HC Deb 15 February 1837 vol 36 cc568-82
Mr. Alderman Thompson

presented a petition from Sunderland, praying the inconveniences suffered by the burgesses from the operation of the Municipal Corporation Bill might be remedied by the Bill for amending that Act about to be introduced. They had a charter as far back as the 12th century, which had been renewed in the year 1634; but the election of mayor and aldermen had gradually fallen into desuetude, and when the Municipal Corporation Bill passed, the corporation consisted of freemen only. On proceeding to the election under that Bill, they had appointed the head freeman presiding officer, the competency of which officer was afterwards questioned, and great expense thereby incurred. There were 50,000 inhabitants who were anxious that municipal rights should be exercised by the borough. A public meeting had also been held in its favour, and out of 1,400 burgesses on the burgess-roll, 1,200 had signed the petition; of the remainder there were 130 absent or sick, who were favourable to it, so that he might say, that both burgesses and inhabitants were unanimous in wishing that the Municipal Corporation Act might be so amended as to repress the vexatious course of legal proceedings which had been adopted, and confer on them the privileges to which the House had declared them entitled.

Petition laid on the table.

Sir E. Knatchbull

had a petition of great importance, both as regarded the law and the petitioners, to present before the House should resolve itself into Committee on the Municipal Corporations Bill. He was also desirous of drawing the attention of his Majesty's Ministers to this subject, and he therefore regretted, that although it was five o'clock, that not one of them was present except the right hon. Baronet, the President of the Board of Control, to whom he thought it would not be right to appeal. This petition was from certain burgesses of Hythe, in Kent, and he trusted that his Majesty's Ministers would deem it necessary to relieve them. The main point in the petition was this,— there were fifteen persons in Hythe who had claimed to have their names inserted in the burgess roll, but whose applications had been rejected. These persons applied to the Court of King's Bench, which on looking into the law declared itself unable to assist them; the wrong done to these persons, was therefore un-redressed, and from that House they expected redress. It would be in the recollection of the House, that all persons rated to the poor, and paying a certain amount of rates, were eligible: now the petitioners had made their claim, but were rejected; not, however, because they had not paid their rates, not because the amount of rates paid was insufficient to qualify, not because the notices had not been duly made, but because with those notices the Reform Act shilling had not been tendered. Now, see the importance of this case, those fifteen persons could have turned the election of mayor, nay, they actually would have turned it. They had got no redress, and he doubted not most properly so, from the Court of King's Bench, and he hoped that House would give it them. There were two or three other points, though this was the main one, which he would not press were it not for the animus of the party which they exhibited.

Mr. Roebuck

rose to order; if other hon. Members were prevented from speaking by the rules of the House, why should the right hon. Baronet be exempted?

Sir E. Knatchbull

was the last person in the world to interfere with the rules of the House, but when he found that parties had suffered injustice for which they could obtain no redress by the ordinary methods, he certainly would stand forward to obtain them that redress from the House of Commons. He wished to find whether it was the intention of the hon. and learned Gentleman or of Government, to introduce into the Bill about to be committed any provision for the redress of the grievances under which the petitioners and others in similar situations were now labouring. He would move that the petition be printed; and unless the hon. and learned Gentleman contemplated some provision on this subject, he should take an early opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the question.

The Attorney-General

said, the petition was a highly proper petition to be presented, and to be submitted to the consideration of the House. But it was not his intention to enter upon the subject of that petition on the present occasion; it did not fall within the scope of this Bill, which related to an entirely different subject. With respect to the decision of the Court of King's Bench, it might possibly, he conceived, be erroneous. At all events, he was aware that these abuses had existed for some time in the borough of Hythe, and that complaints had been made against the officers of that corporation. But the proper remedy would be obtained by means of a criminal information. He was ready to co-operate most earnestly with the right hon. Baronet in any measure that would prevent these abuses; and it was his intention to introduce a clause in the Bill which would have the effect of putting a stop to the very expensive and vexatious litigation which had arisen out of cases connected with the working of the Municipal Corporations Act. To that clause no opposition would, he anticipated, be offered in that House, nor, he believed, in the other; and he wished to avoid as much as possible prolonged discussion on the Bill. By this Bill it was not intended to alter the constitution of the municipal bodies as they stood at present, but to correct and remove certain abuses which prevailed in them.

