§ Mr. Grimsditch
said, he had strong objections to the measure. The predictions which had been made in that House as to the manner in which the Poor-law Amendment Act would be carried out, had been fully realized. It was not his object, at the present moment, to animadvert upon the gentlemen to whom the duty of conducting and carrying out that measure had been confided; he believed them to be most respectable and honourable men, but this much he must say of them, that they, or at all events those who acted under them, did not possess, in his opinion, sufficient practical knowledge. The host of sub-commissioners which had been sent out through the country was composed principally of barristers-at-law, of very short standing at the bar, who had not had any experience of the social feelings and habits of the people of the country. But he objected to the present bill as unnecessary. The unconstitutional powers vested in the Commissioners, it was provided by the Poor-law Amendment Act, were to continue fur five years, and until the end of the then next Session of Parliament. Now, surely five years was ample time to try and ascertain the working of the measure. The measure had, with one or two exceptions, he believed, been carried into effect throughout the kingdom, and within the term the commission would now continue—namely, until the end of the next Session—an ample opportunity would be afforded fully to try the experiment. But with respect to this bill. At the commencement of the present Session, and frequently during its progress, questions had been put to the noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell) as to his intentions with respect to this law, and early in the Session, the noble Lord stated his intention to bring in a bill, not 354 only to continue the powers of the existing Commissioners, but also to remedy a number of defects which it was allowed existed in the carrying out of the new system. It, therefore, was with very great surprise to him (Mr. Grimsditch) that it was only within the last few weeks that the bill, together with five other measures connected also with the question, made its appearance before the House, and it was evident that the powers of the Commissioners were not to cease even at the time fixed by the bill of the noble Lord, than which a more objectionable and oppressive measure had scarcely ever been brought forward. One of the bills brought in created a new office—that of reviser of rates—it gave the commissioners power over all books, papers, and documents, belonging to the unions; it enabled the guardians to make and levy rates, to recover them by distress and sale; the right of appeal was taken away in certain cases; all these provisions served to show him that there was a determination on the part of the noble Lord at the head of the Home Department, to perpetuate the unconstitutional powers at present possessed by the commissioners, to a much longer period than the noble Lord professed. He, however, trusted that, looking to the strong feeling existing throughout the country, with reference to the extraordinary powers of the commissioners, her Majesty's Ministers would pause. It was notorious, that the present bill was brought in in the face of state prosecutions arising out of a resistance to this very law, in the north of England; it was notorious, that her Majesty's Attorney-general was proceeding both to Chester and to Liverpool to try persons for resisting this law. And where, he begged to ask, was the necessity for the present bill. It would be much better to postpone this bill, and in the mean time, the Government might take such active measures as would enable them to mature those amendments which were necessary in the existing law. To any further continuance of the powers held by the commissioners at Somerset-house, and those under them, he entertained strong objections, arising from the evil effects which had been produced throughout the country. If it was actually necessary to have a controlling power, in order to carry out with effect this law, it would be better to leave it to a Secretary of State, as in that case there would be a 355 responsibility, while at present there was none. Feeling strongly that this bill ought not to pass into a law, in the present Session at all events, he should move, as an amendment, that it be read a third time this day three months.
§ Mr. Darby
said, that though it was not his intention to oppose the second reading of the bill, he thought there was some justice in the remarks made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield as to the course which had been pursued by the noble Lord opposite with respect to it. It had been truly stated, that the noble Lord said he would bring in a bill in the second week of May to effect certain amendments in the existing poor-laws, and now the House had arrived at the 15th of July. The noble Lord had not redeemed his promise, but had waited until many hon. Members interested in the subject had left town, and consequently the present measure would not receive that discussion which it called for and deserved. But though the bill to continue the Poor-law commission was now before the House, still those clauses of amendment, including the bastardy clauses, which the noble Lord promised to lay on the Table, were not forthcoming, and up to the present moment, nobody knew at what time they would be brought forward; still less did anybody know what provisions they would contain. The noble Lord had said, that the object of this bill was to continue the commission but for one year longer; but, on looking at the bill, he found it provided, that the commissioners "should hold their offices until the expiration of one year from the 14th of August, 1840, and until the end of the then next Session of Parliament." So that the bill proposed a continuance of nearly three years. He should not vote against the second reading of the bill, because that course might prevent him moving those amendments which he desired to see effected in the present laws. If the noble Lord refused those amendments when proposed in Committee, he should vote against the third reading, on the principle that he might then probably get an early opportunity next Session of pressing his amendments upon the House.
