HC Deb 03 April 1838 vol 42 cc363-74
Mr. Gillon

would shortly state to the House the reasons which induced him to bring under their consideration his motion for the total abolition of the tax upon Soap. The chief reason was, that that important branch of their manufactures had lately fallen into a state of decline and decay. He knew how unpalatable long statements of figures were to the House, and he should, therefore, endeavour to state, as simply as possible, the alteration which had taken place in the manufacture of that article since 1833, the year when a reduction of one-half was made in the tax upon the proposition of Lord Althorp. In 1833, the quantity manufactured was 154,579,990lbs.; in 1834, 154,260,000lbs.; in 1835, 160,374,000lbs.; in 1836, 159,038,664lbs.; and in 1837, and up to the 5th of January, 1838, it was 152,114,157lbs.; exhibiting a decrease upon the gross quantity in 1837, as compared to 1836, of five per cent., and as compared to 1835, of nearly seven per cent.; upon the net quantity of soap imported into Ireland and foreign countries there had also been a decrease of ten per cent. Great, however, as that decrease was, it would have been much greater if it had not been for a sudden and accidental demand for the commodity in October last. The effect of the heavy pressure of taxation, and the extent of competition by the smuggler were such as nearly to ruin the soap trade in some parts of the kingdom, and nearly to drive it altogether out of others. In the year 1830 there were 148 towns in which the manufacture was carried on. At present the manufac- ture was continued only in eighty-three towns. Of course, this diminution of the trade produced a corresponding effect on the amount of the revenue derived from it. In the year 1835 the tax on soap amounted to 781,795l.; in 1836 it was 748,795l., being a reduction of four per cent. as between the years 1835 and 1836, to which was to be added a further reduction of three per cent. in last year as compared with the year before. He could show that this arose from the great extent to which smuggling was carried. He had said, that the trade was driven out of some towns. In some of those in which it still remained it was little more than nominal. There were in the country thirty licensed soap-manufacturers, none of whom paid 50l. a-year to Government in duties, and yet they were obliged to pay 4l. a-year for the licence. In the town of Chippenham only 157lbs. of soap had been manufactured last year. This arose from a large portion of the quantity consumed being supplied by smugglers. Formerly there were great difficulties in the way of the smuggler, so that he could hardly carry on the contraband trade to any extent without great risk of detection; but now they could manufacture as the regular trader without leaving any trace by which they could be discovered. Great facilities were afforded to the contraband trade in candle manufactories. There were 3,000 of these in the country, and from the fact of there being no excise survey in those manufactories, the contraband trade in soap might be easily carried on, and it was, he believed, so carried on in many of them. The trade had in its nature difficulties enough to contend with besides those superadded by heavy taxation and consequent competition by smuggling. Its materials were very dear, and the cost of labour cheap, as compared with many other articles of manufacture. Amongst the many baneful effects which the heavy tax had produced, might be mentioned the want of improvement in the mode of manufacture. It was the same now as it had been in the reign of Queen Anne. It was, besides, exposed to great hardship and annoyance, from being subject to the regulations of complicated laws, for even the unintentional breach of which the manufacturers were exposed to severe penalties. No encouragements were held out to experiments by which the mode of manufacture might be improved, for the materials used in making any such experiment would be charged, whether the experiments were successful or not; one effect of this was, that we were far behind the French in this branch of manufacture. Another injurious effect of the tax was that it deprived the country of a lucrative source of foreign commerce. We were driven out of the South American market for this article by the North Americans and the French in the apparatus which we used, for we could not make soap out of the vegetable oils as well as they could. Another objection to the tax was, that it was partial in its operation. The tax did not extend to Ireland. He was as anxious as any man that Ireland should share in all the advantages enjoyed by other parts of the kingdom; but he saw no reason why that country should be exempted from any taxes imposed on the people of England. It was also a strong ground of objection to the tax, that it was unequal in its pressure. It pressed most heavily on those who were least able to bear it, and with least severity on those who could best afford it. In a word, it fell heavily on the poor, whilst its pressure was not felt on the rich. The direct duty on soap was 14l. per ton, and the indirect might be rated at 3l. more; so that on a ton of soap, the price of which was 40l., there was a tax to the amount of 17l. The duty did not vary with the quality of the article. It was 17l. on that of 40l. the ton, and was no more on the highest quality of soap, which might cost 100l. the ton. It was not necessary for him to point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer how best he could supply that amount of revenue which the abolition of this tax would take