Lord Stanley

thought the reasoning of the hon. and learned Gentleman was very much beside the question, and that his observations tended very much to support the views of the hon. Baronet. The hon. and learned Gentleman said the Bill was not applicable to the case of these petitioners. But what said the preamble of the Bill? Why, that the Bill had for its object, among other things, to provide for the case of such elections as had not been duly made according to the provisions of the Municipal Corporations' Act. Here then was a Bill to remedy certain irregularities arising out of the working of the Municipal Corporations Act, which it was said, could not be made to extend to the case of fifteen electors excluded from the list of voters by the mayor and his assessors in a particular borough, not because they were unqualified, not because they had not paid the rates, but because they had omitted to pay the shilling for registration. Could anything be more monstrous than this? The hon. and learned Gentleman said, that these parties might be proceeded against by way of information, with a view to punish their misconduct; but when a law for the remedy of abuses was under consideration, what was the course that was worthy of a legislator? To leave each case of misconduct to meet its punishment as it arose, or so to shape the provisions of the law as to remove the possibilities of similar misconduct for the future? He could not think the hon. and learned Gentleman would find it difficult to introduce such a clause into this Bill as would effectually meet the case in question. If the Court of King's Bench had not the power of rectifying these abuses, was there any difficulty in the way of giving that power, or establishing a court which should have that power? It was intolerable that parties should be obliged to sit down, without a remedy, under decisions which, it was admitted, were unsupported by law, and were, besides, open to suspicions of corruption.

The Attorney-General

said, the noble Lord had omitted, notwithstanding he had dwelt at some length on the subject, to suggest anything like a practical remedy for the grievance of which he complained. An acquaintance with questions of this description served to show the extreme difficulty of establishing such regulations as would prevent tribunals of the nature referred to from coming to corrupt and illegal decisions. It was his opinion that these persons should be made to conform to the law; not that the law should be shaped according to their errors. It was most important that the Bill should not be delayed. A great many vexatious, and he would say, pettifogging, proceedings, respecting municipal corporations, had been instituted in the Court of King's Bench, to which it was most desirable to put an end as speedily as possible. The persons who were elected under the Act were liable to a 50l. penalty if they refused to serve, and having served, many actions were brought against them which would be tried at the ensuing assizes, and unless this Bill were allowed to pass they would be saddled with the costs.

Sir E. Knatchbull

remarked, that the House would perceive that the hon. and learned Attorney-General had given the go-by to his motion. The petitioners had a right to have their grievances redressed, and he asked the hon. and learned Gentleman to postpone the Committee for a few days in order that he might be able to turn his attention to the subject. He recollected that last Session a Bill was brought in, and was supported by the Government, which went to set aside a municipal election for the borough of Poole. That was, done to remedy a grievance suffered by a particular borough, and if there were a necessity for doing so last year, it must be done this year, as the case of Hythe was infinitely stronger than that of Poole. Before taking any further steps, therefore, he wished the hon. and learned Gentleman would state whether it was his intention to provide any remedy for the grievance suffered by the petitioners.

The Attorney-General

thought that it would be impossible to comply with the request of the right hon. Baronet for the matter which he proposed to insert in the Bill did not appear to be germane to the substance of it. He wished that the House would at once proceed to discuss the clauses in the Bill.

