mean that he shall be fined two hundred pounds. In addition to those clauses, I shall introduce one more, which is, that Hyde-park be closed on that day as well as the Zoological-gardens. ["Tattersall's."] As for Tattersall's, I have never been there in my life. I know nothing about it, and I shall leave others to take care of that; but I shall use every exertion to render (by the provisions which I propose to introduce into this Bill) the streets as solitary and dreary as possible. Having thus provided for the proper observance of the Sabbath by the rich, we shall then be in a condition to legislate on the subject for the poor. At all events I reckon with confidence on receiving the support of the hon. Member who has brought forward this Bill, and the potent assistance of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, to these clauses which it is my intention to bring forward as absolutely essential to the justice and impartiality of the intended measure.

Viscount Sandon

observed, that the hon. Member for Bath had charged those on his side of the House with hypocrisy, not, perhaps, in direct terms, but by "implication." He could not help saying, that there was as intolerant a spirit on the part of some hon. Members of that House against religious observances as any intolerance of bigotry exhibited by any former Parliament. This was a question which was not to be met by ribaldry and abuse, but was one the decision of which was looked to with the greatest anxiety by the middle and lower classes of the country. The hon. Member for Bath appeared to lose sight of the distinction between works of necessity and acts which obviously desecrated the Sabbath.

The House divided on the original question: Ayes 200; Noes 82:—Majority 118.