away; but he thought that a very large proportion of it might be supplied by the removal of a very large part of our excise board and establishment. It was unnecessary now for the objects for which it had been originally instituted. A few years ago the expense of collecting the revenue in that department was between 2l. and 3l. per cent., but in 1835 it had risen to the enormous amount of 6l. 168 per cent., and this on only ten articles of excise. That department was now relieved from the collection of duties to the amount of 18,000,000l. It was relieved from the payment of drawbacks to the amount of 1,700,000l., so that its present duties were comparatively light. If the establishment were reduced, as it might be, and without any inconvenience to the public, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might effect a saving to the amount of 450,000l. This was not his opinion alone; it was also that of the Commissioners of Excise Inquiry. Those Commissioners were also of opinion that if half the soap-tax were reduced, the increased consumption, and the putting down the contraband trade, would make more than the difference to the revenue. He had now shown that the effect of the tax and of its consequence—the smuggling had caused the trade generally to decline; that it greatly interfered with the industry of the country; that it was partial in its application and unequal in its pressure, falling with great severity on the poor, and but lightly on the rich. On these grounds he thought he had a right to call on the right hon. Gentleman to consent to its abolition. But he had also another ground, in showing a source from which it could be supplied. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the total abolition of the soap-tax.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, it would be unnecessary for him to detain the House for any time, as the subject had been so frequently discussed before. He could not accede to the motion of the hon. Member for Falkirk, who proposed to reduce a tax that brought 700,000l. or 800,000l. into the treasury, without providing any substitute to make up for so great a loss of income. Was the revenue, sufficient, he would ask, to enable that House to forego so large a sum? If it were, then it might be well for the House to consider the propriety of reducing or abolishing this tax, but several other taxes should also be taken into the consideration of hon. Members. However, in the present state of the revenue it was impossible to entertain the question for a moment. Let hon. Members look to the statement of the last quarter's revenue as published in the Gazette, and they would find, that there was an actual deficiency of income compared with expenditure of 655,000l., and in such a state of things it was impossible for the House to submit to a sacrifice of 800,000l. It had been remarked that this was not a party question. He was fully aware of the fact, and had perfect reliance on the support of hon. Members opposite, in refusing to grant a reduction that would be so injurious to the interests of the country. The hon. Member who brought forward this motion had excluded from his general ar- gument the fact, that whilst other taxes remained the same as during the war, one-half of the tax upon soap had been remitted in 1835, and the tax now was the same as it was a century ago. In 1782, the tax was 1½d., afterwards it was increased to 3d., and subsequently it was reduced to 1½d. The manufacturers of soap, therefore, had not much to complain of, and he trusted the House would not acquiesce in the abolition of this tax, without which the Government could not conduct the public service. The hon. Member said, that if Government would reduce their expenditure, the revenue would not suffer by the reduction of this tax. The Government had a more direct interest in the reduction of expenditure than the House of Commons, and he could confidently say, that since he had had the honour of filling an official situation he had made every exertion to reduce the expenditure of the country, but that House generally thwarted the intentions of Government. The hon. Member said, let the excise be reduced. Now, it so happened, that when reductions in the salaries of the officers of excise and customs had been proposed by the Government the House had opposed their recommendation. The excise officers in the performance of their duties had not been guilty of any want of courtesy as was generally attributed to them, and he maintained that the majority of excise prosecutions were on the recommendation of the manufacturers, for the purpose of defending the honest tradesman. He admitted, that this was a decreasing tax, and consequently deserved the consideration of the House, but he could not agree with the hon. Member for Falkirk, who attributed the decrease to smuggling, or a neglect of cleanliness amongst the people. He was rather inclined to attribute it to the very general substitution of soda for soap in washing. He would tender an engagement on the part of the Government to simplify the excise laws, and make that clear and distinct which was before liable to doubt, as far as it could possibly be done; but he was not in a position at that moment to propose any reduction of duties. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not persist in a motion which tended to deprive the Government of the means of fulfilling their actual engagements; but if the hon. Gentleman did, he must meet it with a distinct negative, on the ground of the public benefit at large, and he hoped the hon. Gentlemen opposite would support him in doing so.