Sir W. Follett

was sure that his hon. and learned Friend did not understand the object his right hon. Friend (Sir E. Knatchbull) had in view, or he would not have said that the proposition he made, was not germane to the subject matter of the Bill. His hon. and learned Friend said, that he had brought in a Bill to remedy the imperfections to be met with in the machinery of the Municipal Corporations Act. The object of his right hon. Friend was also to remedy an imperfections in that Act. His learned Friend said that his Bill was intended to put a stop to certain legal proceedings which had been commenced in the shape of quo warrantos, but many other matters had been introduced into the Bill. He therefore could not imagine why a remedy to an abuse such as had been described by his right hon. Friend, should not be allowed to be inserted in it. It was declared by the Municipal Corporations Act, that persons occupying premises in a borough for a certain time, and having paid rates for such premises for a number of years, should be considered burgesses for the purposes of the Act, and that they were entitled to have their names inserted on the burgess roll of such borough. The mayor, with assessors, was appointed to make out the list of burgesses. The mayor, however, was a party man, and adopted the feelings of the majority that had placed him in his office, and acted in such a way as to promote the views of his party. The mayor, then, being influenced by party spirit, could prevent any persons who were duly qualified from having their names inserted on the burgess roll. This had been the case at Hythe, where certain persons, who were otherwise qualified, had been prevented exercising their rights as burgesses because the mayor had not inserted their names on the burgess roll. If these persons had been enabled to vote, other members of the council than those now on it, would have been chosen. Thus, by the improper conduct of the mayor, one party had been enabled, most unfairly, to triumph over the other. Was his hon. and learned Friend prepared to say that this was not an evil to be remedied? Such practices were, in point of fact, worse than anything that took place under the old corporation system; for as the law then stood, if the mayor, or other officer, refused to insert the name of a person duly qualified on the list of freemen, such per- son could apply to the Court of King's Bench for a mandamus, and compel the officer to perform his duty; but under this new Act there was no such remedy. It was useless applying to the Court of King's Bench on the subject, because the Court had determined that it had no power on the subject. According to this state of things, the mayor had absolute power, as there was no Court of Appeal to which the persons so injured could resort for relief. The whole borough constituency for municipal purposes was therefore at the mercy of the mayor and his assessors. The mayor of a place might thus, if he pleased, reject one-half of the constituency, and as the law now stood, there was no appeal whatever from his decision. Under these circumstances, he thought that the suggestion thrown out by his right hon. Friend, was well worthy of the attention of his Majesty's Ministers, and the Attorney-General, who, in his opinion, were bound to take such steps as would effectually put a stop to this state of things. For his own part, he would recommend that the Court of Registration for the municipal voters, should be altogether remodelled; he saw no objection to placing the recorder at the head of the tribunal for revising the lists of voters, in such boroughs where there was such an officer, although the appointment of recorder rested with the Government. He entertained too high an opinion of the profession to which he belonged, to allow him to suppose that the holders of such an office would sacrifice their duty to party purposes.

Mr. Jervis

could but express his surprise at the feeling manifested by Gentlemen opposite on such occasions as the present. They appeared to think that no measure could be introduced by a person on his (the Ministerial) side of the House, that had not for its object the promotion of party purposes. He protested against such an assumption, and regretted that the discussion had not been put a stop to when the hon. and learned Member for Bath appealed to the chair as to its irregularity. The object of the present Bill was to remedy evils which existed, which it was most desirable to put an end to, and above all, to close the fruitful source of the most vexatious and expensive litigation. He understood the right hon. Baronet to complain that the names of fifteen persons, who were entitled to be registered as burgesses in the borough of Hythe, had been omitted from the burgess roll by the mayor. If there were no remedy for this, and if the matter were of such a simple nature, why did not his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Exeter, introduce a clause in Committee to remove the ground of complaint, instead of then getting up a discussion? He was sure if the remedy were so simple, it would at once receive the sanction of all parties; but he trusted that the Attorney-General would not consent to postpone the progress of his Bill, for every day was a matter of importance in checking the present expensive litigation.

Mr. Cresset Pelham

contended, that his Majesty's Government, who introduced the Municipal Corporations Act, were answerable for evils such as had been complained of, that had grown up through its operation, and they were bound to supply a remedy. The Municipal Bill had promoted in every place where it had been in operation the most objectionable party spirit.

Sir Edward Knatchbull

trusted that there would be no objection to the bringing up the petition, and having it printed with the votes. He would draw up a clause such as had been suggested by his hon. and learned Friend (Sir W. Follett), who he trusted would render him his able assistance for the purpose. If then the present clauses of the Bill went through the Committee, he trusted that the Attorney-General would consent to the Chairman reporting progress, and asking leave to sit again, when he (Sir Edward Knatchbull) would introduce his clause.