§ Colonel Sibthorp
had great pleasure in supporting the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Grimsditch). The Poor-law Amendment Bill, it had been promised, would be a 356 boon to the poor of the country. It was no such thing; but, on the contrary, it had been now proved to be an imposition on the public. The whole of the news. papers—a means of information on which some reliance ought to be placed—teemed daily with complaints of the cruelty of the Poor-law Amendment Act. His hon. Friend who had just sat down had expressed his surprise that the noble Lord had delayed this bill until this late period of the Session; but his hon. Friend forgot that it was the practice of the Government to postpone all their measures until that late period when but few Members remained to resist their machinations. Let the House look at the expense to which this commission had put the country. He had not the whole returns, but he was sure, if he said it had cost 60,000l. it would be the minimum. The returns up to 1836 spewed it had cost 38,000l., and though the last return was incomplete, he was sure he understated the entire expense of this commission alone when he fixed it at 60,000l. On the consideration of the Appropriation Bill, he should certainly move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the state and expense of the various commissions now in force in this country, and he pledged himself to prove before that Committee, a more gross statement of expenditure than ever had yet been laid before the public, and especially by a Government which came into office on the principle of economy. But they had lost the confidence of the country; that fact had been told them the other day, when the other House went up with the Address to the Queen, and he must say, that men more unworthy the confidence of the country never before existed. This bill was brought on at this late period of the Session, not with any regard to the feelings or wishes of the people, but because the Government knew they could carry it by numerical strength; the noble Lord was afraid to bring it forward early in the Session, and now sought to smuggle it through. He called upon hon. Gentlemen opposite, who had declared the Poor-law Amendment Bill to be oppressive, to withdraw from the Government and come to his side of the House in opposing this renewal. He should join the hon. Member, with great pleasure, in throwing out this bill, and although he was no Chartist—although he deprecated violent language 357 —yet, if any Gentleman would bring forward, in temperate language, a measure for the repeal of this accursed law, he should have his support.
§ Sir J. J. Guest
would oppose the second reading of the bill, inasmuch as the poorer classes of his constituents complained that the existing law was cruel and oppressive, especially in those provisions which permitted the separation of husband and wife, and the refusal to afford out-door relief. If, however, the bill went into Committee, he now gave notice that he should move clauses to amend the provisions of the existing law to which he alluded.
§ Mr. W. Tatton Egerton
said, that having opposed the former bill in every stage, he felt bound now to say that subsequent experience had confirmed him in his opposition to its principles. A very strong feeling existed against the Poor Law Act, and much difficulty had had to be encountered in obtaining the attendance of guardians to carry its provisions into operation. He himself entertained a strong feeling against the act, and he thought there was also much reason to complain of the mode in which it had been carried into effect. In this part of the country rules and regulations had been sent down to them, and when it was attempted to moderate their severity, the commissioners had insisted on those regulations being observed in the most rigid manner. Those rules had been much complained of, and he would therefore press upon the noble Lord the propriety of withdrawing this bill for the present, and early in another session of introducing a new measure, into which some modifications of the present system might be introduced. If the amendment was pressed to a division, he should vote against the bill.
§ Mr. P. Howard
said, few Acts had received the sanction of Parliament which, in his opinion, had been productive of more beneficial effects in the northern districts than the Poor Law Amendment Act. He could not help expressing his thanks for the great reduction in the rates which had taken place under the new system.
