HC Deb 10 March 1836 vol 32 cc167-80
Mr. Divett

then rose, pursuant to the notice which he had given, to move for a Committee of the whole House on so much of the Act of 4th and 5th William 4th, cap. 75, as imposed an additional duty of fifty per cent, on Retail Spirit Licences. This Act, as the House would recollect, was introduced by Lord Althorp during the period he filled the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, and nothing could possibly have been more oppressive than this increase of taxation had proved. The House would recollect that the Bill was brought forward at the close of the Session, when the attendance was not very numerous; but still, had hon. Members been in the least degree aware of the injustice which it would inflict on the licensed victuallers they never would have consented to its passing. When he brought forward this subject last year, his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, gave him a promise, that he would afford some relief to those classes. There was a feeling in the country, that upon this point his right hon. Friend had not kept faith with him. However, perhaps owing to the state of the revenue at that time, and to the pressure of other interests, his right hon. Friend had not been able to give more relief than he had done. He understood that his motion was to be opposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the present occasion, upon the ground of relief having been afforded last year, and also that the Government could not afford to grant the amount of relief demanded. He (Mr. Divett), however, felt it to be his duty to appeal from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to that House, and to ask them to take the condition of this distressed body of men into their consideration, and restore them to that state in which they were before the passing of Lord Althorp's Bill. The hon. Member went into some details with a view of showing that the relief granted to the licensed victuallers was very insufficient, and that it was so apportioned that the most oppressed portion received the least amount of relief. With respect to the 4th and 5th of William 4th, there was a clause in that Act which provided, that where a dispute arose as to the value of a house the person dissatisfied with the valuation, and with the amount of rate charged, should be at liberty to obtain a new valuation in such way as should be pointed out by the Commissioners of Excise, and that the duty should be charged in proportion to the newly-ascertained value. He contended that this Act gave the Commissioners of Excise a most inquisitorial power with respect to this class of traders. He believed that the great support which the Bill of Lord Althorp received was from a feeling that it would tend to the promotion of morality amongst the lower classes, by checking the sale of ardent spirits. This tax, however, fell upon the licensed victualler who sold small quantities of spirits for the advantage of his customers, and who was already oppressed with taxation. Instead of checking the sale of ardent spirits, the effect of the Act to which he referred was quite the contrary. It held out a direct temptation to smuggling, for in giving relief to houses consuming fifty gallons, the effect was this: the retailer produced the forty gallons in the regular way, and saved himself the expense of an additional licence duty by smuggling all that he consumed over that quantity. In spite of the activity of a well-appointed coast-guard, he understood that, owing to the heavy Duly, there was a great quantity of spirits smuggled into this country during the winter months, and a great quantity found its way into the possession of persons circumstanced in the way that he had just mentioned. With respect to the subject of his motion, great anxiety was felt throughout the country. In the course of the last Session there were no less than 200 petitions presented on this subject, and the present Session had scarcely commenced when similar petitions began to pour in upon them from all quarters. He hoped, then, that his motion would not be met by any declaration that it was not in the power of the Government to spare this reduction. But even were that the case, it would be much better to substitute an additional fractional duty on spirits than to continue the system of which he complained. After some further observations, the hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for a Committee of the whole House, to take into their immediate consideration so much of the 4th and 5th of William 4th, cap. 75, as imposes an additional duty of fifty per cent on retail spirit licences.