Viscount Sandon

said, that he could fully enter into the feelings of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon his opposition to the motion of the hon. Member for Falkirk; for it was impossible, in the present decreased state of the revenue of the country, to propose a total abolition of the duty on soap; but, at the same time, he was not altogether satisfied that something not very far short of a total abolition would be a great relief to the manufacturers, without causing any material injury to the public revenue. If it were reduced, the consumption, and consequently the revenue, would be increased. In his opinion, the present high duty could not be long maintained, for since the year 1833, 3,000,000 pounds of soap had been brought to charge less than in that length of time preceding, notwithstanding the increase of the raw materials, and this could only have been occasioned by smuggling. He would suggest to the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer to follow out the recommendations of the Commissioners of Excise Inquiry as to the manufacture of soap, which had lain unnoticed for the last three years, and would just mention a most remarkable fact, that at present the retail trade of London was for the greater part not supplied by regular, but by clandestine, manufacture, proving the extent to which smuggling was carried on. He thought a reduction of thirty-three per cent. might be made without any loss, and he should therefore move as an amendment, that the present duty on soap be reduced by a third.

Mr. Benett

must vote against the present motion, but could not give a silent vote lest it might be thought if he did so, that he had changed his opinions upon this most mischievous tax. He had always looked on this tax as a restraint upon the health and comfort of the poor, and that it ought to be repealed; but when he had formerly voted for the abolition of it, there was an excess in the expenditure of the country, which might have been so reduced as to meet the consequent deficiency in the revenue. The house-tax might have been retained in preference, as it was felt chiefly by the rich, but the soap-tax fell principally on the poor. He certainly thought that a reduction in the duty might restrain smuggling, and not be a loss ultimately to the revenue, but he was not fled from the decreased revenue? When competent to judge what might be the effect of the noble Lord's amendment. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer ever obtained a surplus, he ought to consider this as one of the first taxes to be repealed. When he (Mr. Benett) sat on the Opposition side of the House, he had felt the great necessity which there was for reduction in the expenditure, and had then voted for a repeal of this duty, in order to compel the Government to reduce their outlay, and he must certainly admit, that he had done this without considering whether there was any surplus or not; but let them look at that time and the present, and see the great reduction which had been made by those who now sat on the Ministerial side, and it would be clear to every one that they could not approve of the present motion. There was not now the same field for reduction as at that time. After the vast reduction that had been made, it would not be easy to meet an extra deficiency of 800,000l. With this explanation, he avowed his intention of voting against the motion.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

could not allow the present motion to go to a division without making one or two observations on the amendment of the noble Lord. He had in no way been prepared for it, for he had come to the House to discuss the motion of the hon. Member for Falkirk, and had received no notice whatever of the amendment which had been proposed. He felt that he should not discharge his duty if he did not call the attention of the House to the motion of the noble Lord, and to the consequences of it, and the principles which it involved. The noble Lord said, that on the authority of the Commissioners a reduction might be made in the duty, and that although the first year there might be but little increase of consumption, it would afterwards become so great as to supply the deficiency of the duty in consequence of the reduced rate. Now, he would ask the hon. Gentlemen opposite, who had cheered this proposition, whether they were prepared to try the experiment when there was so great a deficiency in the revenue as had been the case in the last year? When there was a surplus it might be tried, but would it be just to do so at the present time, when the consequence must be, that if it turned out unsuccessful, many of the public engagements must remain unsatis- fied from the decreased revenue? When he had reduced the duty on glass, it was said, why did he not repeal the whole duty, for by leaving a third of it he left the frame of the tax, and the manufacturer was still exposed to the oppression of the excise. That might be said in this instance, and as he considered that the motion and amendment were the same in principle, he should certainly oppose them.

