HC Deb 09 May 1838 vol 42 cc1029-43
Colonel Seale

moved the second reading of the Bonded Corn Bill. He had already stated the object of the bill, and the benefits which it would confer on the commercial and mercantile world, and in the absence of any reasonable objection to the measure, he should not have thought it necessary to make any observations on this occasion, but for the fact, that he had seen in the public prints the report of certain proceedings which had taken place at a public meeting, which had been called for the purpose of taking this bill into consideration. At that meeting statements were read, and resolutions were drawn up, which could only tend to misrepresent the measure; and it was upon the spirit of those erroneous resolutions that the petitions which had been presented against the bill were founded. At the same time he begged it to be understood that no man was more ready to attach every weight to petitions than he was. He held in his hand a report which had appeared in the Morning Herald, containing an account of a meeting held at Aylesbury, at which the noble Lord, the Member for Bucks (the Marquess of Chandos), presided. The hon. and gallant Officer here read the report and the resolutions which had been agreed to, which latter, he contended, did not apply to the case in question. The objection taken to the measure was, that it would lead to the introduction of foreign corn into the home-market surreptitiously. The bill, on the contrary, proceeded on the principle, that the corn admitted under bond to be ground, should be absolutely exported within two months after its being ground. Having adverted to these resolution, he would leave the matter in the hands of the House. Considering that the bill would give to the landowners the opportunity of granting a boon to the mercantile interests, he hoped that those hon. Gentlemen would not stop this bill, but would allow it, at least, to go into Committee. He moved, that the bill be read a second time.

The Marquess of Chandos

said, he objected to this bill on very different grounds from those which the hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine were entertained. He thought it would be highly injurious to the agricultural interest. He had no doubt it would afford a great advantage to the commercial, at the expense of the agricultural interest. He, therefore, could not allow the hon. Gentleman to carry a measure which would be extremely detrimental to the best interests of the country. At the present moment the agriculturists were enjoying a little relief from the long period of distress under which they had suffered; and their only wish was, that that House would not interfere with them. He had opposed this bill before, because he thought it would be extremely injurious to the farmers. He had no hesitation in saying, that its effects would be, to hold out a bonus to the foreign farmers, at the expense of the farmers at home, and he certainly should oppose the motion which had been made, by moving, as an amendment, that the bill be read a second time that day six months. The hon. Gentleman had alluded to a meeting where he had presided, and to certain resolutions which had been agreed to by the Cambridge farmers. He begged to assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that the petitions which had been presented from the county of Bucks against this bill were founded on the opinions of the farmers of that county, unconnected with any other parties. But he called the attention of the country to the bill, because it was injurious to the interests of the farmer, and he could not believe that the agricultural interest, which was so strong in that House, would permit a measure to pass which would be so highly injurious to those who had the power to reject it. Jeers might be thrown out when he alluded to the strength of that party in that House. He would say again, they had strength with them, and when strength was properly exercised, no one had a right to complain. He was most happy, as the organ of the farmers, to oppose this bill; and having expressed his opinion on several previous occasions, he would move, as an amendment, that the bill be read a second time that day six months.

Mr. Warburton

thought that the House had a right, at least, to expect from the noble Lord that he should point out how this measure would act detrimentally to the agricultural interest; but he had not attempted to do anything of the kind. The object of this bill, as he had told the noble Lord before, was, not to allow foreign corn to be imported and used for home consumption, but to be imported for the purpose of being ground, and then exported. By allowing the corn thus bonded to be ground into flour and exported, a large amount of capital would be employed, and a large number of labourers would be employed and fed, not on foreign corn, but home-grown corn. All this was matter worthy of the attention of the noble Lord; but he came before the House with the naked assertion that the bill would be detrimental to the agricultural interest. The noble Lord said, he came there to support the agriculturists; he said, that they were strong in that House—too strong they certainly were, unfortunately, he would say, whenever they came to decisions on questions of this kind. But, let him add, the agricultural interest could not maintain that pre-eminence of which the noble Lord seemed so proud, unless they were supported by sufficiently sound reason.