List of the AYES.
Acheson, Lord Visct. Barneby, J.
Alsager, Captain Beckett, rt. hon. Sir J.
Alston, R. Bell, Matthew
Archdall, M. Bethell, R.
Ashley, Lord Bewes, T.
Astley, Sir J. Blackburne, I.
Bailey, J. Blackstone, W. S.
Baillie, H. D. Boldero, H. G.
Baines, E. Boiling, W.
Balfour, T. Bonham, R. F.
Barclay, C. Borthwick, P.
Barnard, E. G. Brocklehurst, J.
Brodie, W. B. Ingham, R.
Brotherton, J. Inglis, Sir R. H.
Bruce, Lord E. Johnstone, Sir J.
Bruce, C. L. C. Johnstone, J. J. H.
Bruen, F. Johnston, Andrew
Buller, Sir J. Y. Jones, W.
Burrell, Sir C. Jones, T.
Calcraft, J. H. Kerrison, Sir E.
Campbell, Sir J. Lanton, W. G.
Canning, rt. hn. Sir S. Lawson, Andrew
Cartwright, W. R. Lefevre, C. S.
Cavendish, hon. G. H. Lefroy, right hon. T.
Chandos, Marquess of Lennox, Lord G.
Chichester, A. Lennox, Lord A.
Clive, hon. R. H. Lewis, D.
Colborne, N. W. R. Lincoln, Earl of
Compton, H. C. Lister, E.C.
Conolly, E. M. Longfield, R.
Corbett, T. G. Lopes, Sir R.
Corry, rt. hon. H. Lucas, E.
Crewe, Sir G. Lushington, C.
Darlington, Earl of Lygon, hon. Colonel
Dick, Q. Mackenzie, S.
Dowdeswell, Wm. Maclean, D.
Duffield, T. Mahon, Lord Visc.
Dugdale, W. S. Marsland, T.
Duncombe, hon. W. Martin, J.
Dunlop, J. Mathew, G. B.
Eastnor, Lord Visct. Maunsell, T. P.
Eaton, R. J. Meynell, Captain
Egerton, Sir P. Miles, W.
Egerton, Lord F. Mordaunt, Sir J.
Elley, Sir J. Morgan, C. M. R.
Elwes, J. P. Morpeth, Lord Visct.
Estcourt, T. Neeld, J.
Estcourt, T. Ossulston, Lord
Fector, J. M. Packe, C. W.
Fielden, W. Paget, F.
Ferguson, rt. hn. R. C. Palmer, R.
Finch, G. Parker, M.
Folkes, Sir W. Parry, Sir L. P. J.
Follet, Sir W. Patten, J. W.
Forbes, W. Peel, E.
Forster, C. S. Peel, right hon. W. Y.
Gladstone, T. Pelham, hon. C. A.
Gladstone, W. E. Pendarves, E. W. W.
Glynne, Sir S. Perceval, Colonel
Gordon, R. Plumptre, J. P.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Plunket, hon. R. E.
Graham, rt. hn. Sir J. Polhill, F.
Grant, hon. Col. Pollington, Lord Visc.
Hale, R. B. Pollock, Sir F.
Halfofd, H. Powell, Colonel
Hall, B. Praed, W. M.
Handley, H. Pringle, A.
Harcourt, G. G. Pusey, P.
Hardy, J. Reid, Sir J. R.
Hawkes, T. Rice, right hon. T. S.
Hawkins, J. H. Richards, J.
Hay, Sir John Rickford, W.
Heathcote, G. J. Ridley, Sir M. W.
Henniker, Lord Rolfe, Sir R. M.
Hindley, C. Ross, C.
Hogg, J. W Rushbrooke, Colonel
Hope, James Russell, C.
Jackson, Mr. Sergeant Russell, Lord John
Jervis, John Ryle, John
Sandon, Lord Visct. Vyvyan, Sir R.
Sandford, E. A. Walker, R.
Scott, Sir E. D. Wall, C. B.
Scott, J. W. Walter, J
Scrope, G. P. Whitmore, T. C.
Sheppard, T. Wilbraham, hon. B.
Smith, A. Wilde, Mr. Sergeant
Smyth, Sir H. Williams, R.
Somerset, Lord C. Williams, Sir J.
Stanley, E. J. Wilmot, Sir J. E.
Steuart, R. Wilson, H.
Stewart, Sir M. S. Winnington, Sir T.
Sturt, H. C. Winnington, H. J.
Thomas, Colonel Wodehouse, E.
Trevor, hon. A. Wortley, hon. J. S.
Trevor, hon. G. R. Wrightson, W. B.
Troubridge, Sir E. T. Yorke, E. T.
Tynte, C. K. Young, G. F.
Tyrrell, Sir J. T. Young, Sir W.
Vere, Sir C. B.
Vesey, hon. T. TELLERS.
Vivian, J. H. Agnew, Sir A.
Vivian, J. E. Mosley, Sir O.
List of the NOES.
Aglionby, H. A. Lynch, A. H.
Attwood, T. M'Namara, Major
Baldwin, Dr. Marjoribanks, S.
Benett, J. Marshall, W.
Bentinck, Lord W. Marsland, H
Bish, T. Methuen, P.
Bowes, J. Molesworth, Sir W.
Bowring, Dr. Nagle, Sir R.
Brady, D. C. O'Connell, D.
Bulwer, H. L. O'Connell, J.
Bulwer, E. L. O'Connell, M.
Butler, hon. P. O'Connor, Don
Cave, R. O. Oliphant, L.
Chapman, L. Palmer, General
Churchill, Lord C. Pattison, J.
Cowper, hon. W. F. Philips, M.
Crawford, W. S. Potter, R.
Crawley, S. Power, J.
Dalmeny, Lord Ramsbottom, J.
Davenport, J. Rippon, C.
Duncombe, hon. A. Roche, W.
Elphinstone, H. Roebuck, J. A.
Evans, G. Rundle, J.
Fellowes, hon. N. Ruthven, E.
Fergusson, Sir R. Scholefield, J.
Fielden, J. Sheldon, E. R. C.
Fort, J. Speirs, A.
Gaskell, D. Strutt, E.
Grote, G. Stuart, V.
Gully, J. Tancred, H. W.
Harland, W. C. Thompson, Colonel
Harvey, D. W. Thorneley, T.
Hawes, B. Tulk, C. A.
Hector, C. J. Wakley, T.
Hodges, T. T. Walpole, Lord
Horsman, E. Warbuton, H.
Howard, P. H. Wemyss, Captain
Hume, J. Westenra, hon. H. R.]
Hutt, W. White, S.
Leader, J. T. Williamson, Sir H.
Loch, J. Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.
Mr. Gisbovne Mr. Ewart.
Mr. Tooke. Mr. Divett.

Leave given.

Back to