Commons Sitting of 5 April 1837

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Halleybury College; East-India Officers' Salaries.—Read a second time:—Sheriffs' Fees; Attorneys and Solicitors; Recovery of Tenements.
Petitions presented. By Sir A. AGNEW. from various places, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Mr. GROTE, Mr. MAXWELL, and Mr. GILLON, from Strathaven and Avondale, against further Endowment of Church of Scotland; from Whitburn, complaining of the Creation of Fictitious Votes (Scotland); and from Dentford, complain-

769
ing of the King's Dock and Victualling Yards not being charged with the Land-tax; and from St. Mary-le-Bow, for the Equalisation of the Land-tax.—By Sir J. GRAHAM, Mr. HESKETH FLEETWOOD, Captain BOLDERO, Mr. MANGLES, Mr. A. SMITH, and Mr. WALTERS, from Nether and Upper Denton, that they may not be compelled to enter the Brampton Union; and from Glamorgan, Hoghton, Irthington, and Preston, for the Repeal; and from Guildford and Hertford, against the Repeal of the Poor-law Act; from Corsham and Chippenham, for Inquiry into the mode of providing Medical Attendance.—By Sir J. GRAHAM, Mr. GOULBURN, Mr. LOWTHER, Captain ALSAGER, General LYGON, Mr. WILKS, Lord STANLEY, Sir R. VYVYAN, Sir G. SINCLAIR, Mr. BARNARD, Mr. GILLON, and other Hon. MEMBERS, from various places, against the proposed Measure for the Abolition of Church-rates.

BANKRUPTS' ESTATES (SCOTLAND).
The Lord Advocate, in moving the second reading of the Bankrupts' Estates Scotland Bill, said, that as the enactments of it were the same in all respects as the Bill which passed through the House last Session, it was unnecessary for him to take up time by entering into any general view of the nature of the Bill, the object of which was to carry into effect improvements in the sequestration law, which had been contemplated and under consideration for a period of about twenty years. He was desirous, however, to point out the circumstances which had hitherto prevented the country receiving the benefits of the improvements called for, although many Bills had been brought forward by his predecessors in office and by himself. These arose chiefly from the great difference of opinion in different parts of the country, with regard to the nature of the provisions which ought to be adopted. It was contended by many persons that the sequestration of bankrupt estates should be carried on in the Supreme Court, as hitherto. On the other hand, it was not less strenuously urged, that sequestrations might be commenced and finished in each of the Sheriff Courts throughout Scotland. There were great objections to both those courses of proceeding. If sequestrations might be commenced in each of the Sheriff Courts, from the very limited jurisdictions, and many individuals and companies carrying on business in different counties, there might be jarrings and conflicting proceedings in each sheriffdom, and there would also be a want of general superintendence and check to prevent abuse taking place in particular districts. On the other hand, the expense of the procedure was much greater by the details of sequestration being confined to
770
the Supreme Court than if they were carried on in the parts of the country where the business was conducted. The Bill reconciled those difficulties, by providing that all sequestrations should commence by proceedings in the Supreme Court, and the management be conducted by the sheriffs in the different counties, subject to appeal to the Court of Session. This arrangement would not satisfy persons of extreme opinions either way, but it was approved of by the great majority of persons who had directed their attention to the subject, and whose opinions were subject to no bias. Another difficulty arose, from many individuals who had devoted a great deal of time and attention to the subject being unwilling even to consider any clauses which deviated from their expressions or views. Many persons engaged in particular branches of trade wished the Bill to suit the mode of carrying on their business, without regarding the difficulties it might give rise to, or the frauds which might take place from the arrangements they suggested. It was extremely natural they should do so, for their experience arose from the transactions with which they were most familiar. The Bill had also at one time been so framed as to nearly meet the views of the greatest commercial town in Scotland, but when further improvements and changes were made to place it more in accordance with the views of the rest of the country, they complained that any other suggestions had been listened to or adopted. He trusted that there would be a general feeling of conciliation in the country, and all the local interests, to consider the present Bill, and adopt the improvements which it contained. If not, the law must remain on its present footing. He had been ready to receive suggestions from every quarter, and he had adopted them freely. He was still ready to make any further alterations in the Bill, or to correct any errors which could be shown to exist in it, and with these observations he recommended the Bill to the attentive consideration of the House.
The Bill read a second time.

BANKRUPTCY (SCOTLAND).
The Lord Advocateobserved, that the Bankruptcy Scotland Bill was closely connected with the other. The object of it

771
was, to diminish expense and intricacy of procedure. It comprehended enactments which, at one time, had been distributed into ten different Bills. It and another Bill respecting Sheriff Courts, which stood next in the orders of the day, were founded upon the report of the Scotch Law Commissioners. He moved that they be both now read a second time.
Bills read a second time.

RECOVERY OF TENEMENTS.
Mr. Aglionby, in moving the second reading of the Recovery of Tenements Bill, said, that for the sake of tenants themselves it was absolutely necessary there should be a summary mode of recovering possession of tenements. He regretted the Attorney General had not thought proper to take upon himself the management of a Bill of this nature, because he was convinced the law as it now stood required some alteration. The present Bill did not alter the law of landlord and tenant, because it only applied to cases where a system of swindling had been carried on by persons who obtained possession of tenements under a false character. The principle of his Bill was that which had been recommended by the Commissioners, who had investigated narrowly the common law which made the distinction; and he would not occupy the House longer than in stating, that he did not believe that by this Bill the situation of the tenants would be rendered worse than at present, but rather better by its provisions, as it would enable their landlords to afford them more indulgence, as they would not run the same risk of being defrauded by violence or bad faith. There would be quite a sufficient time given before they went into Committee to offer any suggestions for the improvement of its provisions, and he would be glad to adopt any which he considered would be beneficial.
Bill read a second time.