Mr. Heathcote

said, that there was a very strong feeling in the great agricultural county with which he was connected in respect to this measure, and surely the farmers were as good judges of their own interest as hon. Gentlemen opposite could be. He must confesss, he had been somewhat surprised at the observations of the hon. Member for Bridport. He recollected that when he was on the same Committee with the hon. Member to inquire into the growing of tobacco in Ireland, that hon. Gentleman contended, that they had a perfect right to prevent persons growing what they liked within their own land, because it was impossible to devise a system like that of the tobacco regulations, without the liability to frauds. Now he thought the hon. Gentleman forgot on this occasion the principle which he had then laid down. He believed the object of those who were parties to this bill was, to repeal the corn laws. He would ask what right had the shipping interest to call upon them to repeal the existing Corn Laws? There was no interest in this country which was so much protected as that of the shipping. The shipping interests had the whole monopoly of the coasting trade. As he had the honour to represent a very large agricultural constituency he was happy to confirm all that had fallen from the noble Lord. He was well acquainted with the feelings of one of the largest agricultural constituencies in the empire, and he was sure that there was but one feeling amongst them, and that was, the wish to be left alone. This was the feeling from one end of the country to the other. How could they have steadiness in prices, if there were no steadiness in the law? He hoped the bill would be thrown out. The subject of the repeal of the Corn Laws was one which was brought forward in every fresh Parliament; but the last dying speech of the free traders in corn was made by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, some time since, who declared that, in reference to this point, the question at issue was put an end to. But he hoped the House would not allow the great question of the Corn Laws to be attacked, not in front, but in flank, as it was by this motion. He believed this bill would not pass into a law, and therefore the sooner they got rid of it the better.

Lord Worsley

said, that his hon. Friend, the Member for South Lincolnshire, had said, and said truly, that there was a strong and general feeling against the Bill throughout Lincolnshire. He had been requested by his constituents to oppose the bill; all the agricultural associations of the northern division which he had the honour to represent were against it. It was with pain, that he felt obliged to refuse complying with their request; but as he was sent to that house unfettered and unpledged, he must use his own judgment, and as he firmly believed, that the bill was not calculated to injure the interest of the farmer, he felt called upon to refuse to oppose the bill, and, even at the risk of incurring the displeasure of the majority of his constituents, to support the second reading. He frankly avowed he considered the opposition which the agricultural interest had thought proper to give the measure was more likely to injure them than was the bill. If the people of England found that interest opposing every measure of this kind, and, not content with the existing protection it enjoyed, which he believed the farmers were satisfied with, obstinately resisting measures of justice towards other interests, they would at length call out for a repeal of the Corn-laws. He might have absented himself on the present occasion, but he considered it a duty he owed to his country to attend and vote, though, he repeated, by doing so he was likely to offend a great body of his constituents. He could not help thinking that much of the opposition to the measure might be termed factious, which was all of it attributable to the farmers being misinformed and ignorant of the real nature of the measure. His gallant Friend, in moving that the bill be read a second time, made some observations on the circular sent out by the Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely farmers' Association. They had done him (Lord Worsley) the honour of sending him a copy, when to his surprise, on reading the resolutions, he found they were dated April 2, before the bill now under discussion was printed. Was it surprising, then, that the advocates of this measure should complain of such an opposition. The bill declared that the whole of the produce of the corn when ground shall be exported. If the bill had not particularly guarded against any of the corn which was imported for grinding or the offal being introduced into the home-market, he should have ranked amongst its most determined opponents. He believed the farmers were misled, and did not understand the question. For instance, he knew a very general opinion prevailed amongst his constituents that foreign bran paid no duty; whereas, it paid at all times twenty per cent. For these reasons, he would vote for the second reading of the bill.