Mr. Hume

had never supported any proposition that he thought would endanger public credit; and if he were of opinion that the reduction of this duty would have that tendency he would not vote for it. When, three years ago, the duty on soap had been reduced one-half, there was not that proportionate increase in the amount of soap on which duty was paid as might have been expected. It was plain that the deficiency arose from smuggling. The question was whether, by an additional reduction, a stop would not be put to smuggling, and thereby, eventually, a greater amount of revenue be paid into the excise? When the duty on whisky was reduced from five shillings to two shillings and sixpence a gallon, it was predicted that the revenue would greatly suffer. What was the fact? That the very first year after the reduction of duty the revenue on whisky increased fifty per cent in amount. No man who had read the report of the Commissioners with attention could fail to remember their statement, that it was clear that the small traders in soap were principally supplied by smugglers. Was it not advisable to make an experiment, the effect of which would be at once to put an end to smuggling, and to do justice to the fair trader? With a deficiency in the revenue of 500,000l. or 600,000l. it would not do to repeal the duty entirely. At the same time, he thought for the interests of the community, that a reduction ought to be made in it, and the amendment of the noble Lord should therefore have his support. He contended, that the reduction of the duty would not diminish the revenue to any important extent; while by the consequent cessation of smuggling, the fair dealer would no longer be exposed to a most injurious competition. The right hon. Gentleman declared, that the Government had endeavoured as far as possible to keep down the expenditure; but did he mean to say, the civil list was as economical as it might be, or that the naval and military establishments of the country were not at the present moment the same as during the administration of the Duke of Wellington? In point of fact, his hon. Friend (Mr. Benett) was quite mistaken in supposing that he was supporting an economical Government. The Ministers could not justly allege that they were taken by surprise on this question, for the Commissioners of Excise Inquiry had already expressed their opinion, that the duty might, with advantage, be reduced.

Mr. Hawes

regretted to hear, that the amount of the establishments of the country would not allow of any reduction of taxation; for he had hoped that the policy pursued towards Ireland, might have led to a diminution of the army, and that the saving thereby effected, would have been sufficient to cover any deficiency, which might be caused in the revenue by a remittance of taxes. He thought, too, that an increased revenue might be derived to the country from an improvement of the mercantile policy, which had, he was sorry to say, been greatly neglected hitherto. He agreed with the hon. Member for Kilkenny in his statement, that the present was not a new question, for it had for some time been pressed on the consideration of the Government. With respect to the duty on soap, he knew that but one opinion prevailed in the trade—viz., that it could not be justly and equally enforced. This was also the opinion of the Commissioners of Inquiry, and what, he should like to know, was the use of appointing a competent Commission, if their recommendations were to be set at nought? The question for the House to consider was, whether the Commissioners of Inquiry, who were in favour of a reduction of duty, were not more worthy of confidence on this subject than the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer? With respect to the conduct of the Board of Excise, he believed that they frequently disregarded communications made to them from the trade, and that it was the policy of the board, not to communicate directly with the manufacturers, and without direct communication, it was impossible for them to obtain any practical knowledge.

Mr. F. Baring

defended the Board of Excise from the charge of neglecting the communications addressed to them, which might have arisen from the circumstance of their answers being sent not directly to the manufacturers, but to the various local officers, who were directed to forward them to the proper quarters. The Commissioners of Excise were anxious to meet and receive communications from any parties connected with the trade, whom they invariably received with the greatest courtesy. The noble Lord opposite, had told the House, that he moved his amendment in pursuance of the recommendations of the Commissioners of Excise Inquiry; but the amendment did not embody the object of those recommendations. The Commissioners had proposed, that the duty in England should be reduced, and that then it should be extended to Ireland; and what the noble Lord desired, was to have all the reduction, and to give no equivalent in return. With regard to the evils which it was said the tax on soap occasioned, he should have thought, that they arose not so much from the amount of the duty as from the inconvenience produced by the interference. If that were so, the noble Lord's amendment would not get rid of the evils complained of, for though the duty might be reduced, all the inconvenience arising out of the interference of the excise would remain. And now he begged the House to bear in mind what it was that the Commissioners stated. The Commissioners, it was true, said, that eventually the revenue would not lose by the reduction of the duty; but then it should be considered, that under the most favourable circumstances, it would take two years before the same amount of duty could be recovered; and the question for the House to decide was, how the revenue for the next year was to be raised? Could hon. Members, as honest men, consent, at that moment, to try an experiment with the revenue, ignorant of what its amount might be, and knowing that within three or four days, they would be fully informed of the extent of the resources of the country? The real question for the House to determine was, whether the proposed experiment could be trusted to for making up the reduction in the revenue which must take place, if the duty on soap was in part, or wholly abolished; and he trusted hon. Members would pause in the present proceeding, till it was ascertained what surplus of revenue was at their disposal.