SALE OF BEER.
Mr. Arthur Trevor Mr. Arthur Trevor moved the second reading of this Bill.
Mr. Roebuckobjected to the motion. The best way for him to point out his objection would be to read those clauses to which he was more especially opposed. In the first place it was provided that no licence should be granted without a certificate from the parson of the parish. Now
772
he wanted to know if there ever had been such a proceeding as that which would compel a clergyman of the Church of England to tell where beer and cider should be sold, and he would inquire if it were the peculiar privilege of their holy office to tell where travellers could obtain good beer? He would ask if the House were likely to pass a Bill which would render the clergymen inspectors-general of beer shops? for it was now sought to erect them into anew set of functionaries, who would not have the spiritual requisites of the parishioners in view, but who would be made to tell at what particular place travellers would get good beer. But it was not only the parsons who were to be put into requisition by this measure, but the constables also, so that he supposed the system would be under the regulation of the parson, constable, and company. But mark the difference which was to exist between these functionaries! The parson was not to be punished, although the constable was, if he did not undertake the office assigned to him. The constable was to be liable to a fine of 10 l. for neglect of duty. There was another extraordinary provision, which was, that the Bill should extend to England and Wales, except cities and boroughs. What was the meaning of that? Why, that country gentlemen did not like beer-houses. The hon. Gentleman knew the Bill would not be tolerated in towns; he dared not bring it into operation in cities and towns, but confined it to those places where the poor might be trampled on with impunity. It was further provided, that no licence should be granted for any house situated further than 500 yards from a turnpike road. The object was to prevent the poor labourers recreating themselves in by-roads and lanes, where they were in the habit of playing quoits and cricket, to thrust them out upon the high road; and, finally, to deprive the poor man, crossing the country, and who could not afford to ride in a post-chaise or on horseback, of the opportunity of slaking his thirst with a drink of beer. He could not help exclaiming against such a measure when he found hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were up in arms in defence of the rights of the poor, under pretence of taking care of their morals, attempting to foist such a Bill upon the House. Nothing was, in his opinion, so peculiarly contemptible as

773
the pretence set up of taking care of the morals of the poor by Act of Parliament. It Was not to be done in that form; but if the hon. Gentleman had the morals of the population at heart, why not enter at once into a crusade against the gin palaces? Let him try, and he (Mr. Roebuck) would be bound, that he would find hon. Gentlemen in that House who were connected in the distilleries standing up in their defence, and detailing the injury it would inflict on country Gentlemen, in the reduced consumption of malt, barley, oats, and rye. Anything they would countenance but an attack upon themselves, and under pretence of taking care of the morals of the poor they were grinding them down in every possible way. For these reasons he should move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
Sir Ronald Fergusonagreed in what had fallen from the hon. Member far Bath, and wished, at the Same time, to remind the House, that the retailers of beer already laboured under many hardships to which the licensed victualler was not subjected.
Mr. Arthur Trevor, in reply to the observations of the hon. Member for Bath, said, the clergyman's interference was to extend merely to the granting of a certificate as to previous character, and he had confined himself to the country parishes, because it was there the evil had been felt. Every county magistrate would say, that the evils were so great that there was an absolute necessity for something being done. He was taunted also for not interfering with gin palaces. He considered them the receptacles for every species of vice; but if he were to interfere with them at all, he would be told by the hon. Member, or some of his Friends, that he was interfering with the amusements of the people. The next charge was, that he was favouring country gentlemen, by obliging all beer-shops to be within a certain distance of the high road. The reason was, as country gentlemen knew, that many of those beer-shops were on the borders of forests, and it was notorious that they were the haunts of poachers, sheep-stealers, and persons guilty of every other species of crime. From the temper of the House, he had no doubt the Bill would be rejected, but it did not damp him: he would continue to turn his
774
attention to the subject until the evils were remedied. The hon. Member for Bath objected to the appointment of a clergyman to give the licence; but who could be a better judge than a clergyman of the morals of his neighbours? It was a subject of which the hon. Member was wholly ignorant. The hon. Member called himself the champion of the people. If he were really so he would support this Bill. He felt it to be his duty to take the sense of the House upon his motion.
Mr. Thomas Duncombethought, that if the clergy had any reason to complain, it was of the hon. Member for Durham, not of the hon. Member for Bath. He (Mr. Duncombe) had heard of a place in Yorkshire, where the parsonage-house had actually been let for a beer-shop. As to the clergyman being allowed to licence of not, it should be remembered that a clergyman might be a member of a temperance society, in which case it was hardly to be expected that he would licence a place where liquor was to be had, which he thought injurious to those who drank it. In his opinion, a more ridiculous and arbitrary measure had never been brought under the consideration of the House.
Mr. Wynnhoped his hon. Friend, the Member for Durham, would not press his motion to a division. The Bill would, in his opinion, impose a most invidious and irksome duty upon the clergyman of every parish.
Mr. Wilks, on the contrary, advised the hon. Member for Durham to go to a division, because he was convinced that the opinion of the House would be distinctly expressed; and it was highly important that those persons who had invested their capital in beer-houses, should not be annoyed, Session after Session, by experimental notices and measures. He was convinced that, upon the whole, the establishment of beer-houses had been productive of great good, moral and physical, by diminishing the consumption of ardent spirits,
Mr. Trevorwould defer to the opinion of his right hon. Friend, the Member for Montgomery, and would not press the Bill to a second reading. At the same time he must protest against the doctrines of the hon. Member for Boston.
Amendment carried. Bill put off for six months.