Mr. Ewart

considered the additional duty imposed on spirit licences as a tax bad in principle and bad in character. He had a petition signed by many thousands of his constituents in Liverpool. This petition was signed by many of the most respectable inhabitants, not at all connected with the licensed victuallers; and the petitioners stated very strongly their opinion of the injustice of the additional tax, and he could assure the House their feeling was every day increasing. If his Majesty's Government did not abolish this impost they would have to encounter great hostility. It was only an Act of common justice to a deserving and industrious class if the House agreed to the motion of his hon. Friend, The additional tax on spirit licences was an aggravation of evil on a class already too much oppressed—and he was convinced it could not consistently with sound principles be advocated. Drinking of ardent spirits had not been increased by it. The only means of accomplishing such an object would be to promote education and do all that was possible to improve the morals of the people. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not come forward during the present Session to relieve those who now complained, he would have a much more arduous task to perform next Session. If the motion did not succeed on the present occasion, it must eventually.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, that the task of opposing this proposition was painful to him, and he begged to add that he believed the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Divett) was actuated by no unkind feeling towards the Government in bringing the motion forward. But he entreated the House, before they came to a vote on this subject, that they would do him the favour to listen to the few observations which he had to offer—that they would not come to a decision on the question without listening to the facts. He rejoiced that the country was financially in the position which disabled him from affirming that it would be injurious to public credit to acquiesce in the proposition; he believed, and he derived the greatest pleasure from having it in his power to state the fact, that the revenue would be able to bear this reduction. He, therefore, did not oppose the proposition on financial grounds; but he begged to call the attention of the House to the actual position in which this matter stood, and to the circumstances under which the proposition was brought under the consideration of the House. He had already said, that at the earliest possible period after the close of the financial year in April next, he would bring before the House the actual state of the income and expenditure of the country, and he trusted its condition would be flourishing enough to enable him to propose such modifications and alterations of some of the branches of taxation as appeared to himself and his colleagues, and as would appear also to the House, the best calculated to afford practical relief. The present proposition did not involve the question of a loss to the revenue of 120,000l. a-year—he did not ask the House to consider that; but in apportioning that amount of relief, he would ask the House not to decide on a mere review of the question of spirit licences, but to weigh one proposition against another, and then inquire of themselves, inquire of their constituents, and inquire of the country, whether, if they decided in favour of this one item of relief, they would give general satisfaction? He begged the House to bear in mind, that the duty on spirit licences was paid by the consumers of the spirits. That was an obvious fact, and he thought the proposition so clear that he did not at all expect to find it contradicted. Not imagining that he should require much authority in support of his views, he had not troubled himself to seek any but in the soundest, authorities which could be consulted on such subjects, and he had found at hand the following observation:—"Such duties as those on licences to retail ale, wine, and spirituous liquors, though intended to fall on the retailers, are paid by the consumers." The authority from which he quoted was admitted to be a good one on such questions, being no less eminent an individual than the author of the "Wealth of Nations." He wished to bring before the attention of the House the circumstances under which the additional duty to which his hon. Friend had alluded was imposed by his noble Friend Earl Spencer. And here he must remark that the hon. Member for Exeter went no farther buck for his facts than to that period. Why did he not go to an earlier period? If he had, he would have discovered that there was a time, not very distant, when the licensed victuallers received considerable relief. If the hon. Gentleman, instead of confining his view to the period just before1834, had extended it to the time prior to 1825, he would have found that the smaller classes then paid for their licences upwards of 7l.; which sum was reduced by Lord Althorp to 3l. 3s.; and all who sold not more than fifty gallons of spirits in the course of the year, had had their licences reduced to 2l. 2s. When hon. Gentlemen considered the claims of the other classes of industry in this country, when they considered how that industry was borne down perhaps both by Excise regulations and financial impositions, he felt assured that they would pause before they granted relief to one single class. He had always thought, and had always said, that spirits were a fair article for taxation; indeed, it had always been his conviction, that a more fair article for taxation could not be found; and the limit was the fullest extent to which you could impose duty without creating smuggling. Lord Althorp, when he gave relief to the country from taxation to the amount of 1,200,000l., considered it safer to impose an additional duty on spirit licences rather than on spirits. In1835, objections were made in various petitions which were presented to the House against the licence duty. No great objections, however, were made to the increased duty when it was proposed by his noble Friend. At that time the been of getting rid of the House-tax was considered so great, that he should like to see the Gentleman in this House, when he saw the necessity which existed of obtaining some indemnity—he should like to see the Gentleman who would have resisted the proposition; on the contrary, the question was raised in this House, and in other quarters, whether a greater duty should not be imposed on the retailers of spirits. He knew how distasteful to the House these details were, but the question appeared to him to be of so much importance as to make it his duty to submit this statement to their consideration. Last year, in order to meet the objections which had been made, he proposed that in cases where the consumption of spirits did not exceed fifty gallons, the additional duty on the licences should be altogether remitted. Some hon. Gentlemen then said, that the relief proffered would be next to nothing; in reply to which he stated, that the principle of his measure was to give relief to the smaller victualler. In the first place, the number of licensed victuallers throughout England was 47,340. The Act 5th and 6th William 4th, cap. 79, gave relief in 17,423 cases, being 36½ per cent. on the whole number of parties who were licensed victuallers. But let him call attention to the mode in which that relief was given to the smaller classes. The right hon. Gentleman accordingly quoted a passage from the Return of the number of retail spirit dealers in England, who have received relief under the Act 5th and 6th William 4th, cap. 39; stating the total amount of such relief, and the number of those relieved under each rate of duty. At 2l. 2s. instead of 3l. 3s., 9,804: number in 1832–3, 14,491, relief 67½ percent; at 4l. 4s. instead of 6l. 6s., 6,454; in 1832–3, 18,349, relief 33 per cent; at 6l. 6s. instead of 9l. 9s, 584, number in 1832–3, 3,005, relief 19 per cent; at 7l. 7s. instead of 11l. 0s. 6d., 197, number in 1832–3, 1729, relief 11 percent; at 8l. 8s. instead of 12l. 12s., 207; number in 1832–3, 3,369, relief 6 per cent, at 9l. 9s., instead of 141. 3s. 6d. 71, number in 1832–3, 2,229, relief 3 per cent; at 10l. 10s. instead of 151. 15s., 106, number in 1832–3, 4,168, relief 2½ per cent; total number relieved, 17,423, ditto in 1832–3, 47,340, relief 36½ per cent; total amount of relief 28,1721. 10s. The above details showed that the Act had given relief to all the smaller dealers, and be it observed, to those connected with the agricultural parts of the country —the very classes for whom his hon. Friend claimed relief. The relief which would be given by his hon. Friend's proposition, would be given just where the House would think it ought not to be given. As evidence of the extent to which the country and agricultural districts had been benefitted by his plan, the right hon. Gentleman quoted the following Return of the number of retail spirit dealers who have received relief under the Act 5th and 6th William 4th, cap. 39, and also the total amount of such relief:—