Sir John Tyrrell

said, that when he took into consideration the fact, that the parties from whom this measure emanated were the constant advocates of free trade in corn, they could not be surprised that the agricultural interest should be most sensitive on this point. The measure seemed to him to be one which might be fairly considered as proceeding upon the principle of an instalment, to which principle the hon. Gentlemen opposite appeared to be so much attached. When he considered the quarter from whence the measure had emanated, he confessed he could not help regarding it with suspicion. Its chief and prominent object was, to promote the interest of the great millers in the neighbourhood of London, Liverpool, Bristol, and other maritime places; and this boon, he was persuaded, must be granted to commence at the expense of the agricultural interest. He was inclined to hope and believe, that considering the state of prices of agricultural produce at present, the agricultural interest might and would be suffered to rest in quiet. And he reformed Parliament would, on this occasion, certainly not be induced to alter the existing laws framed for the protection of the agricultural interest.

Mr. Brotherton

believed, that the proposed measure would, in some degree, benefit the commercial interest, and perhaps the agricultural interest also. Operated upon by these motives, he was induced to give the motion his support. He would, however, confess for his part that, if they were to-night to reject the bill, he should be rejoiced, as he was firmly persuaded the oftener the Legislature turned a deaf ear to projects of improvement, and rejected measures such as the present, the greater must be the results which would grow out of the vain appeals of the public to the Legislature. In a word, more sweeping improvements might fairly be anticipated, in consequence of Parliament rejecting less extensive remedial measures. He wished they might throw out the bill for another reason—namely, that by so doing they would hasten the downfall of the wicked Cornlaws, which were so abominable, so impolitic in this commercial and manufacturing country, and withal so shamefully unjust, that it was altogether impossible but they must shortly be abolished. 'The bulk of the landowners and agriculturists, it was natural to suppose, were hostile to this measure, as persons, of course, must be who are deeply interested in maintaining a monopoly for their own advantage. All the anxiety of that class of persons was concentrated in keeping up the monopoly, and thereby sustaining excessively high rents and high prices of necessaries, though the effect of the latter was to reduce to a state of starvation thousands of hand-loom weavers and artisans.

Mr. Poulett Thomson

thought, the amendment moved by the noble Marquess, the Member for Buckinghamshire, was not justified by the nature of the question. The noble Marquess, both on the present and on former occasions of a similar kind, had represented himself to be the organ of the agricultural interest in that House. Now, looking at the nature and circumstances of former debates, and on what had subsequently occurred, he could not help feeling inclined to dispute the claim which the noble Marquess endeavoured to establish; and to believe, that there were many other hon. Gentlemen in that House to whose opinions, and to whose guidance the agricultural interest looked up with at least as much respect as they did to the opinions and guidance of the noble Marquess. When he heard a right hon. Baronet on the other side of the House (Sir E. Knatchbull) say, that he should have no objection to a measure like that under consideration, provided means could be adopted for so framing the clauses as to preclude the practicability of fraud, when he heard the hon. Member for Breconshire say the same thing, when he heard his noble Friend opposite (Lord Darlington) say the same thing, he could not believe that the noble Marquess justly represented the opinions of the agricultural interest; nor, until a division convinced him that he was in error, could he believe, that it was possible to induce the landed gentlemen of this country at once to reject a measure which could do no harm whatever, either to themselves or to those for whom they were peculiarly interested; a measure which would have no more influence on the land of this country, than it would have on the land of New Zealand; when, by adopting it, they might confer a valuable benefit on another, and a large class of the community. The whole question which came under discussion, when this measure was last brought under the consideration of the House, was whether or not it would be practicable to make such provisions in the bill as might prevent fraud, and thereby prevent the British grower of corn from suffering the injury to which he must otherwise be exposed. On that occasion, he pledged himself, that he would give the subject his best attention, for the purpose of carrying into effect, wishes so generally expressed on all sides of the House; and he now confidently asserted, that the bill comprehended all the provisions requisite for that object. But even if that were not the case; even if some hon. Gentlemen conceived, that the provisions of the bill were not sufficiently stringent to prevent the possibility of fraud, the present was not the stage of the bill in which that question could be properly considered. Whenever the bill went into Committee, would be the fit time for taking the details and the provisions of the bill into consideration, and for determining whether or not any changes in those details and provisions were necessary. At present, the question related merely to the principle of the measure, and, for the reasons which he had already explained, he thought that the bill ought to receive the support of a number of those hon. Gentlemen who were especially described by the term "the agricultural interest." He also hoped, that the principle of the bill would receive the support of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, both because of its intrinsic merit, and because the right hon. Baronet had formerly supported a measure of a similar character, which had been introduced by one of that right hon. Baronet's colleagues at the time, the late Mr. Huskisson. He repeated, that he was most anxious to prevent the commission of fraud; and that if it could be proved in the Committee, that it was impracticable to frame such provisions as would obviate fraud, no hon. Member in that House would be more ready to reject the bill. At any rate, however, it was but common justice to let that question be fairly tried; to ascertain how far the present details of the bill were sufficient for the purpose; and if they appeared insufficient, to see if details could be introduced of a more satisfactory character. The principle was the point now to be determined; and unequivocally approving of the principle of the measure, he should vote in favour of the original motion, and against the amendment proposed by the noble Marquess.