Sir W. James
said, that if his hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield pressed his amendment to a division, he should certainly vote with him, for he entertained many objections to the bill. He was not inclined to revert to the old system, but 358 he could not but regret that this bill had been introduced at so late a period of the session, that it was utterly impossible that any modifications could be made in the existing law.
§ Mr. Blackstone
would freely confess, although he should vote against this bill, that he was not prepared to vote fur the total repeal of the existing law. When the guardians had acted independently of the commissioners, the Poor Law Amendment Act had been beneficial; but when the guardians had submitted to the dictation of the commissioners, the worst results had followed. For himself he wished to see the guardians invested with a discretionary power of granting relief, and there were other alterations which he trusted would be made. He should support the amendment.
§ Mr. Buck
believed, that the country was more indebted to her Majesty's Ministers for the Poor Law Amendment Act than for any other measure which they had brought forward. He acknowledged that he had at first looked with suspicion on that act, but having been the chairman of a board of guardians for a considerable period, he was now convinced from experience that the Poor Law Act had been of the greatest possible service to the country. There was one clause, however, to which he felt it his duty to call the attention of the Government, viz., the clause relating to the relief of the able-bodied poor. He thought it absolutely necessary, with reference to this part of the system, that a discretionary power should be vested in the guardians, and he was sorry to see any bill introduced at so late a period, that due consideration could not be given to this important subject, so as to enable them to effect some practical improvements. If the commissioners would allow a discretionary power to the guardians, he was sure the concession would be attended with very beneficial results.
§ Mr. T. Parker
said, he would support the amendment which had been moved, as he objected strongly to be system which allowed no discretionary power to the guardians with respect to out-door relief. He objected also to the extensive powers vested in the commissioners. It might have been imagined that some modification of the extraordinary powers of the commissioners, which they exercised in a more extraordinary manner, would have been proposed; but he found by a 359 bill which had been introduced by the noble Lord that they were to be intrusted with still more extensive powers. The bill to which he alluded was the bill for the collection of rates, and in one of the clauses of that bill, by which the guardians, under the direction of the commissioners, were empowered to appoint collectors, it was provided, "that the powers given by the said act to the said commissioners for directing the execution by guardians of the laws for the relief of the poor, shall be deemed to extend, and shall extend, to the making, collecting, and distribution, of poor-rates, and to the custody thereof." [Lord J. Russell: it is intended to alter the clause.] He had a right to found his argument upon the bill as he found it, as he could not know what alterations might be proposed by the notble Lord. He had a right to allude to the clause as it stood in the bill, in order to expose this insidious attempt to extend the powers of the Poor Law authorities.
§ Mr. T. Parker
was aware that such was the fact, and he was only endeavouring to show that very extraordinary powers were to be granted to the commissioners by another bill. The words of the clause in the Collection of Rates Bill to which he had alluded were, that the powers of the commissioners should extend "to all monies, papers, goods, and chattels, applicable or relating in any way to the relief of the poor, as well as to the relief, maintenance, and removal, of the poor." The effect of that proviso would be, that not one single charity which had been established for the relief of the widow and the orphan would escape the control of the Poor Law Commissioners. That was one of the strongest objections which he had to the bill before the House, as the bill went to continue the powers of the commissioners, and although he stood alone he should vote against it.