Number relieved. Amount of relief.
England Country 17,382 £.27,972 5 0
London 41 200 11 0
Total 17,423 28,172 16 0
Scotland 1,596 1,983 15 6
Ireland 2,616 3,161 0 6
United Kingdom 21,635 £33,187 12 0
Excise Office, March 10th, 1836.
If this proposition were carried, you would give relief to 21,091 dealers in London, comprehending the whole of the gin-shops in this metropolis. Now, he would say, that if they had a surplus to give away, it was Dot in that quarter that he would give it. He was prepared to show them, if his hon. Friend would only afford him the opportunity, the advantages of repealing one tax as compared with another, and he would then ask the House to judge between them, which of the two propositions was best. He did not hesitate to say that he felt confident the House would agree with him, and would not apply a surplus of 120,000l. to increase the sale of gin. The noble Lord, the Member for South Lancashire, presented a petition but a few days ago on the subject of the paper duties, and stated, as a part of his case, the extreme hardship to which the paperstainers were now subject. The noble Lord spoke of the benefit which it would be to industry—of the ornament which it would add to our houses; he spoke of the cleanliness and neatness which it would impart to the humble cottage; and he spoke of the improvement it would occasion in the revenue itself if the duty were reduced. Now the whole of the duty on stained paper might be repealed for less than the sum which the hon. Member proposed to waste for the relief of the licensed victualler and gin-drinkers. For the sake of the people—for the sake of the industry of the land, he would say they must negative the proposition; let them, at least, suspend their judgment till they had the opportunity of comparing the bon. Member's plan with his, and adopting the one which they preferred. Were there no honourable Gentlemen who had claims to put in for other branches of manufacture? Did hon. Members recollect what had been done with respect to the glass trade? Did they recollect the relief which was afforded to the glass trade last year; the whole amount of the duties on which did not exceed the amount they were called on now to sacrifice? Did Gentlemen bear in mind the extent to which that relief had put machinery in motion? Did they recollect how it had raised wages—how it had improved the character of the manufacture —aud the promise which it gave of being an increasing source of wealth to the country? There was another proposition about to be discussed—a proposition which came before the House in the shape of petitions. The hon. Member for Liverpool had heard lately from his constituents on the subject of raw cottons. Had the hon. Member for Exeter heard nothing of the daily applications made to the Treasury to carry into effect various reductions of taxation of real importance, many of them recommended by the Commission of Excise Inquiry, many of them which, if they could be effected, would really benefit the community? Give him a free stage and no favour, to discuss this question, and he was not afraid of the result. But his hon. Friend let out a small matter, and to that he wished particularly to call the attention of the House. His hon. Friend told them that there had been a general election, and he said that the publicans at that election had put forward as a permanent grievance the amount of this tax. He knew it—the complaint was addressed to him also, and he met it. He met it, too, under a more arduous responsibility than the hon. Member for Exeter, because he was connected with the Government who imposed the tax, and he could assure his hon. Friend that it was not, under the circumstances, a very agreeable subject of conversation between him and the victualler. Which course, however, was it his duty to take here on a question of taxation? Not that which he thought most palatable to them, but that rather which he knew to be most conducive to the welfare of the public. He explained and they were satisfied; he heard no complaints, though he told them that it was the intention of the Government to renew this tax. He asked the hon. Gentleman for permission to put the question fairly. Let there be a division to decide whether the relief proposed by him to be given to the consumers of gin was or was not better than the relief which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) proposed to give. If they crippled the industry of the country by adopting such courses as that recommended —if they had not the courage to stand out, they were unfit to sit in that House, or to exercise the functions of a Legislature.— Honourable Gentlemen should recollect, that there was the question of marine insurances to be considered. There was also a proposition of his own, which was in a few days to be submitted to them: it was, that they should take into consideration the Stamp Duties. He proposed, in the Bill of which he had given notice, to make considerable reductions in all of them. It was important that these matters should be considered, when they were giving substantial relief. But would his hon. Friend anticipate him by a premature discussion, and deprive the House of an examination of the propositions he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had to make, and of pronouncing upon them its fair, just, and deliberate judgment? His hon. Friend could not be more anxious to repeal taxes than he was; nor could his hon. Friend be more desirous of giving relief. It was his opinion that hon. Gentlemen would not act wisely in making their first proposition for a relief from taxation, to select ardent spirits as the most suitable matter upon which to afford relief. He meant to make his financial statement in a month, and should then submit his propositions to the House. He trusted his hon. Friend would postpone his motion till that period. If, however, after this appeal, the hon. Gentleman should persevere and would not allow him to submit his financial propositions to the House, then he trusted, that hon. Gentlemen would feel it to be their duty to support him in resisting the motion.