Sir E. Knatchbull

believed, that the object of security against fraud, could not be attained by the bill under discussion, and he should therefore oppose the second reading. He was persuaded, notwithstanding what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Bridport, that the measure, as it had been argued by his noble Friend near him (Lord Chandos) would give a bonus to the Foreign growers, and consequently prove injurious to the English agriculturists. The right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade said, that full security was given to the farmers by the bill, or that, at all events, it could be altered in committee, so as to insure full security; but he believed, that no such security could be attained by the measure before the House, or by any alterations which it might undergo in Committee, and the House would recollect, that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor any other hon. Member had advanced any proof that the English farmer would be protected from fraud by the bill under consideration. It was said, that the corn was to remain in bonded warehouses; and that consequently no fraud could arise; but he would ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether it was to be manufactured in those warehouses? He supposed the right hon. Gentleman would answer in the negative; and there was, therefore, too much reason to apprehend that a door would be opened for extensive fraud by the grain being removed from the warehouses to the mills, where it was to be manufactured. He would also ask the House to take into consideration the time which had been selected for bringing forward the present measure. It was not the wish of the agriculturists of this country to maintain the price of corn at a high rate; but the price of corn was at present rising, and when it came to a certain price, the ports would be opened for foreign grain, and when the price was again reduced, there was but too much reason to fear, that a serious injury would, under such circumstances, be inflicted on the English growers, should the present bill become law.

Sir R. Peel

was unwilling to detain the House from the division which was so loudly called for; but having been so pointedly referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, he was desirous shortly to state the grounds on which he should feel it his duty to support the amendment which had been moved by his noble Friend. He confessed that in the first instance he had not entertained any very strong or decided opinion on the subject, one way or the other; and in consequence he had abstained from voting on the motion for the introduction of the bill. The right hon. Gentleman now, however, claimed his support of the measure, on the ground that many years ago his right hon. and lamented colleague Mr. Huskisson had brought in a bill for permitting the grinding of foreign bonded corn under similar circumstances. Now that measure had proved a failure; and it appeared to him, therefore, that it was rather an odd reason for the right hon. Gentleman to assign as a motive for him to become a party to a new proceeding upon the subject, that a former proceeding upon it had been unsuccessful. It had been alleged that the passing of this measure would prove a great benefit to commerce. Now, it was well known that he was not disposed to grudge any benefit to commerce, provided that benefit to commerce was free from injury to any other interest, and provided that it did not give general dissatisfaction. But from the communications which had reached him from all quarters, he believed that if Parliament were to pass this bill, it would occasion an amount of dissatisfaction, of suspicion, of discontent, the positive evils of which would much more than counterbalance any good that it was supposed some particular interest might derive from it. For these reasons, weighing the contingent good to a portion of the community with the certain injury that it would inflict on the community at large; and seeing no reason whatever for the agitation of the question at the present moment, he should certainly vote for his noble Friend's amendment.