The Attorney-General

could not consent to any such arrangement, as the right hon. Baronet could introduce his clause on the report being brought up. He should be happy to render him any assistance in his power in drawing up the clause.

Petition laid on the table.

The Order of the Day for the House to go into a Committee on the Municipal Corporations Act Amendment Bill was read.

Sir Robert Peel

would avail himself of that opportunity, before going into Committee, of asking a question of the Attorney-General with reference to the Municipal Corporations Act. That Act directed that the town-clerk, of every borough should make out a list of all persons who, at the time of passing the Act, had been admitted burgesses or freemen, and that their rights should be respected; it also directed that all persons who should hereafter become entitled to be admitted burgesses or freemen, and who should claim to be admitted, should, on establishing their claims, be enrolled in the list of freemen for the borough. There was, however, a third class of persons, with respect to whom it did not appear that any provision was made: he meant persons who were entitled and duly qualified to be enrolled before the passing of the Act, but who had not had their names inserted in the burgess-roll. Instances had occurred where persons thus situated had been refused when they applied to be enrolled as freemen. He knew of a case in point, where the presiding officer of a corporation had refused to acknowledge such persons as freemen because they had not been registered before the passing of the Act. He thought that some provision should be made for such cases; at any rate if there were any doubt, the law ought to be made clear on the subject.

The Attorney-General

thought that in such cases as had been stated by the right hon. Baronet there could be no doubt as to the right, and that the claims of the freemen must be allowed. If it were admitted that all existing freemen should retain their rights, and that all hereafter entitled should also be enrolled, it was likewise evidently intended that those persons entitled to be enrolled as freemen, but who had not been so registered, should have their rights preserved. He was not aware that there was any doubt on the subject, but he would turn his attention to the point, and take steps to meet the case alluded to by the right hon. Baronet.

Sir Robert Peel

was perfectly satisfied with the explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman. If he looked at the 5th clause of the Act he would at once see the point.

Mr. Scarlett

objected to proceeding with Acts of Parliament which were merely intended to prevent the friends of the Government feeling the effects of their own negligence. This was a most objectionable mode of proceeding.

Sir W. Follett

was at a loss to understand the object in view in introducing the last clause into the Bill; he trusted, therefore, his learned friend would explain it before the House went into Committee. By one of the clauses of the Municipal Act, if the inhabitant householders of any town in England and Wales petitioned the King to grant to them a charter of incorporation, the King, by the advice of his Privy Council, was empowered to extend the powers and provisions of the Act to such place. The last clause of the Bill before the House states, that "it shall be lawful for his Majesty, if he shall think fit, by the advice of his Privy Council, to grant and extend to the inhabitants of any town or borough in England and Wales, in the manner provided by the Act, all the powers and provisions contained in it, although such town or borough may or may not be a corporate town or borough, or may or may not be named in the schedules to the said Act for regulating corporations." If it was intended by this to alter the provisions of the Municipal Corporations Act, by which it was rendered necessary that the inhabitants of a town should petition for a charter of incorporation before the provisions of the Act could be extended to them, and to enable the Crown without any such application to confer a charter, he thought that the proposition was objectionable. If his hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney-General, intended to make such an important change in an Act of Parliament, he ought to have stated it to the House. He could not understand the clause if it were not intended to allow the King to grant a charter to a town without the permission of its inhabitants.

The Attorney-General

thought, that it would be more convenient to discuss the details of the Bill in Committee. The object of the clause, however, was to enable the King to grant charters to towns which were included in the Act, or not, as the case might be. Several towns were mentioned in the Act which required charters, but which could not be granted as the law now stood. The case of Sunderland was a remarkable instance of the kind. The clause in the Municipal Corporations Act, referred to by his learned Friend, only enabled the King to grant charters to towns not mentioned in the Act. The consequence was, that the King could not grant a charter to Sunderland, because it had been a corporation before; he could not grant charters to Hereford or Ipswich, in which places the corporations had been dissolved in consequence of negligence; and the clause was framed with a view to enable the King to grant charters in such cases. Again, there were several places which were now corporations to which the advantages of the Municipal Act could not be extended, because being corporations the King had not the power to grant them charters. The Act could only be extended to such places as Birmingham and Dudley, which were not corporations.

