HC Deb 12 May 1836 vol 33 cc839-40
Sir C. Burrell

complained of the time lost by the present mode of taking the Divisions, and of the inaccuracies resulting from it. In two instances (respecting Carlow, &c.) his name had been omitted in official lists.

Mr. Hume

said, that he must deny the correctness of the first allegation; the divisions did not occupy more time now than they did formerly. As to the second charge, his name had been once or twice omitted; but these were exceptions—they proved nothing against the rule. He did not mean to say, that the system was perfect—he wished it was. It was as complete as they could make it; and if the hon. Baronet could devise a more complete system, it would become him to name it.

Mr. Wakley

observed, that he had occasionally been engaged as teller, and had found great difficulty in the performance of that duty, from the unwillingness of many Members to mention their names when the divisions were taking. He had asked many for their names, but could not get them. While that unwillingness continued, some inaccuracies were almost unavoidable, at least till some Members were better known, or till the system were rendered more perfect. The present plan was not perfect, and, perhaps, not the best that might be devised, but it was eminently useful. The great deficiency at present was, from the unwillingness of Members to state their names. The plan had so far worked well, that he hoped soon to see it extended to divisions in Committees; at all events, the existing plan could not be stopped, for Members might rest assured that the people were determined to know how they voted.

Colonel Sibthorp

observed, that with regard to the alleged unwillingness to deliver in names, he knew nothing of it;—he was not afraid to announce his name, and he thought that his name would have quite as good an effect in any division as that of the hon. Member.

The conversation dropped.

Back to