Mr. Heathcote

was opposed to the reduction of the duty on licences granted to the proprietors of large spirit establishments; but there were other classes—he meant those who kept inns on the road side, and in rural districts, where relief was required. He was most happy to hear the hopes expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of being able to propose a reduction of taxation, and afford relief in some quarters. He was an advocate for keeping an additional duty on large dealers, but it ought to be removed in some cases where it was now enforced.— Under the circumstances of the case, however, he would advise the hon. Member for Exeter to postpone his motion for a month, as suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Viscount Sandon

could not view the additional duty on spirit licences as a tax on the consumers, but as a direct tax on the dealer. If the tax was on ardent spirits, he would not oppose its continuance; but as he did not think it was, he should support the motion.

Mr. Gillon

was of opinion that the parties should have no licences to pay for a fair, honest, and respectable calling. He could not understand, but he saw it with regret, why there was such a willingness to lay duty on spirits, the luxury of the poor man. As to intemperance, it was only the spread of knowledge that could put it down. There should be a reduction of these duties. However, under the circumstances, he was one who thought it would be wise to postpone the motion for the present.

Mr. Charles Barclay

thought the present an unfavourable opportunity for pressing the question. It should be brought under the consideration of the Government at a more convenient time than the present.

Mr. Hume

was glad that these claims had been brought before the House. He was one who had not thrown objections in the way of imposing of the tax, because the then Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that he had to reduce the House-tax of 1,200,000l. to which he was pledged, but that he (the Chancellor) found, that after the reduction he should not have the requisite financial surplus, and he hoped that, under the circumstances, the House would enable him to have that surplus, by allowing him to impose certain taxes, of which the present tax was one, and he (Mr. Hume) believed that the new licence tax would be taken off as soon as the surplus was naturally restored. Under these circumstances, and considering also that the people upon whom this tax had fallen so heavily were not, as was intended, the people who sold a large amount of spirits, but who dealt in a small way in the country, he was extremely glad, seeing these things, that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Divett) should have brought before the House the claims of the parties. He thought, however, that when the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer had made his appeal for one month's delay, until he could make his financial statement, that it would be prejudicing the interests of the parties, and diminishing their chance of success, to press the question this evening, when there was an impression upon the House that it was fair towards the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to wait for the period in question.