§ Mr. Wakley
said, it appeared to him very extraordinary that a bill of this kind, and of such vast importance, should have been introduced without one word of explanation. He could not comprehend how Ministers could propose such a bill without stating the grounds on which it 360 was introduced, and without explaining the reasons which, in their opinion, rendered such a measure necessary. The bill was intended to continue one of the most odious statutes that had ever been placed on record, and was to extend the powers of the Poor Law Commissioners for two years longer. Had the noble Lord's attention been directed to the complaints which had been made against the Poor Law Amendment Act? There was no part of the country from which complaints against the Poor Law Act had not been made, and those complaints had been directed against the system of out-door relief, the gigantic extent of the unions, the system of plural voting, and the consequences resulting from the plan of ex officio guardians. Society was torn to pieces by the operation of the new system, and instead of the hostility to the measure decreasing, his firm conviction was, that it was on the increase. Yet, notwithstanding that such was the case, here was a proposition brought forward for extending and continuing the powers of the commissioners, and yet Ministers had made no statement, offered no explanation, to show the necessity for the adoption of such a course. He trusted that the noble Lord would yield to the suggestions which had been offered, and that he would not proceed further with this bill, but wait till another Session, when a comprehensive measure could be introduced to remedy the defects of the existing laws. This bill was a piece of mere patch-work, and could not be satisfactory either to that House or to the country. The hon. Member for Devon had expressed himself pleased with the operation of the Poor Law Amendment Bill, but let the House appeal to the poor, and hear what they had to say on the subject. He wished the hon. Member could have heard some of the complaints which he had heard in Devon, where, notwithstanding all that was said about the bill raising the rate of wages, no such result had taken place, and where no allowance had been made for rent, or for the increase in the price of corn, although there might have been some allowance of sour cider. This bill ought not to have been brought forward without its having been shown that there was a paramount necessity for its introduction; and if the noble Lord offered no satisfactory explanation of the grounds on which he justified this proceeding, he 361 should vote for the amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite.
§ Mr. Pakington
said, the hon. Member for Finsbury had blamed the Government because they had offered no explanation on the introduction of this bill; but although it was not his duty to defend her Majesty's Ministers, yet he must observe, that as it was merely a bill to continue certain provisions of a former Act, it did not appear to him that any explanation was necessary. The hon. Member had also alluded, and in terms of censure, to the ex officio guardians; but in his opinion the ex officio guardians had contributed in a very high degree to the beneficial operation of the Poor Law Act. The size of the unions had also been objected to, and he was disposed to agree with the hon. Member that the unions were too large. The poor were bound to make application for relief in person, and for that reason the unions ought to be of moderate extent. He had risen, however, for the purpose of expressing his approbation of the Poor Law Amendment Act. He was aware that a great outcry had been raised against the measure, and that many persons had striven to excite strong feelings of hostility against it, and as he had been convinced from experience of its beneficial effects, he felt bound to say, that in his opinion, if there was one act to which posterity would look back with gratitude to the present Ministers, that Act was the Poor Law Amendment Act. An hon. Member opposite had spoken of the reduction of rates which had been effected, and no doubt such had been the effect of the bill; but it was not on that ground that he was favourable to the new Poor Law, but simply because he believed that they had tended more than any other enactment to elevate the moral character of the working classes, and to promote their real welfare and their best interests. The part of the measure in regard to which he entertained the strongest doubts was the bastardy clauses. He objected to the trial of bastardy cases before the Quarter Sessions, and he could not see why the corroborating evidence which was required should not be taken before the petty sessions, when all the disgusting parts of that evidence would be prevented from becoming public.
§ Mr. T. Attwood
had no hesitation in saying, that a more odious measure than the Poor Law Amendment Act had never 362 passed that House. He had always believed that the object of this bill was to break down the labourer's wages to the Irish level. That effect would have been already produced but for the accident of the general construction of railways, which during the last five years had employed 400,000 labourers. When the construction of these railways was completed, those labourers would be thrown upon their hands, and he knew not how they would provide for them with the glaring defects of the existing monetary system. Hon. Members were as ignorant of this subject as he was of music, or of the cloisters of Oxford or Cambridge. He could assure them that they would find it impossible to persevere in the present system—compelling the people to pay a large sum of money for their bread, and to receive a small sum of money for their labour. Ground between these two iniquities, the people of England looked to the workhouse as their resource. But the workhouses were shut in their faces, and bastiles opened in their stead. This was an attempt in which they could not succeed. They might think him enthusiastic, but he thought them indiscreet. He implored of them not to harden their hearts, but to open their eyes to the distresses of a well-nigh infuriated people.