The Earl of Darlington

said, that as the gallant Member who had brought forward the measure under the consideration of the House had postponed the second reading of his bill from time to time without assinging any reason for the delay which had taken place, he had expected that it would have been withdrawn altogether. As, however, the hon. and gallant Member had not adopted that course, he felt himself obliged to vote against the further progress of the bill. He was sorry to do so, because he was anxious to afford every possible relief to the commercial and manufacturing interests, and because he did not, on the subject under consideration entertain those strong opinions which were entertained by some of those with whom he generally acted. He did believe it possible to introduce a measure permitting the grinding of foreign corn in this country, and which, at the same time, would afford security against fraud, but he did not believe it possible to attain those two objects in a short bill like the present. The bill under consideration ought to have contained some more stringent clauses for the prevention of fraud, and without those it was impossible that the measure could give satisfaction to the agriculturists of this country, or remove the fears which were entertained as to the injurious effects of its operation. There was one objection which he entertained to this bill, and which operated more strongly on his mind than any which had been advanced, and he was astonished that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had brought forward the measure should not have foreseen that objection, and been on his guard to obviate it. The bill was brought in by the hon. and gallant Gentleman and by the hon. Member for Bridport, and although he had not the least intention of questioning the honesty of the intentions of the hon. Member for Bridport, and although he allowed that that hon. Member had a perfect right to entertain any opinions he might deem proper on the subject under consideration, yet the hon. Member was too honest a man not to allow that he had always advocated the interests of the commercial classes in opposition to those of the agricultural classes. He would ask, then, whether it was wise or politic for the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite to have placed the name of the hon. Member for Bridport on the back of his bill, and whether, under such circumstances, the agriculturists were not justified in viewing the measure with suspicion.

The Lord Advocate

had heard no argument against the bill under the consideration of the House beyond suspicion; and he would ask whether that was sufficient to justify its rejection? It certainly was not; and was it fair that the commercial classes should be deprived of a certain benefit simply on the ground that fears were entertained of some injury being inflicted on the agriculturists? The noble Lord opposite (Darlington) had said, that sufficient security was not given by the present bill; but he had stated no objection to its principle and its details could be altered in committee. No argument had yet been advanced against the second reading of the bill. The noble Lord considered the name of the hon. Member for Bridport, which was on the back of the bill, a strong objection to the measure; but the bill was brought forward by an hon. Member whose interests were entirely agricultural; and was no measure to be introduced relating to agriculture but by the representative of an agricultural constituency, and by him alone? He was every way disposed to protect the interests of the farmers, but he felt it to be his duty to stand up for the interests of the community which he had the honour to represent, and who were anxious to obtain the benefit which the operation of the bill was calculated to produce. He should therefore support the second reading.

Sir James Graham

on a former occasion, had abstained from voting on a measure similar to the present, because he had entertained great doubts as to the benefit which it was calculated to produce. No man was more favourable than he was to the agriculturists of this country, yet on the other hand, he was willing to do all in his power for the commercial classes, even at the expense of some sacrifice on the part of the agricultural classes. He could not, however, support the second reading of the bill before the House, because he conceived that while it was not calculated to yield much advantage to the commercial and manufacturing interests, its tendency was to produce dissatisfaction and seriously to injure the English growers of corn. He allowed that his objections to the measure were founded on suspicion, but were the grounds for that suspicion slight? The right hon. Gentleman opposite, the President of the Board of Trade, had stated, that a similar measure had been tried at a former period, and that the acute mind of Mr. Huskisson had been directed to the subject, with the view to obtain proper securities against fraud. But the right hon. Gentleman had allowed that Mr. Huskisson had failed in his object, and that the measure was consequently abandoned. Was, there, then, not good reason for suspicion in regard to the present measure, when no proof had been brought forward that the bill contained sufficient or any protection against fraud? The hon. Gentleman, the Member for Bridport had taunted the opponents of the measure with not advancing any reasons for their hostility to the bill; but he should not be led into a discussion on the Corn-laws at that time. It was said that this was a question of trifling importance; but if it were so, why was so much stress laid upon it by hon. Members opposite? Was the protection at present afforded to agriculture to be broken through? If such was the object of the hon. Members opposite, he could understand why they pressed forward this measure; but if they had no such object in view, and if they thought the question one of trifling importance, how could they explain their anxiety for the bill being read a second time? No proof had been advanced that sufficient protection was given by the measure to the agriculturists, and he had heard nothing but assertions that fraud was not intended or possible by the provisions of the Bill. In conclusion he would say, that as the advantage was doubtful, and as the risk of injury was great, he thought the House would do well to pause before consenting to the second reading of the bill.