Sir William Follett

had no doubt that such was the object of his learned Friend, but from reading the clause over nobody could draw such an inference. He presumed there would be no objection to the introduction into the Bill of some restriction, as in the former Act, whereby no place should be incorporated except on petition from the inhabitants.

The Attorney-General

said, there would be no objection to such a restriction being introduced.

The House went into Committee.

Clauses 1 to 9 inclusive were agreed to.

On clause 10 being put, Sir E. Knatchbull moved that it be postponed.

The Attorney General

could not agree to the proposition.

The Committee divided on the amendment:—Ayes 78; Noes 88; Majority 10.

List of the AYES.
Arbuthnot, hon. H. Fremantle, Sir T.
Bailey, J. Gaskell, J. M.
Beckett, rt. hon. Sir J. Gladstone, W. E.
Bell, Matthew Geary, Sir W.
Bentinck, Lord G. Gordon, hon. W.
Blackstone, W. S. Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.
Bolling, W. Grimston, Lord Visct.
Borthwick, Peter Grimston, hon. E. H.
Bradshaw, J. Hamilton, G. A.
Bramston, T. W. Hamilton, Lord C.
Brownrigg, S. Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H
Bruce, C. L. C. Hardy, J.
Canning, hon. C. J. Hind, J. H.
Canning, rt. hn. Sir S. Hogg, J. W.
Chandos, Marquess of Houstoun, G.
Chaplin, Colonel Jackson, Mr. Sergean
Clerk, Sir George Inglis, Sir R. H.
Compton, Henry C. Johnstone, Sir J.
Corry, rt. hon. H. Jones, W.
Dalbiac, Sir C. Knatchbull, rt. hon. Sir E.
Duffield, T.
Elley, Sir John Knight, H. G.
Fector, John Minet Law, hon. C. E.
Finch, George Lawson, A.
Forester, hon. G. Lefroy, rt. hon. T.
Forster, C. S. Lincoln, Earl of
Lowther, J. F. Scarlett, hon. R.
Maclean, D. Shaw, rt. hon. F.
Miles, W. Sibthorp, Colonel
Miles, P. J. Somerset, Lord G.
Nicholl, Dr. Stanley, Lord
Palmer, R. Trevor, hon. A.
Peel, rt. hon. Sir R. Twiss, H.
Pelham, J. C. Vere, Sir C. B.
Pemberton, T. Vesey, hon. T.
Perceval, Colonel Vyvyan,8ir R.
Pringle, A. Weyland, Major
Richards, J Wortley, hon. J. S.
Richards, R. TELLERS.
Ross, C. Follett, Sir W.
Rushbrooke, Colonel Pollock, Sir. F.
List of the NOES.
Alston, Rowland Musgrave, Sir R.
Angerstein, John North, F.
Anson, hon. Colonel O'Brien, C.
Attwood, Thomas O'Brien, W. Smith
Bagshaw, John O'Connell, J.
Baines, Edward O'Connell, M.
Barclay, David O'Ferrall, R. M.
Baring, F. T. Parker, J.
Barnard, E. G. Parry, Sir L. P. J.
Bewes, T. Pattison, J.
Biddulph, R. Phillips, M.
Bowring, Dr. Philipps, C. March
Brady, D. C. Potter, Richard
Brodie, W. B. Power, James
Brotherton, J. Rice, right hon. T. S.
Browne, R D. Rippon, Cuthbert
Bayley, E. S. Rundle, John
Copeland, W. T. Russell, Lord John
Dalmeny, Lord Scott, Sir E. Dolman
Elphinstone, Howard Seymour, Lord
Fazakerley, John N. Smith, R. V.
Fitzsimon, Nicholas Stanley, E. J.
Fleetwood, P. H. Steuart, R.
Gaskell, D. Strickland, Sir G.
Grattan, H. Strutt, E.
Grey, Sir George Stuart, Lord J.
Grote, George Talfourd, Mr. Serg.
Gully, John Tancred, H. W.
Harland, W. C. Thompson, Mr. Ald.
Hawkins, John H. Thornley, T.
Hector, C. J. Townley, R. G.
Howard, P H. Troubridge, Sir E.T.
Humphery, John Tulk, C. A.
Hutt, William Tynte, C. K. Kemeys
Ingham, Robert Villiers, C P.
Lambton, Hedworth Walker, C. A.
Lefevre, Charles S. Warburton, H.
Lister, Ellis Cunliffe Wason, R.
Macnamara, Major Whalley, Sir S.
Maher, J. Williams, W.
Marjoribanks, S. Wood, C.
Marsland, H Young, G. F.
Maule, hon. F.
Morpeth, Lord Visct. TELLERS.
Morrison, J. Attorney General, Mr.
Murray, rt. hon. J. A. Ward, Mr.