Mr. Miles

said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have held out some hope of a reduction of these duties. He was convinced that this tax did not fall upon the consumer. It was a great tax on rental at a time when there was a difficulty in paying rental. The tax in question could not be charged to the consumer, from the impracticability of an additional price being put on spirits. He was of opinion a tax upon the real consumption of spirits in the houses should be substituted, and that that tax should be in proportion to the amount of consumption. Such a tax would reach the gin palaces, that were the places of the greatest demoralization.

Colonel Sibthorpe

supported the motion. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when it was they were to expect the Budget?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

, in answer to the gallant Officer, said he should bring forward the Budget at the very earliest period after the close of the financial year the state of the notice-book would permit.

Dr. Bowring

advised the hon. Member for Exeter to withdraw his motion for the sake of the parties themselves. The request of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was reasonable. As the hon. Member persisted in his motion, he begged leave to move as an amendment, that the subject should be postponed till the 14th of April.

Mr. Philip Howard

, though he considered the claims in question deserving of the greatest consideration, should support the amendment postponing the question until they could take a general view of the finances, and they could be sure they were not relieving one party at the expense of another. He suspected the zeal of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and believed they wanted to embarrass the King's Government.

Mr. Goulburn

said, he was far from wishing to interrupt the course of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he was not factious, but was determined to give that support to the Ministry which he should himself expect were he a Member of the Government. He did not pledge himself, however, that this tax was upon the consumer. He considered this a tax on one particular class, not on consumers. The man who rented a house at a small rent could sell any quantity of spirits, without being liable to the duty, whilst the man who rented a house at a high rent, if he sold above fifty gallons a year, was subject to a considerable tax. The tax did not fall on the consumer therefore, for if the party raised the price of spirits, and charged the tax on the consumer, he would see the consumer go to that other party who could sell the spirits without the additional price. He should vote with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, and it was upon the ground that it was impolitic to enter into the discussion of the repeal of taxes one by one, or before they had taken a general view and could act the most for the general welfare. He was desirous of some arrangement of these duties which would make them operate impartially and equally, whilst it should not diminsh their general produce to the revenue.

Sir Matthew White Ridley

said, this tax fell on a particular class, who paid without it their due share of the general taxation. He should support the motion.

Lord John Russell

said, that it was the custom to wait until the close of the financial year, and till Government could take a general view of the taxation and propose reductions suitable to the general welfare; and if the Government failed to act for the best, then the different Members might bring forward plans of their own. If every Gentleman brought forward particular propositions, and they were agreed to, the consequence would be, that they would be more likely to consult particular interests than the general interests of the country. He, therefore, thought they should wait for the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when they would be enabled to judge on a full view of the case. The time was not come when the Chancellor of the Exchequer could make up his mind as to the reductions he could propose to the House, and all he asked was that they should not come to any decision on a particular question till that time, which was not distant, should arrive. He thought it would undoubtedly be a fairer tax if, as had been proposed, the duty was laid on in proportion to the sale, and those persons were relieved who sold small quantities by laying an additional duty on those whose sale was more considerable. That was a proposition on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had bestowed considerable attention, and would again take it into consideration. He therefore thought the motion should be postponed, and would himself have proposed the previous question had not the hon. Member for Kilmarnock moved the Amendment, which he should support, to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer the opportunity of making his statement before the House bound itself to any particular reduction.

Sir William Follelt

said, he perfectly agreed that it was in general more convenient not to propose a discussion on a particular tax till the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his financial statement; but he was afraid that was not the object of the postponement now proposed. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a hope that when he should make his statement he would propose to repeal the lax, then he would ask his hon. Colleague to withdraw his motion; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he could give no relief. Another reason for pressing the repeal of the duty was, that they were told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1834, that this duty would not fall on the retailer; it was now found that it did fall on the retailer, and as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a surplus, and could give relief, he hoped his hon. Colleague would press the question to a division.