Mr. W. Campbell

thought, there were many other taxes more oppressive to the poor, and calling more strongly for reduction, than the tax upon soap. There was, for instance, the malt-tax; but if they cut down the revenue now, they would render themselves unable to provide funds for those improvements, beneficial to the country, which would soon be called for. He would vote against the motion.

Mr. Wallace

was extremely glad this discussion had taken place before the budget was brought forward, as the House had been informed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount of revenue was likely to be at their disposal, after providing for the usual expenditure of the year. That was returning, to the old system, and he was happy that the discussion had elicited the necessary information from the right hon. Gentleman. The House could not have forgotten, that last year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised to bring forward the Budget in March, but that it was not till June that they had been furnished with a full explanation in regard to the revenues of the country. If the present discussion had not taken place, the right hon. Gentleman might have pursued the same course this year as he had adopted last year, but the House now knew what the real state of the revenue was. They were returning to the old system, which he considered best, as he thought it proper that they should know something of the revenue before the budget was brought forward. With regard to the motion before the House, he thought it would tend to beat down smuggling, and it was on that ground he should support it, and not on the ground of reducing the revenue.

Sir G. Sinclair

was understood to say, that he objected to any measure, tending to throw the funds of the country into confusion, and on that ground he would vote against any motion for the reduction of taxation, till the Budget was brought forward, and until the House knew what surplus was at its disposal.

Mr. Gillon

replied, and said, that he had heard no argument which could convince him that there was anything improper or impolitic in the motion he had brought forward. In his opinion, there was no ground for any of those apprehensions which had been expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, If, however, the House was more inclined to adopt the amendment of the noble Lord opposite than the original motion, he should give way, but for himself, he could not consent to any compromise as to the abolition of the tax. He was willing to withdraw his motion in favour of Lord Sandon's amendment.

Viscount Sandon

hoped he might be allowed to say a few words after what had just fallen from the hon. Member opposite, and to state the course which he intended to pursue. After what had been stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reference to the public revenue, and after the right hon. Gentleman had sued to them so strongly in formâ pauperis, he was unwilling to take upon himself the responsibility of any consequences which might result from so great a reduction of income as would follow the abolition of the duty on soap. They were promised that the budget should be brought forward in the course of a few days, when the House would know what amount of revenue was at the disposal of the country, and he therefore proposed to with draw for the present the amendment he had moved. ["No, no," and "Divide, divide."] If the House wished that he should press his Amendment to a division, he was willing to comply with their wishes.

Finally the question was put to the House in the following form: Mr. Gillon having moved, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal the Duties on Soap." Lord Sandon moved, to leave out from the word "repeal" to the end of the question, in order to add the words "one-third of the existing Duty on Soap," instead thereof. Question put was, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question." The House divided:—Ayes 166; Noes 78: Majority 88.