Remaining clauses were agreed to.

The Attorney General

had some additional clauses to propose. By the Act as it originally stood vacancies in the council could not be filled up unless those vacancies amounted to two-thirds of the whole number. That which he proposed by the 1st clause submitted to the Committee was, to make provision that there should be an election for the purpose of filling up each vacancy as it occurred.

Lord Stanley

recollected that this question was discussed when the measure first came under the consideration of Parliament, and it was met, as he thought, by insuperable objections, one of which was, that the frequent recurrence of these elections would keep corporate towns in a constant state of excitement; it must clearly then be the better way to have none but general elections, and at these any vacancies which took place might be filled up as well as the places of those who went out of the council by rotation.

Mr. Jervis

was favourable to the clause, as tending to prevent excitement; for, as the law at present stood, the moment a vacancy took place the excitement of canvassing and electioneering commenced, and never ceased till after the election. It would, therefore, be the best course at once to proceed with the choice of a person to fill each vacancy as it arose.

Sir W. Fullett

observed, that the clause relating to this matter in the original Act was extremely vague, and from its language it would be difficult to say when vacancies ought to be filled up; but he objected to more than one election in the year. By the Act, there must be one in November, and that occasion, as he thought, would be the most suitable for the filling up of vacancies.

The clause was added to the Bill.

Mr. Hodgson Hinde moved a clause providing for the support of hospitals for poor freemen, their widows, and daughters, in all cases where such had been maintained out of the funds of any corporation, but where no specific endowment had been made.

The Attorney-General

thought it would be monstrous to give the power of rating all the inhabitants for such a purpose.

Mr. Hodgson Hinde

was willing to limit the levy to those cases where parties were liable before the passing of the Act.

Viscount Howick

objected to the clause as one of gross injustice, and observed, that besides being unjust it was inexpedient, for the maintenance of such establishments frequently led those who expected ad- vantage from them to a disregard in youth and middle life of those provident habits by which alone they could secure a competency in old age.

Colonel Sibthorp

supported the clause. He had heard much of the friends of the people, but he thought that those were the real friends of the people who supported their privileges. He protested against the doctrine that the prospect of the asylum of an hospital in after life would tend to make freemen improvident or idle. Because men were poor they were not the less honest. He sincerely wished to see every hon. Member of that House as respectable, as honest, and as upright in life as many freemen were, to his knowledge. It would tend to their credit and advantage in this life, and to their happiness hereafter. He might be laughed at, and so might the claims of the honest freemen, but he believed that those hon. Gentlemen who were now so ready to laugh, had not been less ready to court the suffrages of those very freemen preparatory to their appearing at the hustings. He thought it but just that hon. Members should betray no reluctance to pay out of their pockets for the legitimate maintenance of those who in their turn had supported them.

Mr. A. Trevor

supported the clause. He hoped his hon. Friend would take the sense of the Committee upon the clause which he proposed to introduce, and by a division of the House show the people who were their real, and who their pretended, friends.