GOVERNMENT OF THE ARMY.
On the question that the Speaker do leave the chair, to go into a Committee of Supply,
Colonel Thompsonsaid, he had a notice upon the book, which he should have been glad to have brought forward many weeks ago, and of which he should have been happy to have offered some explanation when the notice was given, if he had not been prevented by forms of the House, which he hoped were a portion of the wisdom of our ancestors, and not our own. The consequence of his being prevented from giving any such explanation was, that he had received a number of letters, from which it appeared that there was a persuasion that he intended to enter into an examination of the details of the office of the commander-in-chief. Now, he begged to say, that he had no more intention of doing that, than he had of inquiring into the details of the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury, if there was one. His object was simply to bring before the notice of the House, that the government of the army was withdrawn from the practice and application of that constitutional law, which, according to the principle settled in times of struggle and danger, gave us a remedy for, and prevention of the misapplication of the power of the Crown, by placing the administration of all the important departments of the state, in the hands of the ministers whose real responsibility consisted in the necessity for all going out of office together, whenever they ceased to be able to maintain a majority in that House. Though not a lawyer, his object could not be mistaken by any fair inquirer. If that mace or its predecessor could tell stories, it would speak of times when there was little doubt of what our forefathers meant by the customs and constitution of the realm, as distinct from Acts of Parliament. But, not to travel out of his immediate line, when the Mutiny Act said, that the raising and keeping up an army in the realm without consent of Parliament, was against law, was there a drum-boy that believed that meant, against an Act of Parliament? It was written and stamped upon the minds of all men that there was a law in this country to which even statutes made in that and the other House of Parliament were subservient. To that law, therefore, he appealed, and he would ask whether the government of the army had been kept in the state in which it had been placed by their forefathers? What on this point said
776
history? When the Tories came into office, the first time he believed they had a chance after the Revolution, did they continue the Duke of Marlborough in his office of commander-in-chief an hour longer than they found themselves unable to withdraw him from abroad? When the Whigs again came into power under George I., they restored their commander-in chief; and, on the next change of ministry, which took place, he believed, on Sir R. Walpole's retirement, the commander-in-chief, like other ministers of state, was again changed. He contended that these precedents, occurring as they did in critical times, when it was unsafe to tamper with the just jealousy felt by the people of that formidable machine a standing army, justified him in saying, that by the ancient law and practice of the realm, there ought to be a constitutional administrator of the army, removable with the other ministers, as there was of the king's navy and the king's courts. By giving up this point, a door would be open to every possible mal-practice and mal-application of the military force, and we might be paying for the maintenance of a numerous and expensive army,— amounting to about 100 regiments of foot, and thirty of cavalry—without knowing whether they might not at any time be directed against ourselves. Look to the case of Spain; did any one believe that the government would have committed themselves to all the dangers and difficulties arising from sending out a force in so avowedly inferior a state of discipline—without casting any disparagement on those who were engaged in it— had they not known that the army was not really at their disposal? They could move the marines, because they were under the direction of the Admiralty; and the artillery and engineers, because they were under the master of the ordnance; but of the superb regiments of infantry and cavalry which made the rest of the British army, the constitutional and responsible advisers of the Crown knew they could not move a corporal's guard. They could not move a single soldier towards Spain. And the result of this misgovernment of the army was, that our countrymen engaged in the Spanish struggle must suffer all the misfortunes which were daily falling upon them. Again, there were some apprehensions of this country being involved in a struggle with Russia. Was there nobody to tell the northern autocrat,

777
that the British army was not, in fact, at the disposal of the constitutional ministers of the Crown, and though the King's government might wish to put a stop to his aggressions, that army might even be directed to his assistance? It had been said by some hon. Gentlemen in that House, that they hoped never to see the day when the army should be brought under the control of the House of Commons. If this was merely an expression of personal opinion, he had no more wish to interfere with it, than he had for interference with his own. But if it was to be taken as the expression of a political party, then he must say, that the construction put upon it by the political party to which himself belonged was, that those hon. Gentlemen hoped the army would always be under the direction of an irresponsible power behind the throne, which power should be themselves. In this country there had not been wanting instances of the dangers that might arise from the government of the army being in the hands of others than the responsible ministers of the Crown. In the unfortunate events which had occurred at Bristol, it was believed that the king's ministers were not held the proper judges of the time and mode of allowing military execution to commence upon the erring men, and that the governors of the army had had recourse to extraordinary measures to effect that end. In the event of similar circumstances occurring in Ireland, was there no fear of the military force being directed by irresponsible persons? Had there not already been—though he knew this was a sore subject for hon. Gentlemen opposite—a disposition manifested in certain quarters to tamper with the army? The direction of the army was manifestly the sorest point in the concernments of a free country; and therefore it was the last that ought to be withdrawn from the securities furnished by the practice of the constitution. But if it was so withdrawn, what was the consequence, but that the moment the power became illegal, the right to obedience vanished? He was not disposed to modify one jot of his assertion, that the only security any country had against arbitrary power, was in maintaining the principle, that obedience was coeval with legality. Let those who exercised power illegally, take the risk; he did not not mean to stir from his position, that if the major was true, the minor and conclu-
778
sion followed. He hoped hon. Gentlemen would not imagine he had come down with any expectation of making a grand coup de lance on the present occasion, but to make a beginning with a subject which, by pains and perseverance, would be carried to some fruit. He had not even asked anybody to second his motion; but if anybody did, he would certainly go to a division. If they did not, he knew very well where he should go and say, that no man had stood by him; and he did not believe that in the end he should be the worse for that. If, however, as he hoped would be the case, some hon. Gentleman came forward to his support, he would, by dividing the House, give himself the pleasure of recording, with the "two or three gathered together," who might be willing to assist him, in his sentiments on this question. He now moved, as an amendment to the motion for going into Committee, that the government of the army, as at present conducted, is against law, and no man is held to obedience to the same; and that no supply be granted till remedy applied.
No hon. Member seconding the Amendment, the original motion was carried, and the House went into a Committee of

SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.
Viscount Howicksaid, that, except in one or two points, the present estimates were precisely the same as those of the last two years. In the effective force there was this year an increase to the amount of 27,875 l., but, in the non-effective force there was a diminution to the amount of 38,182 l., so that there was, in fact, a decrease this year, as compared with the last, amounting to 10,307 l. The increase in the effective force arose partly from the circumstance, that last year a regiment being on its passage home from India, was for half a year in the pay of the East India Company, whereas, in the present year, the whole of its pay had fallen on the public. This had caused an increase of 13,700 l. The price of provisions and forage was this year higher than it was last year, and this had caused a considerable increase. The most important cause of increase was, the alteration which had taken place in regard to the increase of pay, and the pensions of the army. Formerly every soldier, at the expiration of a service of fourteen years, whether his conduct had been good or bad, was entitled