Mr. M. Philips

did not advocate the second reading of this bill on the principle that it would lead to some alteration or to the entire abolition of the Corn-laws. He believed that great advantages would result from the measure to the commercial and shipping interest of the country and entertaining that opinion and believing that it might be so framed as not to inflict any injury on the agricultural interests he should vote for the second reading of the bill.

Mr. Villiers

observed upon the state of thraldom in which country gentlemen appeared to be placed by their constituents, not one of whom dared to support the measure, and yet not one could assign an argument against it. Such an instance of restraint upon the independence of Members of that House he had never seen amongst those who represented the large towns. The noble Lord the Member for Shropshire admitted, that the purpose of the Bill might be effected, and that the principle was unobjectionable; yet when called upon to sanction the principle by his vote, he said that from the suspicion which attached to one of its authors, he would not suffer it to go into Committee. Then, the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth said, that he feared the dissatisfaction it would occasion, and he should vote against it; but he said not a word of there being any grounds for that dissatisfaction. He feared the displeasure of those who placed their trust in him. But the hon. Baronet the Member for Kent was the strongest case of all, for he had already stated in this House what he conceived to be the object of this bill, and as distinctly stated, that it was wholly without objection, but after making that statement upon the last occasion he now voted against it, and said he would do so again. He (Mr. Villiers) was glad to think, however, that whatever were the result of the vote to-night it would be beneficial. If the measure was carried it would open to our trade a new channel for employment and profit, and benefit the commerce of the country in a slight degree; but if it was rejected it would perhaps be still more useful; it was just what was now required. What was most wanted was some practical illustration of the working of the Corn-laws, and the spirit of those who maintained them; something to strike the imagination; something to arouse those who had too long kissed the rod that had scourged them. He looked upon it as a good sign. All great changes were preceded by some wanton act of the power which was complained of and attacked. He regarded it as the East Retford of the Corn-laws. To reject this measure would be like that preliminary folly which characterised those whom Heaven had marked as its victims. He thought the rejection of the measure would really arouse that feeling which had lain dormant too long on the subject of the Corn-laws; and he, therefore, should go to the division perfectly at ease, satisfied that nothing but good could follow from it.

Sir John Rae Reid

wished, in one word, to explain the ground of his vote. He had already voted in favour of the proposition for grinding corn in bond, and he intended to do so again. He had listened with the greatest care and attention to every word that had been advanced in the course of the debate that evening, and he confessed he had heard no reason to induce him to deviate from the course upon which he had originally started. His firm impression was, that a measure like the present would confer as many benefits upon the agricultural interest as upon the commercial. If he thought it would in any way militate against the interests of the agriculturists, he should be one of the last to support it.

Mr. Barron

was understood to say, that he had yesterday received a petition from his constituents in relation to the measure before the House, which he had been unable to present before the commencement of the discussion. The petitioners were highly favourable to the measure, and he did not think, that there was any person in his part of the country hostile to the bill. He had always voted in support of the Corn-laws, and he believed that the measure under consideration, so far from weakening the protection which those laws afforded to the agriculturists, would go a great way to conciliate the opposition of the commercial and shipping interests towards the continuance of the Corn-laws.

The House divided on the second reading of the Bill:—Ayes 150; Noes 220; Majority 70.