Sir James Graham

thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not say that he would give no relief, but that if he found he could substitute a duty on quantity he would be glad to do so. He understood him to say that he was disposed to consider the question with a view to that institution. But these were not the grounds on which his vote should be given. It was said there would be a surplus revenue, but he wished to see that authenticated by a balance sheet; and he perfectly agreed with the noble Lord opposite, that if before that statement was made the House should decide on the reduction of a particular tax, he was afraid that a majority would take off tax after tax till the whole system was broken down, He never felt it to be more his duty to support Ministers than on this occasion, and he had come down to the House to give them that support.

Mr. Divett

could not but consider the motion for further delay a delusion. After the manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer met the question, if it were postponed it was floored for the Session. He rejoiced to hear that there was a surplus, and that if the House agreed to his motion, it could not. cause the slightest injury to the finances of the country. One thing was said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer which he thought unworthy of him. He said, that if the motion were agreed to, he would move an amendment to repeal another tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knew that he had no wish to embarrass the Government, but he had no hope of the tax being repealed if he agreed to postpone his motion, and thought he should not do his duty if he did not divide the House. He denied that he had brought forward the question for the sake of popularity; he had brought it forward to obtain relief for an industrious class of traders from a partial and oppressive tax.

The House divided on the Amendment—Ayes 165; Noes 155.—Majority 10.