779
to receive an increase of pay to the amount of 2d. a-day. During the debate on the Mutiny Bill last Session, a strong desire was manifested by many hon. Members, that increased facilities should be afforded for holding out rewards to soldiers, as an incentive to good conduct—and a recommendation to that effect was made by the Committee on military punishments. Considering the subject as a most important one, he (Lord Howick) had, in the course of last Session, in concert with the Commander-in-chief, drawn up a warrant, which afterwards received his Majesty's sanction, and was dated the 1st of September, by which it was declared, that no soldier who should enlist after that period should be entitled to an increase of pay, merely on account of length of service; but that, on the other hand, every soldier who should have served seven years, and whose name for two years of that time had never appeared on the defaulter's book, should receive a mark of distinction, and a penny per day additional pay; that at the end of fourteen years' service, on similar conditions, he should receive a second mark of distinction, and another penny additional pay, and that at the expiration of a period of twenty-one years, he should be entitled to receive a third mark of distinction, and to have another penny per day added to his pay; and further, that when pensioned, he should have his pension increased in proportion to the increase of pay which he had received for five years. Thus, if for five years he had received an additional penny per day, and for two years, an additional twopence, he should be entitled to have three halfpence per day added to his pension. He thought that those regulations would tend greatly to the improvement of the army, by holding out a been to well-conducted soldiers. To meet the probable expense arising from this warrant, an additional sum of 9,800 l. was inserted in the estimates this year, to which he was confident no objection could be made. As he had said before, deducting the increase of 27,875 l. on the effective force from the decrease on the non-effective force of 38,182 l. (owing to the falling-in of pensions and other causes), there remained on the whole, even taking into account the additional expense incurred by the late brevet, amounting to 8,468 l., a decrease this year of more than 10,000 l. With regard to the brevet, as it would, he
780
believed, be brought separately tinder the consideration of the House, he would make no remarks at present. He begged to move, that the sum of 3,111,152 l. 1s. 10 d. be granted to defray the expenses of his Majesty's land forces in Great Britain, and on foreign stations, from the 1st of April, 1837, to the 31st March, 1838.
Mr. Robinsonsaid, that he for one should make no objection to the increase of expense which had been incurred in consequence of the new warrant, as he believed the system of rewards which it established, would be one great step in advance towards the abolition of corporal punishment in the army, of which, except in time of war, he entirely disapproved.
Mr. Humewould shortly state the objections which he felt to the keeping up of the large military establishment which at present existed in the country. Since the war, the national resources bad been lavished on an immense military force, without any regard to the privations which heavy taxation inflicted on the community, He said "privations," for seventy per cent. of the whole amount of taxation levied in this country, fell upon the poorer, the working classes.—In consequence of enormous expenses which were incurred by our large military force, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as in the instance of soap last night, the duty on which pressed on every individual, but most heavily upon the working classes, was unable to give them any relief from taxation. In 1792, the number of men employed in the army was 45,242; in the navy, 16,000; in the ordnance, 4,000; making a total of 65,242. Yet in those times France was hostile to us, and the Spanish fleet, then considerable, opposed us. Now, when there was not a single naval force in Europe, except that of France, which could bear comparison with ours, in a state of profound peace we bad 33,700 marines and seamen, 81,319 soldiers, and 8,255 men in the ordnance and engineer department—in all, no less than 123,274 men; and this, let it be recollected, was our efficient establishment. In addition to this, we had 48,113 yeomanry, besides militia available, as well as the armed police of Ireland, amounting to 7,367, and the new police, numbering 3,300. The entire force amounted to 182,000, exclusive of the troops in India, which amounted to 19,000 more. What was the reason for keeping up such a force as that?

781
Taking the average of the years 182'2, 1823, and 1824, they had only an army of 72,200 men; and, taking the average of 1835, 1836, and 1837, the army amounted to 81,257 men. What was the need of this large force? Were the Ministers afraid of an invasion? Or were they going to send out troops to carry on a war abroad? He hoped the day for that was gone by; and on the part of the people he protested against the continuance of this extravagant system. What he had to propose was, that the estimate be reduced by the whole amount of the allowance for twenty thousand men. There were at this day nearly that number of men more than in the times of the Tories. He knew that the noble Lord, the Secretary at war was not altogether to blame in that matter. The noble Lord had his master of the Horse-guards—a thing which was perfectly ridiculous. He knew, indeed, that it was the opinion of some Gentlemen that the Commander-in-chief should be under no control, but that of the King in person, and that the Secretary at War ought not to be allowed to interfere with that officer. But he contended that such doctrine was against the constitution. The King could do nothing but through his Ministers; and orders issued to the Commander-in-chief must be signed by the Secretary at War. The noble Lord's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Dundee, had found himself mastered by the Commander-in-chief, so much so, that he was obliged to confess to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he could not prepare such estimates as he would feel justified in submitting to the House of Commons; and thus were the Ministers baffled by a person openly opposed to them and to the majority of that House. He hoped that Ministers would not consent to go on in that way. It was said that their interference with the Commander-in-chief would be unconstitutional. But it was the existence of a standing army in time of peace that really violated the constitution. The control of the army by the ministers of the Crown was required by the same principle of the constitution by which they were responsible for the acts of the Crown. It was dastardly of them to allow the command of the army to be vested in a man who was openly opposed to them. When the members of the present government sat upon the other side of the House, they were loud in their com-
782
plaints of the expensiveness of the standing army, and they were continually badgering the Tories on the score of extravagance. Why, then, did they increase the force from 69,144 men, as it was under the Tory Government in 1822 10 81,319? What was there in the state of this country or of Europe which rendered such an increase necessary? The army cost seven millions a-year, without the commissariat or the ordnance. That was an immense sum. But before the French war the expenditure on the same account was little more than two millions. He could not account for the apathy which was evinced in the House on the subject of the present enormous cost of the army, whilst there was on all sides so much complaint of the amount of oppressiveness and taxation, and almost every Gentleman was calling for the reduction of one tax or other. Some Gentlemen called for the repeal of the tax upon cotton. Well, let them cut off 10,000 men from the standing army, and the cotton tax could be spared. Although, in strictness, the expense of the army was the subject before the Committee; yet he had brought forward also the numerical state of the navy, in order that the Gentlemen might have the whole expense of our warlike force by land and sea at one view. And surely when the whole expense was looked at, it was not surprising that the working classes were, to a great extent, unable to obtain the means of subsistence, as had been fully made out before a Committee which was recently appointed. Every thing they consumed was taxed nearly in the rate of seventy per cent. Before he sat down he must observe that the estimates were brought forward in a very improper and unsatisfactory manner. Why did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer bring forward his estimates in the same clear and satisfactory manner in which such propositions were brought before the Parliaments of other countries? Why did he not give an explanation of the purposes for which those forces were to be maintained at so great an excess above those of 1822 and 1823? The regiments of the guards seemed to be kept for nothing but show. On some occasions they had been useful in preserving the peace. But of late years the metropolis had been free from disturbances and riot; and especially since the establishment of the police, there had been no occasion whatever for the guards. The