List of the AYES.
Abercromby, hn. G. R. Hope, G. W.
Aglionby, H. A. Horsman, E.
Ainsworth, P. Howard, P. H.
Anson, hon. Colonel Hume, J.
Archbold, Robert Hutt, W.
Baines, Edward Hutton, R.
Bannerman, Alex. James, Sir W. C.
Baring, hon. F. Jephson, C. D. O.
Barnard, Edward G. Johnson, General
Barron, H. W. Kinnaird, hon. A. F.
Beamish, F. B. Labouchere, rt. hn. H.
Bellew, Rich. M. Lambton, H.
Bentinck, Lord G. Langdale, hon. C.
Bernal, R. Lefevre, C. S.
Bewes, T. Liddell, H. T.
Blackett, C. Loch, J.
Blake, W. J. Lushington, C.
Blakemore, R. Macleod, R.
Bolling, W. Marshall, W.
Briscoe, J. I. Marsland, H.
Brocklehurst, J. Maule, hon. F.
Brotherton, J. Melgund, Viscount
Bulwer, E. L. Mildmay, P. St. J.
Busfield, W. Murray, rt. hon. J. A.
Butler, hon. Col. Muskett, G. A.
Cavendish, hon. G. H. O'Brien, W. S.
Chalmers, P. O'Callaghan, hon. C.
Clay, W. O'Connell, D.
Clive, Edward Bolton O'Connell, M. J.
Codrington, Admiral Ord, W.
Collier, John Palmer, C. F.
Colquhoun, J. C. Parker, J.
Currie, R. Pattison, J.
Dalmeny, Lord Pechell, Captain
Dashwood, G. H. Pendarves, E. W. W.
Davies, Colonel Philips, M.
Dennistoun, J. Philips, G. R.
Divett, E. Ponsonby, C. F. A. C.
Duff, James Ponsonby, hon. J.
Duncan, Viscount Reid, Sir J. R.
Duncombe, T. Rice, E. R.
Dundas, Capt. D. Rice, rt. hon. T. S.
Easthope, John Roche, E. B.
Eliot, Lord Roche, W.
Elliot, hon. John E. Rolfe, Sir R. M.
Ellice, rt. hon. E. Rundle, J.
Erle, William Salwey, Colonel
Evans, Sir D. L. Sandon, Viscount
Evans, G. Scrope, G. P.
Evans, W. Sharpe, General
Fazakerley, J. N. Smith, J. A.
Feilden, J. Smith, R. V.
Ferguson, Robert Steuart, R.
Fitzroy, Lord C. Stuart, Lord J.
Fort, John Stuart, V.
Gillon, W. Downe Strickland, Sir G.
Hall, B. Strutt, E.
Harvey, D. W. Style, Sir C.
Hastie, A. Talfourd, Sergeant
Hawes, B. Tennent, J. E.
Hawkins, J. H. Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.
Hector, C. J. Thomson, Ald.
Heron, Sir R. Thorneley, Thomas
Hinde, J. H. Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Hobhouse, T. B. Turner, E.
Vigors, N. A. Williams, W. A.
Vivian, J. H. Winnington, T. E.
Wakley, T. Wood, Colonel T.
Walker, Richard Wood, T.
Wallace, R. Worsley, Lord
Warburton, H. Wrightson, W. B.
Ward, H. G. Wyse, Thomas
Westenra, hon. H. R. Yates, J. A.
White, A.
White, Luke TELLERS.
White, S. Seale, Colonel
Wilbraham, hon. B. Villiers, Charles P.
List of the NOES.
Acland, Sir T. D. Crewe, Sir G.
Acland, T. D. Cripps, J.
Alford, Viscount Dalrymble, Sir A.
Alsager, Capt. Darby, G.
Alston, R. Darlington, Earl of
Arbuthnot, hon. H. De Horsey, S. H.
Archdall, M. D'Israeli, B.
Ashley, Lord Dottin, A. R.
Attwood, W. Douro, Marquess of
Attwood, M. Dowdeswell, W.
Bagge, W. Duffield, T.
Bagot, hon. W. Dunbar, G.
Bailey, J. Duncombe, hon. W.
Bailey, J., jun. Duncombe, hon. A.
Ballie, Colonel East, J. B.
Baker, E. Eastnor, Viscount
Barneby, J. Easton, R. J.
Barrington, Viscount Egerton, W. T.
Barry, G. S. Ellis, J.
Bell, M. Estcourt, T.
Benett, J. Etwall, R.
Blackburne, I. Farnham, E. B.