§ Mr. Freshfield
would vote for the second reading of this bill, being desirous to go into Committee, with a view to restricting the term of its operation to a single year. He should have preferred instead of enacting the existing poor law, returning to the statute of Elizabeth, taking care not to permit abuse in its operations.
§ Mr. T. Duncombe
said, that there was a fraud on the face of this bill. It purported to be a renewal for a brief period, yet upon inspection of its contents, it turned out to contain a renewal of the provisions of the Poor Law Bill for three years from the 14th of August next. The most arbitrary powers had been conceded to the Poor Law Commissioners—powers which had been objected to by the whole people of England, and this bill proposed to commit a fraud on the people of England, and extend their powers for three years more. It was a modification, not an augmentation of these powers that the country expected. Was it proper, in the present state of the finances of the country, to entail upon us an expense of 70,000l, per annum? He hoped that, 363 where local acts existed, the people never would consent to the introduction of this measure. He knew of 160 parishes in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and other parts of the north of England, which were included in the Gilbert incorporation, and were determined to resist any attempt to introduce it. The Poor Law Commissioners had recommended, that the Gilbert incorporation should be immediately put down, without affording them the opportunity of having their case stated in Parliament. Her Majesty's Ministers had exhibited their discretion in not attempting to interfere with this incorporation. If they attempted to do so, they would raise a nest of hornets about their ears. He had no doubt that the Government would be able to carry this bill, but when it was in Committee, he should certainly take the sense of the House upon the powers of the Commissioners being continued only for a single year. He trusted that the hon. Gentleman would not withdraw his opposition.
§ Lord J. Russell
said, that when he introduced this bill to the House, it did not appear to him to require any explanation. He had stated, that his object was to enable Parliament to have a full opportunity of discussing any amendment which it might be proposed to introduce during the ensuing Session. If the next Session should happen to be very long, the powers of the commissioners would last to the end of the Session; if the Session, on the contrary, should happen to be a brief one, their powers would terminate with it. In reply to the remark of the hon. Member for Sussex, he had to observe that, considering the quantity of business which was before the House, it would have been almost impossible, during the present Session, to have secured such an attendance of Members as would have enabled them to go through all the different amendments in the present law, which hon. Members would have proposed for their consideration. The hon. Member for Finsbury had complained of the proposed duration of the powers of the commissioners. Now, he had thought that it was agreed upon all hands, that these powers should be conceded to the Commissioners for five years, and that Parliament should, at the expiration of that period, have an opportunity of considering whether they would continue them, But he had never contemplated that these powers should 364 cease at the expiration of five years. The term of continuance which the bill proposed having been objected to, he would have no objection to shorten the time. He thought it generally rather an objectionable course to make a bill last to the end of the next Session of Parliament. He thought it better to specify a fixed time; and was, therefore, ready to consent to the proposed alteration. His object was, to prevent the abrupt cessation of these powers, and allow full time for the discussion of any new measure. The principles of the Poor Law Amendment Act, which he looked upon for the most part as perpetual, did not come properly into discussion upon a bill of this kind; but if assailed at all, should be assailed by a proposition for their direct repeal. He was glad to hear several hon. Members, on both sides of the House, bearing testimony to the good effect of the Poor-law Amendment Act. He was convinced that that measure had been very beneficial to the country, and had been beneficial, not merely in reducing the amount of the rates, but also in rewarding the industrious, and correcting the idle. The hon. Member for Birmingham could hardly have given sufficient attention to the operation of the act, probably because his mind was quite filled with other matters, or he would not have spoken as he had done that evening. But it was obvious that the operation of the act was exposed to the remark which had been that night made upon it—namely, that if it were beneficial, why should it have caused so much objection and unpopularity? No doubt, an act of that description, administered as it was by those commissioners, to whom the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln was not very partial, was open to much more unpopularity than attended the old system, under the administration of the parish authorities. There might be abuses under the present act, but every case was magnified to a great degree, and the evidence by which it was supported was very much exaggerated, and brought to tell against the Commissioners and the Government; while under the old system, if in a small parish workhouse, the paupers were ill treated, or jobbing was carried on in the greatest possible degree, it was a mere local affair; it concerned only a few parish authorities, and it was the interest of no one to bring the case forward, either in the public prints or in Parliament, nor would he be listened to who did bring it 365 forward. But when a case was to be made out against Commissioners, or against a Secretary of State, it then became a matter of great importance and paramount interest. He thought, that no one who looked into the reports of the commissioners, setting forth the operation of the old law, could say that such a system ought to continue. He trusted that the bill would then be allowed to be read a second time, and to be committed on Thursday next. The hon. Member for Droitwich, who had spoken favourably of the operation of the act in general, had complained of the proposed bastardy clause, and other clauses, not being in the hands of hon. Members; he had sent them to be printed, and expected they would have been ready a week ago. The purport of the bastardy clauses would be to transfer the power which was now exercised at the Quarter Sessions to the Petty Sessions, with such provisions as now existed with respect to the Quarter Sessions.