783
right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, might depend upon it, that before long it would become a question, whether the expensiveness of the existing form of government in this country was compensated by its utility. For his part, he (Mr. Hume) was desirous of preserving the present form of government; but every thing connected with the expenditure of the public money at present, was calculated to produce dissatisfaction in the minds of the people; a large portion of whom were almost deprived of the means of subsistence by the effects of taxation. It was the duty of the Government to curtail every expense as much as possible; and they could very well afford a considerable reduction in the present item. There need be no fear that England would not be at all times able to defend herself from foreign aggression. In the mean time, whilst this country was at peace with all the world, it ought not to be burthened with the support of so large an army. To bring the question in a tangible shape before the Committee, he should move as an amendment that the proposed sum of 3,111,652 l., 1s. 10 d. should be reduced by 500,000 l. which would require the reduction of 10,000 from the troops of the most expensive class; in which there had been an increase of 6,600 men since 1822. Perhaps some Gentlemen might not be aware of the difference of expensiveness amongst different classes of regiments; but he held in his hand a return signed by Lord Palmerston, from which it appeared that the cost of maintaining a private in the Life Guards was 74 l. per annum in the Dragoon Guards 56 l. per annum, and in the Foot Guards 34 l. per annum, the cost of a private of infantry being 21 l. Although the guards were not very numerous, yet they were numerous at present in comparison with former periods. With the reduction of 500,000 l., or the allowance for ten thousand men, he would propose a reduction of 120,000 l. from the estimates for the ordnance and commissariat; which sums, taken together, would be equal to the whole of the soap duty; with which the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he could not dispense at present. But he (Mr. Hume) was quite satisfied that the reduction which he proposed could be made with perfect safety, and the soap tax accordingly might be repealed. The hon. Member concluded by
784
moving, as an amendment, that the sum of 2,611,652 l. 1s. 10 d. be inserted in the resolution instead of 3,111,652 l. 1s. l0 d., as proposed by the noble Lord.
Viscount Howickobserved, that the hon. Member for Middlesex had called upon him to show some grounds for maintaining the amount of the force which it was proposed to keep up, and had asked, "Why not return to the amount of force kept up in 1792; or why not, at all events, comedown to the force maintained by a Tory Government in the years 1822 and 1823?" With respect to the comparison between the year 1792 and the present time, he wished to call the hon. Member's attention to this fact, that since the year 1792 the colonial possessions of this country had been very greatly extended. The amount of force required for garrisoning the colonies which this country held previous to the year 1792 did not at this moment materially differ from the amount of force required for garrisoning those colonies at that period. There certainly had been a large increase in the garrisons in New South Wales; but when the increase of the number of convicts, and the extent of territory over which those desperate men were dispersed, were considered, the absolute necessity for maintaining a large military force for the safety of the colonists must be apparent to every one. In fact, very recently only a necessity existed for sending an additional regiment to New South Wales. When he had the honour of being Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, on one occasion a very serious alarm existed in that colony from the difficulty of maintaining the peace in consequence of the disorderly conduct of the convicts. The hon. Gentleman had said, that the object of the Government in maintaining such a large military force was for the purpose of overawing the people both at home and in the colonies. If that really had been the object, he begged to assure the hon. Gentleman that he should not have been the person to frame the estimates, or to bring them forward. He begged to tell the hon. Gentleman that it was for no such purpose that the present vote was proposed. The hon. Gentleman had also been pleased to say that the Government had no voice or control over this matter. This, also, he begged to deny. If he had not possessed the means of ascertaining the reasons for which it

785
was proposed to keep up this force, he should not have been the person to submit such a vote to the House. At the same time, he admitted that a period might arrive when a considerable diminution of the force now required in some of the colonies might take place. He believed, that after the lapse of a few years, this country would reap the advantage of that great measure of justice which was adopted in the year 1833, by the emancipation of the slaves, and that it would become practicable very considerably to reduce the garrisons in those colonies where it was the hardest upon the troops to remain in garrison, and where necessarily the largest amount of expense to this country was incurred. The comparison between the year 1792 and the present period being thus completely disposed of, he would advert to another part of the hon. Gentleman's speech. The hon. Gentleman had said, that the amount of the household troops had been greatly increased; but the hon. Member had fallen into an error in reckoning those called dragoon guards among the household troops. On the contrary, they were entirely upon a level with the other regiments of cavalry, and were liable to the same kind of service. There certainly had been an increase since the year 1792 in the number of the household troops; but that increase in rank and file in the cavalry was only about 379 men, and in the foot guards about 800 men. Now, considering that for the protection of the metropolis the Government had no other than these troops, and considering the enormous augmentation of the population since 1792, he could not say that this did appear to him, as compared with the force in the year 1792, to be a very disproportionate increase. But the hon. Member had also said, that the proportion of the number of officers to the number of men was enormously large, and that this large proportion was kept up merely for the purpose of finding employment and providing emoluments for the aristocracy. It would be as well if the hon. Gentleman would attend a little to what was the state of things in the year 1792, and what at the present moment; if he had, he would have found that in 1792 the number of officers to the men was in the proportion of one to twelve; and that in the present year the proportion was no more than as one to twenty-eight. The hon. Gentleman
786
next referred to the military establishment for the year 1821 and 1822, when the amount of force was reduced to 69,144 men, whereas now the amount of force was 81,000 men; making a difference not of 20,000 men as the hon. Gentleman had stated, but of about 12,000 men. Now, he was inclined to believe, that the reduction which took place in the year 1821–2 was one not of very great economy, and his reason for believing so was this:—In the course of the year 1822 a great number of soldiers who were perfectly fit for service were discharged, and in the following year, 1823, it was found that the military force of the country had been too much reduced, and it became necessary to raise six additional regiments. The effect of the previous reduction, consequently, was, that in the course of a few months after the reduction had been made the country had to pay for the whole previous amount of force, as well as to pay pensions to a very considerable number of men who had been discharged before there was any necessity for discharging them. The hon. Gentleman had further said, that his Majesty's Ministers, when sitting on the opposition side of the House, used to concur with him in his motions for the reduction of the army estimates. He must correct the hon. Gentleman in that respect. He had the honour of sitting on the opposition side of the House for four Sessions with the hon. Member; and he had the most distinct recollection, that in the course of that period he never voted for a reduction in the amount of the force to be kept up, because he did not think, that with the demand upon the army for colonial service, they could prudently reduce the force below the amount then maintained. Before the House agreed to the proposition of the hon. Gentleman, it became them to consider what was the demand upon the army for colonial service. That demand had arisen, not as the hon. Gentleman had said, for the purpose of overawing the people, but for the necessity of protecting the different fortifications and manning the garrisons of the various colonies which this country possessed. Out of the 103 battalions of the line of which the whole force was now composed, it was required that there should be continually abroad eighty-two battalions; leaving at home, out of the whole force, only twenty-one battalions. The effect of this was, that