List of the AYES.
Acland, T. D. Bridgeman, H.
Adam, Admiral Briscoe, J. I.
Aglionby, H. A. Brodie, W. B.
Ainsworth, P. Bryan, G.
Alsager, Captain Buller, C.
Ashley, Lord Bulwer, E. L.
Baines, E. Burr, H.
Bannerman, A. Byng, right hon. G. S.
Baring, F. T. Campbell, Sir J.
Baring, hon. W. B. Campbell, W. F.
Benett, J. Canning, right hon. Sir S.
Berkeley, hon. C.
Bernal, R. Cavendish, hon. G. H.
Bewes, T. Cayley, E. S.
Blackburne, I. Clay, W.
Blake, W. J. Clements, Viscount
Blennerhasset, A Clive, E. B.
Blunt, Sir C. Codrington, Admiral
Corry, hon. H. Mactaggart, J.
Craig, W. G. Maher, J.
Curry, W. Mahon, Viscount
Dalmeny, Lord Mahony, P.
Darby, G. Martin, J.
Dennistoun, J. Maule, hon. F.
De Horsey, S. H. Melgund, Viscount
Duckworth, S. Morpeth, Viscount
Dunbar, G. Murray, right hon. J. A.
Duncombe, T.
Dundas, F. Muskett, G. A.
Dundas, hon. T. O'Brien, C.
Easthope, J. O'Callaghan, hon. C.
Elliot, hon. J. E. O'Connell, D.
Ellice, E. O'Connell, J.
Evans, G. O'Connell, M. J.
Fazakerley, J. N. O'Ferrall, R. M.
Fellowes, E. Paget, F.
Ferguson, Sir R. A. Palmer, G.
Fergusson, right hon. C. Parker, J.
Pechell, Captain
Filmer, Sir E. Pendarves, E. W. W.
Finch, F. Perceval, Colonel
Follett, Sir W. Peyton, H.
French, F. Philipps, Sir R.
Gordon, R. Philips, M.
Graham, right hon. Sir J. Phillpotts, J.
Planta, right hon. J.
Grant, hon. Colonel Plumptre, J. P.
Grattan, J. Ponsonby, hon. J.
Grattan, H. Redington, T. N.
Grey, Sir C. E. Reid, Sir J. R.
Grey, Sir G. Rice, E. R.
Guest, J. J. Rice, right hon. T. S.
Hall, B. Roche, W.
Hardinge, right hon. Sir H. Rolfe, Sir R. M.
Russell, Lord J.
Harland, W. C. Salway, Colonel
Hastie, A. Sanderson, R.
Herries, right hon. J. C. Scarlett, hon. R.
Seymour, Lord
Hobhouse, right hon. Sir J. Shaw, right hon. F.
Sinclair, Sir G.
Holmes, W. Somers, J. P.
Hope, G. W. Somerville, Sir W. M.
Hoskins, K. Stanley, E. J.
Howard, F. J. Stanley, Lord
Howard, P. H. Stansfield, W. R. C.
Howick, Viscount Steuart, R.
James, W. Strutt, E.
James, Sir W. Style, Sir C.
Kemble, H. Teignmouth, Lord
Kinnaird, hon. A. F. Thomson, right hon. C.P.
Kirk, P.
Knatchbull, hon. Sir E. Thornley, T.
Knight, H. G. Townley, R. G.
Labouchere, right hon. H. Trevor, hon. G. R.
Verney, Sir H.
Lambton, H. Vivian, J. H.
Langdale, hon. C. Vivian, right hon. Sir H.
Liddell, hon. T. H.
Logan, H. Wakley, T.
Long, W. Ward, H. G.
Lushington, Dr. Westenra, hon. H. R.
Lushington, C. White, A.
Macleod, R. White, S.
Macnamara, Major Williams, W. A.
Wilshere, W. Wyse, T.
Wood, C. Yates, J. A.
Woulfe, Sergeant TELLERS.
Wynn, right hon. C. W. Gillon, W. D.
Smith, R. V.
List of the NOES.
Alford, Viscount Hodgson, F.
Bagge, W. Hodgson, R.
Bentinck, Lord G. Hope, H. T.
Blackstone, W. S. Hume, J.
Boldero, H. G. Hurt, F.
Bradshaw, J. Ingestrie, Viscount
Broadley, H. Jervis, S.
Brotherton, J. Jones, J.
Brownrigg, S. Langton, W. G.
Bruce, Lord E. Lascelles, hon. W. S.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Law, hon. C. E.
Burrell, Sir C. Mackenzie, T.
Chisholm, A. W. Marton, G.
Chute, W. L. W. Master, T. W. C.
Codrington, C. W. Mordaunt, Sir J.
Colquhoun, J. C. Morris, D.
Darlington, Earl of Neeld, J.
Dick, Q. Norreys, Lord
D'Israeli, B. Parker, R. T.
Douglas, Sir C. E. Pigot, R.
Duke, Sir J. Richards, R.
Dungannon, Viscount Rippon, C.
East, J. B. Round, C. G.
Eaton, R. J. Rushbrooke, Colonel
Egerton, W. T. Sandon, Viscount
Egerton, Sir P. Scarlett, hon. J. Y.
Ellis, J. Sheppard, T.
Fector, J. M. Shirley, E. J.
Feilden, W. Thompson, Alderman
Fielden, J. Turner, W.
Fleming, J. Vigors, N. A.
Forester, hon. G. Wallace, R.
Gore, O. J. R. Warburton, H.
Goring, H. D. Wilbraham, hon. B.
Grimsditch, T. Williams, W.
Grimston, hon. E. H. Wood, T.
Grote, G. Young, Sir W.
Halse, J.
Harcourt, G. S. TELLERS.
Hawes, B. Gore, O. W.
Hinde, J. H. Gaskell, James Milnes

Main Question put and negatived.

Back to