List of the AYES.
Adam, Sir Charles Chisholm, A. W.
Agnew, Sir Andrew Clay, W.
Angerstein, J. Clive, E.
Anson, G. Conolly, E. M.
Baldwin, H. Cowper, Hon. W. F.
Bannerman, A. Crawford, W. S.
Baring, F. Crompton, S.
Baring, W. Dalmeny, Lord
Baring, T. Denison, E.
Barron, H. W. Dillwyn, L. W.
Barry, E. S. Donkin, Sir Rufane
Bentinck, Lord G. Dundas, J.
Biddulph, R. Dundas, J.
Bolling, W. Dunlop, T.
Bowring, J. Ebrington, Lord
Brady, D. C. Fellowes, Newton
Branston, T. W. Fergusson, Cutlar
Bridgeman, H. Finn, W. F.
Brotherton, T. French, F.
Brudenell, Lord Gillon, W. D.
Buller, E. Gordon, R.
Burton, H. Goulburn, H.
Buxton, T. F. Graham, Sir James
Byng, G. S. Greisley, Sir Roger
Campbell, Sir John Grey, Sir George
Campbell, W. Grimston, Lord
Cavendish, G. Grosvenor, Lord R.
Cayley, E. S. Grote, G.
Chalmers, P. Gully, J.
Chichester, J. Halse, J.
Childers Handley, H.
Harland, W. C. Phillipps, C.
Hawkins, J. H. Potter, R.
Hay, Sir A. Leith Poyntz, W. S.
Hay, Sir John Price, Sir Robert
Herries, Rt. hon. J. C. Pryme, G.
Hobhouse, Sir John Pusey, P.
Hope, J. Rice, Spring
Horsman Roebuck, J. A.
Howard, P. Rolfe, Sir Robert
Howard, R. Rooper, J. B.
Howick, Lord Russell, Lord John
Hume, J. Sanford, E. A.
Hurst, R. H. Scott, Sir Edward
Jephson, C. D. O. Scott, J.
Jones, T. Scourfield, W. H.
Labouchere, Rt. hon. Henry Scrope, G. P.
Seymour, Lord
Lefevre, Shaw Sharpe, M.
Lefroy, T. Shaw, Rt. hon. F.
Lemon, Sir Charles Sheldon, E. R. C.
Lennox, Lord G. Sheppard, T.
Lennox, Lord A. Sinclair, Sir George
Loch, J. Smith, B.
Lynch, A. H. Stanley, Lord
M'Leod, R. Strutt, E.
Maher, J. Stuart, Lord James
Mangles, J. Stuart, Villiers
Marshall, W. Talbot, J.
Mathew, G. B. Tancred, H. W.
Maule, Fox Thomson, P.
Miles, W. Thompson, B.
Molesworth, Sir Wm. Thompson, T. P.
Morgan, C. M. R. Townley, R. G.
Morpeth, Lord Trelawney, Sir Wm.
Mosley, Sir Oswald Tulk, C. A.
Mullins, F. W. Twiss, H.
Murray, Rt. hon. J. A. Verney, Sir Harry
Musgrave, Sir R. Vesey, Hon. T.
Nicholl, J. Wall, Baring
O'Brien, W. Wallace, R.
O'Connell. D. Warburton, H.
O'Ferrall, R. M. Wilbraham, G.
O'Loghlen, M. Williams, W.
Old, W. H. Williams, Sir James
Ord, W. Williamson, Sir H.
Paget, F. Wilson, H.
Parnell, Sir Henry Wilmington, Sir T.
Parry, L. P. J. Wood, C.
Pattison, J. Wyse, T.
Pease, J. Yorke, E.
Pelham, C.
Pendarves, E. W. W. TELLERS.
Philips, M. Stanley, E. J.
Philips, G. Steuart, R.
List of the NOES.
Aglionby, H. A. Barneby, T.
Ainsworth, P. Beauclerk, Major A.
Archdall, M. Beckett, Sir John
Attwood, T. Bell, M.
Bagot, Hon. W. Beresford, Sir John
Bailey, J. Bernal, R.
Baillie, H. D. Bewes, T. B.
Bainbridge, E. T. Blackburne, J. I.
Baines, E. Blackstone, W. S.
Balfour, T. Blamire, W.
Barclay, C. Boldero, Capt. H. G.
Barnard, E. G. Borthwick, P.
Brocklehurst, J. Knight, Gally
Brodie, M. B. Knightley, Sir Chas.
Brownrigg, J. S. Lawson, A.
Bruen, F. Leader, J. T.
Buller, Sir John Lees, J. F.
Bulwer, E. Lewis, D.
Chetwynd, W. F. Lincoln, Lord
Chichester, A. Lister, E. C.
Clerk, Sir George Long, W.
Codrington, C. Lushington, S.
Colborne, Ridley Lushington, C
Cole, A. Lowther, J. H.
Collier, T. Marjoribanks, S.
Compton, H. C. Marsland, Henry
Conyngham, Lord Marsland, Thomas
Cripps, J. Martin, J.
Curteis, H. Maxwell, H.
Denison, W. Neeld, J.
D'Eyncourt, Rt. hon. C. T. Norreys, Lord
Palmer, C.
Duffield, T. Palmer, R.
Dugdale, W. S. Parrott, J.
Dunbar, G. Pechell, G. R.
Duncombe, T. Plumptre, J. P.
Dundas, T. Praed, W.
East, J. B. Price, Grove
Eaton, R. J. Reid, Sir John
Egerton, W. Richards, J.
Elley, Sir John Rickford, W.
Elphinstone, H. Ridley, Sir Matthew
Elwes, J. P. Robinson, G. R.
Entwisle, J. Ross, C.
Fector, J. M. Russell, C.
Feilden, W. Ryle, J.
Fielden, J. Sandon, Lord
Fleming, J. W. Scarlett, Hon. R. C.
Follett, Sir William Sibthorp, Col. C. D. W.
Forbes, W.
Forester, Hon. G. Somerset, Lord G.
Forster, C. S. Spry, Sir Samuel
Fort, J. Stewart, P.
Gaskell, D. Strickland, Sir Geo.
Gaskell, J. M. Thompson, W.
Gladstone, T. Thornely, T.
Goring, H. D. Tollemache, hon. A.
Greene, Thos. Tooke, W.
Grimston, E. Trevor, A.
Hale Turner, W.
Hall, B. Tyrrell, Sir John
Hardy, J. Vere, Sir Charles
Hawes, B. Vernon, Granville
Hawkes, T. Villiers, C. P.
Heathcoat, J. Wakley, T.
Heathcote, G. Walker, R.
Hector, C. J. Walter, J.
Henniker, Lord Wason, R.
Hindley, C. Weyland, Major R.
Hodges, T. Wigney, J. N.
Hogg, J. W. Wilbraham, R.
Holland, E. Wilks, J.
Hoskins, K. Williams, Addams
Houldsworth, T. Wilmot, Sir John E.
Hughes, Hughes Winnington, H.
Hutt, W. Wood, M.
Johnston, A. TELLERS.
Jones, W. Divett, E.
Kearsley, H. J. Ewart, W.
Kemp, J. R.