787
when the regiments, after a very long period of foreign service, were brought home, they could scarcely be kept at home for four year, when it would become their turn again to go abroad. In consequence of this demand for affording relief to regiments coming home, it was necessary that seven battalions should go out from this country in the present year. Now the period during which these seven battalions, by being sent abroad again in the order in which they came home, could possibly remain in England, would not in any case exceed four years. One of these battalions returned to England in September, 1833, after a service of twenty years in New South Wales and India. Another came home in the year 1834, after a service of ten years in the West Indies. He could assure the House, that he had taken some pains to look into the manner in which the colonial service pressed upon the British troops at the present moment; and in concert with the Commander-in-chief he had also endeavoured, as far as was practicable, to decrease that pressure without making an increase of the force necessary; and in consequence of this an arrangement had been made which he trusted would be productive of very considerable alleviations of some of the worst parts of that pressure upon the troops. Since he had had the honour of filling the office of Secretary at War he had caused to be made a very detailed and elaborate examination of all the returns that had been obtained from the medical departments of the service; and he found from those returns that a prolonged tropical service was attended with most seriously injurious effects upon the troops. The system had hitherto been, that a regiment should pass ten years in the West Indies. Although it would be impracticable without an augmentation of the forces to make any diminution in the period for which a regiment was sent abroad, yet an arrangement was in contemplation by which the period so passed abroad would be divided into different climates. A regiment instead of having to pass the whole of the ten years in the West Indies, a prospect which appalled the minds of the men and deprived them of the courage to keep up against the influence of a climate that always materially affected their health, for the future would pass the earlier portion of the period during which they were
788
absent from this country in the different garrisons in the Mediterranean. They would thence proceed to the West Indies; and from the West Indies they would proceed before they came home to Canada. Thus the whole period of their foreign service would be divided among those three climates, thereby giving to the different regiments a fairer proportion of service in good and bad climates than the system which had been hitherto pursued allotted to them. At the same time an arrangement was about to be made with the Treasury for improving the food, provisions, and comforts of the troops in the tropical climates. He found that in the West Indies it was the practice for the troops to receive only two days' fresh provisions in a week; and he learned from an examination of the returns of the medical men that this was exceedingly prejudicial to their health. An arrangement was about to be made that for the future the troops should always receive five days' fresh provisions in a week; and in some particular colonies which were peculiarly unhealthy—as, for instance, in Jamaica—they would receive fresh provisions every day. He mentioned this to show that the Government had done all that lay in its power to diminish the heavy burthen on the troops sent to the colonies, and he apprehended that hon. Gentlemen would not destroy all these arrangements by making a large reduction in the force; for, if this were to take place, it would be utterly impossible to afford the relief he had alluded to with regard to the station of the troops. He was quite convinced that the House would not pursue such a course. He would only further state, in answer to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman respecting the management of the army, that it involved matters of such importance and delicacy that the subject should be reserved for a distinct discussion. He did not agree with the hon. Gentleman in the view that he had taken of the subject: far from it. He thought that the hon. Member was ill-informed on the subject; but, at the same time, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman that there must be some important changes in the management of the army. The grounds of this opinion were stated in the Report of the Commissioners, which was on the Table; and, as that was a document which must come under discussion, be should reserve what

789
he had to say on that point until the subject was regularly before the House. He only made this observation with a view to protest against being supposed to agree with the hon. Member for Middlesex.
Mr. W. Williamsexpressed his determination to vote in favour of the Amendment of his hon. friend, and he must say that the noble Lord had not made out any case why so large a military force should exist in this country. The noble Lord had entirely failed to show any solid reason why the present amount of force should be larger than that which existed in 1792. The police of Ireland and of London performed duties which, before the establishment of those forces, were required from the military; and with the police force in the metropolis, it did appear to him that so large an armed force was not only unnecessary, but monstrous and unconstitutional. It appeared that a Reformed Parliament was more extravagant in its expenditure than the unreformed, and particularly with regard to a branch of the public service which was most obnoxious to the principles of public liberty. The maintenance of such a force after twenty-two years of peace was wholly uncalled for, and was a proposition which the Representatives of the people in the House of Commons ought not to sanction.
Mr. BarlowHay thought that no person who considered the hardships endured by the British soldiers during a long and dreary exile in unhealthy climates could wish to see them aggravated by a diminution of the military force. He wished to direct the noble Lard's attention to the present state of the transport service, which he thought ought to be placed under the immediate care of Government, and on the same footing as the navy. This he considered as a matter of deep importance when they recollected the time the soldiers would now pass on board ship in the passage from colony to colony. He entirely approved of the change proposed by the noble Lord as regarded increasing the comforts of the troops in the colonies. There was one regulation which he should like to see altered, as be thought it unjust to the troops of the line. The household troops held rank superior to the rest of the army, and they were allowed to exchange into the line with that full benefit of the rank. He had no objection to their holding a
790
superior rank, but he thought the privilege of conducting exchanges in this way gave them an unfair advantage.
Mr. Richardsobserved that the noble Lord had referred to the hardships endured by regiments on foreign service, but he had not said a word as to the services of the troops at home. He considered 20,000 men not too large a force, in order to ensure peace and good order in England, Scotland, and Ireland? The noble Lord had enumerated with just applause the valuable services of the army abroad; but he had forgotten their valuable services in keeping the peace at home. And he would put it to the common sense of the hon. Member for Middlesex, whether for the preservation of the peace in England, Ireland and Scotland, the present military force was more than sufficient. If an increase had been proposed, he certainly should have voted for it in preference to supporting a vote for reducing the number.
Mr. Humewas as sensible as the hon. Member for Knaresborough of the necessity of preserving the peace at home. The best way to keep the peace would, in his view of the question, be to reduce the enormous standing army kept up in time of peace, despite of the continually expressed dissatisfaction of the public at every meeting throughout the country. He should have preferred obtaining the returns he had asked from the noble Lord. If he would not grant them he must use such as he could procure hereafter. From all that had transpired he should feel himself wanting in his duty to the public, were he not to press the question of a reduction to a division.
General Sharpscontended that the present number of troops was no more than was sufficient for the protection, not of the peace, for that he knew was hardly ever in danger, owing to the efficiency of the civil power, but of property in cases of sudden commotion.
Mr. Humeremarked that every great town had now a well-organized police, which rendered the military less necessary than hitherto.
Captain Chetwyndhad been fifteen years in the Blues, and risen to the rank of captain, with the cheering prospect of being captain these ten years to come. Was not this an answer to the hon. Member for Middlesex's assertion, that