§ Mr. G. Palmer
opposed the second reading, not with a view of returning to the evils of the old system of Poor-laws, but to prevent the introduction of that piecemeal system of legislation and infringement upon the rights of the people to which the Ministry resorted on every occasion. There was quite sufficient time before the operation of the present provisions would expire, to introduce such a measure as would put the Poor-law of this country upon a proper basis.
§ Mr. Hindley
thought it intolerable that it should be left to the three kings at Somerset-house to determine what food should be given to the poor, and how they should be treated. He required no better proof of the effect of such a law than the dietary which had been issued by those three kings for the support of the poor. In a part of the country which he had lately visited, and where the New Poor-law was in operation, he found the price of land was from 3l. 10s. to 5l. per statute acre. Now, he did say it was abominable, when landlords got such a price for their land, that the present system should be pursued towards the poor. In the last Session but one he had moved for returns to show the mortality in the workhouses under the new and old system of poor laws, but those returns had never been made. If he were acting for the purposes of agitation he could produce returns of his owns with re- 366 ference to this part of the question, which were very little in favour of the new law. But then it was said, although the poor were not happy, because they had no right to be happy, yet how virtuous and moral they were rendered by this law. This was so constantly said, that he almost persuaded himself that it had been proved; but what was the fact? Why, that taking the numbers of births of illegitimate children during three years previously and three years subsequently to the passing of the act, the latter exceeded the former by 12½ per cent. He had no objection to an improvement of the present law, but he thought the measure ought to be deferred till next Session, when there would be time to pay due attention to the subject, and to make such alteration in the existing law as Parliament might think advisable.
§ Mr. Fielden
was understood to say that while the Poor-law had produced so much misery, it had wholly failed in producing what it was intended to effect—namely, an advance in the wages of the poor. He never heard the Poor-law praised except by Members of that House—who perhaps might have objects of their own to answer. It had been said, that the new Act had improved the condition of the labouring classes, but how could that be when their wages were in fact lowered? Did such a result justify the extending of these unwarrantable powers to the commissioners? If the act had worked as well as it had worked ill, he would never have consented to continue to any men such unconstitutional powers, and this measure should not pass without encountering all the opposition which it was in his power to give it.
§ Mr. M. Philips
thought the Poor-law Amendment Act, had conferred inestimable benefits upon that part of the country with which he was particularly acquainted, by keeping the labourers in constant and regular employment, and in a state of greater comfort, respectability, and happiness than they had previously known. He thought a fair trial ought to be given to the act, although he was ready to concur in any improvements upon the measure which at present, could only be regarded as an experiment.