Blackstone, W. S. Fector, J. M.
Blair, J. Fellowes, E.
Blake, M. J. Filmer, Sir E.
Blennerhassett, A. Fitzalan, Lord
Bowes, John Fleming, J.
Bradshaw, J. Foley, E. T.
Bramston, T. W. Forester, hon. G.
Broadley, H. French, F.
Broadwood, H. Freshfield, J. W.
Brownrigg, S. Gaskell, Jas. Milnes
Bruce, Lord E. Gibson, T.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Gladstone, W. E.
Burr, H. Glynne, Sir S. R.
Burrell, Sir C. Gordon, hon. Capt.
Burroughes, H. N. Gore, O. J. R.
Campbell, W. F. Gore, O. W.
Cantalupe, Viscount Goring, H. D.
Cartwright, W. R. Goulburn, rt. hon. H.
Cavendish, hon. C. Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.
Cayley, E. S. Granby, Marquess of
Chetwynd, Major Grant, hon. Colonel
Christopher, R. A. Greenaway, C.
Chute, W. L. W. Grimston, Viscount
Clerk, Sir G. Grimston, hon. E. H.
Clive, hon. R. H. Hale, R. B.
Codrington, C. W. Halford, H.
Cole, hon. A. H. Handley, H.
Cole, Viscount Harcourt, G. S.
Compton, H. C. Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.
Conolly, E. Hawkes, T.
Corry, hon. H. Heathcote, Sir W.
Heathcote, J. G. Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Hepburn, Sir T, B. Pemberton, T.
Herbert, hon. S. Perceval, Colonel
Hill, Sir R. Perceval, hon. G. J.
Hillsborough, Earl of Planta, rt. hon. J.
Hodgson, R. Polhill, Frederick
Hogg, J. W. Powell, Colonel
Holmes, hon. W. A. C. Powerscourt, Viscount
Holmes, W. Praed, W. M.
Hope, H. T. Price, Richard
Hotham, Lord Pringle, A.
Houldsworth, T. Pusey, P.
Houstoun, G. Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.
Howard, hon. W. Richards, Richard
Hughes, W. B. Rickford, W.
Hurt, F. Rolleston, L.
Ingestrie, Viscount Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.
Irving, John Round, C. G.
Jones, John Round, J.
Kelly, F. Rushbrooke, Colonel
Kemble, H. Rushout, George
Kerrison, Sir E. Russell, Lord C.
Knatchbull, hn. Sir E. Sanderson, R.
Knight, H. G. Scarlett, hon. J. Y.
Knightley, Sir C. Scarlett, hon. R.
Lefroy, rt. hon. T. Shaw, rt. hon. F.
Lemon, Sir C. Sheppard, T.
Lockhart, A. M. Shirley, E. J.
Lowther, hon. Col. Sibthorp, Colonel
Lowther, J. H. Sinclair, Sir G.
Lygon, hon. General Smith, Abel
Mackenzie, T. Smyth, Sir G. H.
Mackenzie, W. F. Somerset, Lord G.
Macnamara, Major Stanley, Lord
Mahon, Viscount Stewart, John
Maidstone, Viscount Sturt, Henry Charles
Manners, Lord C. S. Surrey, Earl of
Marsland, T. Townley, R. G.
Marton, George Trevor, hon. G. R.
Master, T. W. C. Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Maunsell, T. P. Vere, Sir C. B.
Meynell, Capt. Verner, Colonel
Miles, W. Villiers, Viscount
Miles, P. W. S. Vivian, J. E.
Milnes, R. M. Waddington, H. S.
Monypenny, T. G. Wall, C. B.
Mordaunt, Sir J. Walsh, Sir John
Neeld, J. Welby, G. E.
Neeld, J. Williams, R.
Nichol], John Wilmot, Sir E.
Noel, W. M. Winnington, H. J.
O'Neil, hon. J. B. R. Wodehouse, E.
Packe, C. W. Yorke, hon. E. T.
Paget, F. Young, J.
Palmer, R. Young, Sir W.
Palmer, G,
Parker, M. TELLERS.
Parker, T. A. W. Chandos, Marquess of
Pease, J. Fremantle, Sir T.
Back to