Mr. Maclean

also supported the clause; and considered that the opponents of its introduction had exhibited themselves as the patrons of a summary injustice. He was of opinion that the motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Hodgson Hinde) did him infinite credit. He denied the allegation that its adoption would tend to the production among the freemen of improvident habits. He was surprised to hear the noble Lord the Member for Northumberland deduce such an argument from the erroneously supposed tendency to improvidence. Was that argument one which the noble Lord would wish to see given forth to the world? He was no less surprised at the violent abuse which hon. Members had thought fit to direct against a set of men whom they had previously used as constituents.

The Committee divided; Ayes 48; Noes 91; Majority 43.

List of the AYES.
Agnew, Sir A. Bart. Lefroy, Thomas
Bell, Matthew Lowther, J.
Bentinck, Lord G. Martin, J.
Bowles, G. R. Neeld, John
Brownrigg, S. Owen, Hugh
Chaplin, Col. Palmer, Robert
Clerk, Sir G. Pemberton, Thomas
Clive, hon. R. H. Price, S. G
Conolly, E. M. Richards, J.
Dalbiac, Sir C. Richards, R.
Duffield, Thomas Ross, Charles
Elley, Sir J. Scarlett, hon. R.
Finch George Shaw, right hon. P.
Follett, Sir W. Webb Shirley, E. J.
Forster, C. S. Sibthorp, Colonel
Grant, hon. Colonel Thomas, Colonel
Grimston, Viscount Trevor, hon. A.
Grimston, hon. E. H. Twiss, H.
Hamilton, G. A. Vere, Sir C. B. Bart.
Hardy, J. Vesey, hon. T.
Jackson, Sergeant Weyland, Major
Jones, Wilson Young, G. F.
Jones, T.
Knatchbull, Sir E. TELLERS.
Law, hon. C. E. Hinde, J. H.
Lawson, Andrew Maclean, D.
List of the NOES.
Adam, Admiral Howard, P. H.
Angerstein, John Howick, Viscount
Attwood, T. Hutt, Wm.
Bagshaw, John Jephson, C. D. O.
Baines, Edward Lefevre, C. S.
Barclay, David Lennox, Lord G.
Baring, Francis T. Lister, E. C.
Barnard, E. G. Lushington, Charles
Barry, G. S. Maher, John
Beauclerk, Major Marjoribanks, S.
Bewes, T. Marsland, H.
Blackburne, John Maule, hon. F.
Blake, M. J. Morrison, J.
Bodkin J. Mostyn, hon. E. L.
Brady, D. C. Murray, J. A.
Brodie, W. B. Musgrave, Sir R., Bt.
Brotherton, J. O'Brien, C.
Browne, R. D. O'Ferrall, R. M.
Burdon, W. Palmerston, Lord
Butler, hon. P. Parker, John
Campbell, Sir J. Parrott, Jasper
Chalmers, P. Parry, Sir L. P.
Clive, Edward Bolton Philips, Mark
Collier, J. Phillipps, Charles M.
Copeland, W. T. Potter, R.
Elphinstone, H. Poulter, J. S.
Ewart, W. Pryme, George
Fergusson, R. C. Rippon, C.
Fleetwood, Peter H. Robinson, G. R.
Gaskell, Daniel Roche, D.
Gordon, R. Rundle, J.
Goring, H. D. Scholefield, Joshua
Grattan, Henry Scott, Sir E D.
Grote, George Seymour, Lord
Gully, John Stanley, E. J.
Hawkins, J. H. Strickland, Sir G.
Hector, C. J. Stuart, Lord D.
Hodges, T. L. Start, Henry Chas.
Talfourd, Sergeant Ward, H. G.
Tancred, H. W. Wason, R.
Thompson, Alderman Whalley, Sir S.
Thornley, Thomas Wilde, Sergeant
Troubridge, Sir E. T. Williams, W. A.
Tulk, C. A. Wyse, Thomas
Villiers, C. P. TELLERS.
Walker, C. A. Steuart, R.
Warburton, H. Rolfe, Sir R. M.

The House resumed. The report to be received.