§ The House divided on the original question.—Ayes 120; Noes 35;—Majority 85.
|List of the AYES.|
|Acland, Sir T. D.||Aglionby, H. A.|
|Adam, Admiral||Ainsworth, P.|
|Baines, E.||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Baring, F. T.||Muskett, G. A.|
|Barrington, Viscount||O'Connell, M. J.|
|Barry, G. S.||Ossulston, Lord|
|Berkeley, hon. H.||Paget, F.|
|Berkeley, hon. C.||Pakington, J. S.|
|Bernal, R.||Palmerston, Viscount|
|Blake, W. J.||Parker, J.|
|Bowes, J.||Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.|
|Bridgeman, H.||Pechell, Captain|
|Briscoe, J. I.||Philips, M.|
|Broadley, H.||Pigot, D. R.|
|Buck, L. W.||Plumptre, J. P.|
|Buller, Sir J. Y.||Ponsonby, G. F. A. C.|
|Burroughes, H. N.||Power, J.|
|Dalmeny, Lord||Pryme, G.|
|Darby, G.||Redington, T. N.|
|Divett, E.||Rice, E. R.|
|Donkin, Sir R. S.||Rice, rt. hn. T. S.|
|Dundas, F.||Rich, H.|
|Elliot, hon. J. E.||Roche, W.|
|Euston, Earl of||Rolfe, Sir R. M.|
|Evans, G.||Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.|
|Evans, W.||Russell, Lord J.|
|Ferguson, Sir R. A.||Russell Lord C.|
|Filmer, Sir E.||Rutherfurd, rt. hon. A.|
|Fitzroy, Lord C.||Salway, Colonel|
|Freshfield, J. W.||Sandon, Viscount|
|Gisborne, T.||Scrope, G. P.|
|Gordon, R.||Seale, Sir J. H.|
|Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.||Seymour, Lord|
|Grant, F. W.||Sheppard, T.|
|Greenaway, C.||Smith, J. A.|
|Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.||Smith, R. V.|
|Hastie, A.||Stanley, hon. W. O.|
|Hawes, B.||Stewart, J.|
|Henniker, Lord||Stuart, Lord J.|
|Herbert, hon. S.||Stock, Dr.|
|Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.||Strutt, E.|
|Hobhouse, T. B.||Style, Sir C.|
|Hogg, J. W.||Surrey, Earl of|
|Hope, hon. C.||Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.|
|Hope, H. T.||Thornely, T.|
|Hoskins, K.||Townley, R. G.|
|Howard, P. H.||Troubridge, Sir E. T.|
|Howick, Viscount||Vigors, N. A.|
|Hume, J.||Villiers, hon. C. P.|
|Hurt, F.||Warburton, H.|
|Hutt, W.||Wilshere, W.|
|Inglis, Sir R. H.||Wodehouse, E.|
|Irton, S.||Wood, C.|
|Labouchere, rt. hn. H.||Wood, Sir M.|
|Langdale, hon. C.||Worsley, Lord|
|Lincoln, Earl of||Wyse, T.|
|Loch, J.||Yates, J. A.|
|Macaulay, T. B.||Yorke, hon. E. T.|
|Maule, hon. F.||Stanley, hon. E. J.|
|Mildmay, P. St. J.||Steuart, R.|
|List of the NOES.|
|Alsager, Captain||Canning rt. hon. Sir S.|
|Archdall, M.||Collins, W.|
|Attwood, T.||D'Israeli, B.|
|Blackstone, W. S.||Douglas, Sir C. E.|
|Brotherton, J.||Duncombe, T.|
|Fielden, J.||Palmer, G.|
|Finch, F.||Parker, R. T.|
|Fleetwood, Sir P. H.||Perceval, hon. G. J.|
|Guest, Sir J.||Sanderson, R.|
|Hall, Sir B.||Scarlett, hon. J. Y.|
|Hawkes, T.||Scholefield, J.|
|Hector, C. J.||Sibthorp, Colonel|
|Hinde, J. H.||Turner, W.|
|Hindley, C.||Wakley, T.|
|Hodgson, R.||Wilbraham, hon. B.|
|James, Sir W. C.||Williams, W.|
|Kemble, H.||Grimsditch, T.|
|Lowther, hon. Colonel||Egerton, W. T.|
§ Bill read a second time.