791
the household troops were, as respected promotion of their officers, too partially regarded at the Horse Guards?
Mr. Ruthvenbelieved, that if the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill were agreed to by the Legislature, a great portion of the military force now required in Ireland, might be altogether dispensed with.
The Committee divided—on the Amendment. Ayes 11; Noes 48: Majority 37.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Thompson Colonel

Bridgman, H.

Tulk, C. A.

Brotherton, J.

Warburton, H.

Browne, R. D.

Wood, Alderman

Ewart, W.

TELLERS.

Leader, I. T.

Hume, J

Ruthven, E.

Williams, W.

List of the NOES.

Bagshaw, John

Hoy, James Barlow

Balfour, T.

Johnston, Andrew

Barnard, E. G.

Lambton, Hedworth

Boldero, Henry G.

Morpeth, Vise.

Bulwer, Edw. L.

Murray, J. A.

Butler, Hon. P.

O'Conner Don

Chalmers, P.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Chapman, A.

Palmerston, Visc.

Chetwynd, Capt.

Parker, John

Cowper, Hon. W. F.

Philips, G. B.

Dalbiac, Sir C.

Rice, Rt. Hon. T. S.

Dalmeny, Lord

Richards, R.

Dick, Q.

Robinson, G. R.

Dundas, J. D.

Russell, C.

Elley, Sir J.

Sharpe, General

Etwall, Ralph

Stanley, Edward

Fergusson, R. C.

Strangways, Hon. J.

Forster, C. S.

Thornley, T.

Goring, H. D.

Troubridge, Sir T.

Goulburn, H.

Ward, H. G.

Grey, Sir G.

Wood, C.

Hall, B.

Young, G. F.

Hay, Sir And. Leith

Hobhouse, Sir J. C.

TELLERS.

Howard, P. H.

Gordon, Robert

Howick, Viscount

Stanley, E. J.

Vote agreed to.
On the question that 56,917 l. for the allowances to the principal officers in the public departments, their deputies, clerks and contingent expenses, be granted.
Mr. Humeasked whether it was the intention of Government to act upon the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the civil service of the army?
Viscount Howicksaid, the recommendations contained in the Report could be carried into effect only by an Act of Parliament. The Session was now too far advanced to introduce any measure upon the subject.
Mr. Humethought, that Ministers ought to bring in a Bill even in the present Session, if it were only for the purpose of showing that they were sincere.
Viscount Howicksaid, that the Commissioners had drawn up the plan of reform which they were prepared to recommend; but before a Bill could be got ready there were many details and difficulties to be considered. It was not intended that the Report should be left a dead letter. He would allow himself deserving of the hon. Member's censure if, before the lapse of another Session, some measure, founded on the Report, should not be proposed, or some satisfactory reason given for not doing so. It was desirable that the country should first have an opportunity of seeing the Report. Ministers were anxious to get on with the public business, but the portion of time allowed them for this purpose was very inconsiderable.
Mr. Humesaid, the subject had been two or three years under consideration. The charge in this item for the Commander-in-chief's office was enormous. There could be no hope of a better administration of this department unless the present Commander-in-chief was turned out of office, and some person placed in his situation who would act upon the principles of the present Liberal Government. If Ministers found they could not get on with Lord Hill, let them get another in his place. He meant no personal imputation on the gallant officer, but was it not enough to make the country doubt the sincerity of Ministers, when they retained in so important an office a man who had not the confidence of that House, or of the country? The Government by such shilly-shally conduct were not doing justice to themselves or to the country. The charge for the Commander-in-chief's office was out of all reason, particularly when it was considered that the duties of it were almost exclusively confined to the army at home.
Viscount Howickwould admit that the charge was too great if the staff of the Commander-in-chief had nothing to do with the army abroad; but in this respect the hon. Member was completely misinformed. In fact there was as much laborious duty connected with the army abroad as with that at home. There were no men whose time was more fully occupied than that of the staff of the Commander-in-chief, Under the head of

793
public departments there was a reduction, in consequence of the reduction of the Deputy Quarter-Master-General's office. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that if Government saw any want of co-operation on the part of the Commander-in-chief, they would feel it their duty to recommend to his Majesty to substitute another officer in his room,
Mr. Cutlar Fergussoncomplained, that the Commander-in-chief and the noble Lord, the Military Secretary, were the constant objects of attack from the hon. Member. He did not know upon what ground the hon. Member was always bringing such charges against the Commander-in-chief and the Military Secretary. It was impossible that any men could receive more general testimony to their conduct.
Sir Charles Dalbiacsaid, that a great deal of heavy duty was thrown upon the Horse Guards by the troops on foreign stations.
Captain Chetwyndsaid, that all military men were perfectly satisfied with the conduct of the Commander-in-chief. The slowness of promotion in the army might, in his opinion, be remedied by permitting certain classes of officers to sell out after a certain period of service, allowing their names to remain on a reserved list for a specified time, with permission to re-purchase, if they should desire to do so.
Mr. Humemeant no personal reflection on Lord Hill, but he would not give him his confidence, for the same reason that he would not give it to Sir Robert Peel or the hon. Gentlemen opposite, though as hon. men as any in the House. The charge against the Government was, that they allowed Lord Hill to employ the patronage of his office against the views and interests of the Liberal party. Nothing was now more necessary to get promotion in the army than to have Tory interest. Would the Tories, if they came into power, allow a Whig to remain in such an office? The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Fergusson) was now a Colleague of Lord Hill's, and therefore it was that he stood up to defend him.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussondid not know of a single instance in which political opinions had influenced the conduct of Lord Hill with regard to the patronage of the army.
Mr. Thomas Duncombedid not doubt
794
Lord Hill's military capacity; but that nobleman had political functions to discharge, and they would of course be used against the present Government. He advised the Government no longer, to attempt to conciliate their enemies; and said, that the whole influence of the Horse-Guards was exerted against the existing Liberal Administration.
Viscount Howickwould admit, that the Commander-in-chief, if he had political functions to perform, should be a person entertaining the same political opinions as the Members of the Government; but he maintained that the duties which devolved on Lord Hill were only of an administrative and executive nature. The hon. Member for Middlesex differed from him in opinion on this point, and it was his duty, therefore, not to seize an opportunity for making an incidental attack on Lord Hill, but to move an address to the Crown for the removal of that nobleman from the office he at present held.
Mr. Ewartcontended, that subordinates ought always to co-operate with the Government under which they acted.
Mr. Leaderinquired how it came to pass, that the Judge-Advocate under the last Administration, the right hon. Member for Leeds, who was admitted he believed to be a very good Judge-Advocate, was removed when the present Ministry came into office? The Commander-in-chief ought to concur in opinion with the Executive Government. Lord Hill might not bestow his patronage in an improper manner, but it was believed in the country that he did, and the effect of that belief in the country generally, and in the army itself, was very injurious.
Mr. Goringobserved, that there was no man whose conduct had been so closely watched as Lord Hill's with regard to the appointments which he had made, and if there had been any ground for the charges which had been brought against him, such representations would have been made to the House, that it would have been impossible for him to continue in his office. Such appointments as had come to his (Mr. Goring's) knowledge, had been made on the most equitable principles.
Captain Boldero, with reference to the vote before the House, wished to remark, that he had obtained returns of the number of officers who had been killed and wounded, both from the Horse-Guards and the Ordnance Department; but when

795
he applied to the Admiralty for similar returns respecting the officers of Marines for the last fifteen years, that Board, which was so much of a pet with hon. Gentlemen opposite, being managed by Commissioners, was unable to give him the information he required, as no list was kept.
Mr. Humewished he had had the assistance of the hon. and gallant Officer when he moved, a short time ago, for returns of the services of a great number of officers belonging both to the army and navy, as his evidence would have been very valuable to him. His motion was met by an assurance from the noble Lord, the Secretary at War, that it would take at least three years to make up the returns which he had asked for. It appeared, however, that there would not have been so much time spent after all. With regard to what the hon. and gallant Officer said about the Admiralty, he thought he must be mistaken, because in Sir John Barrow's evidence it was stated that there were two books kept, which formed one of the most complete registers that was to be found in any department, and that it was only necessary for the admiral or any other officer requiring information to ring a bell, and in five minutes he would obtain all he wanted.
Viscount Howick: There was a list at the Horse-Guards, and a very full and correct list, of the services of officers who had been killed and wounded, but that would not enable him to get a statement made out of the services of officers who had neither been killed nor wounded.
Vote agreed to.
On the question that the Sum of 105,407 l. 6s. 8d. for the Volunteer Corps, be granted,
Mr. Humethought, this the most objectionable vote of the whole, as the keeping up of the yeomanry corps was most injurious to the peace of the country. He proposed, therefore, to negative this vote altogether.
The Committee divided, Ayes 42; Noes 16:—Majority 26.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Sir C.

Coote, Sir C.

Angerstein, John

Dalbiac, Sir C.

Balfour, T.

Dalmeny, Lord

Boldero, Capt. H. G.

Dick, Quintin

Bradshaw, James

Donkin, Sir R.

Brownrigg, S.

Dundas, J. D.

Chetwynd, Captain

Ellice, E.

796

Etwall, R.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Ferguson, R.

Palmerston, Visc.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Parker, J.

Forster, C. S.

Ponsonby, J.

Goring, Harry Dent

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Grey, Sir Geo., Bart.

Scott, Sir E. D.

Harcourt, G. S.

Sharpe, General

Hay, Sir A. L. Bart.

Smith, Robert V.

Hobhouse, Sir J. C.

Stanley, E.

Howard, P. H

Thomas, Colonel

Howick, Vise.

Wood, Charles

Hoy, J. B.

Lefevre, Charles S.

TELLERS.

Morrison, J.

Gordon R.

Murray, J. A.

Troubridge, Sir T.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Lennox, Lord G.

Bridgman, Hewitt

Marjoribanks, S.

Brotherton, J.

Ruthven, E.

Chalmers, P.

Thornley, Thomas

Divett, E.

Warburton, H.

Ewart, W.

Wood, Alderman

Humphery, John

Hutt, Wm,

TELLERS.

Johnston, Andrew

Hume, J.

Leader, J. T.

Duncombe, T.

Vote agreed to
Several other votes were agreed to, and the House resumed.

HACKNEY COACHES.
Alderman Wood moved the second reading of the Hackney Carriages (Metropolis) Bill.
Colonel Sibthorpopposed it. He disapproved of it in toto, and considered it utterly inadequate to its purpose.
Mr. Warburtonthought, it unfair to move the second reading then, as many Members desirous of opposing it had gone away when they found that the hon. Alderman, at another part of the evening, was not in his place.
House divided, there being with the four tellers and the Speaker 41 Members present:—Ayes28; Noes 8: Majority 20.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Admiral

Parker, John

Aglionby, H. A.

Russell, Lord J.

Angerstein, J.

Scott, Sir E. D.

Brotherton, J.

Seymour, Lord

Ellice, E.

Sharpe, General

Goring, H. D.

Smith, R. V.

Hobhouse, Sir J.

Stanley, Edward J.

Howard P. H.

Thompson, Ald.

Howick, Vise.

Villers, Charles P.

Johnston, Andrew

Vyvyan, Sir R.

Lennox, Lord George

Wallace, Robert

Marjoribanks, S.

Wood, Charles

Maule, hon. E.

Morpeth, Vise.

TELLERS.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Sibthorp, Col.

Palmerston, Vise.

Wood, Alderman

797

List of the NOES.

Ewart, W.

Thompson, Col.

Forster, Charles S.

Thornley, T.

Hughes, Hughes

Hume, J.

TELLERS.

Leader, J. T.

Warburton, H.

Rice, T. S.

Chalmers, P.

Bill read a Second time.