PORT OF SLITO—MISSION AT STOCKHOLM.

HC Deb 05 March 1839 vol 45 cc1291-307

Mr. M. Gibson

rose to move for a return of any dispatches, communications, and correspondence that have passed between the British mission at Stockholm and her Majesty's Minister for Foreign Affairs, during the years 1837 and 1838, relative, to the port of Slito, in the island of Gottland. He had been disposed to postpone his motion, but seeing the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs in his place, who had probably come down for the purpose of answering any question he might put on this subject, he did not think it would be altogether courteous towards that noble Lord to defer it. He would, therefore, introduce the subject as briefly as possible. It was probably not known to many Members of the House, that the subject of the motion involved considerations affecting the commercial interests of this country, and more especially the Baltic trade. Hon. Members were aware of the geographical position of Gottland in the Baltic, at the entrance to the gulfs of Finland and Bothnia. All ships bound to the eastern coasts were obliged to pass it. The port of Slito, situated on the north-eastern coast, had considerable depth of water, with facilities of ingress and egress for vessels of any size. At the close of the year 1837 and during the year 1835, several petitions were presented to the Swedish government by the inhabitants of Gottland, and several other Swedes, and supported by British merchants in Sweden, praying the Swedish government to make Slito a free port. The question was submitted on different occasions to the Swedish government, and in the first instance they had shown a willingness to listen to the petitions, but subsequently after the interposition of the Russian minister they had evinced considerable supineness. At the time when these petitions were presented to the Swedish government, the British minister at Stockholm showed considerable indifference and apathy on the subject. Now, it would not be difficult to prove, that the greatest benefit must result to British interests, and particularly its shipping interest, from making Slito a free port. In the first place, the port of Slito was open six weeks earlier and six weeks later than any port in the gulf of Finland. A voyage, too, was made to Slito in a much shorter time. The rate of insurance was less, because the risk was much less. There would be these advantages to British interests in making Slito a free port. But it was stated, on the best authority, that while on the one hand the greatest activity and influence was exercised by the Russian minister to prevent the Swedish government from granting this concession, the greatest possible indifference and apathy had existed on the part of the British minister. During a considerable period, too, there was no consul and no minister at Stockholm. British interests there were intrusted to a chargé d'affaires, who was left in a forlorn condition. The late consul, Mr. Foy, died in 1837, and up to the present period, sixteen or seventeen months, he was not aware that any appointment to the vacancy had taken place. If there had been any appointment, it had not gone so far as to induce the individual to commence the duties of his station. But the fact, that sixteen or seventeen months had been allowed to elapse without appointing a consul, did at all events evince great indifference to the affairs of Sweden and Norway. It was true, that the absence of the British minister had been caused by a severe domestic infliction, but no minister had been appointed to take his place, and the charge d'affaires was left alone, during the period that this important question was under the consideration of the Swedish government. He (Mr. Gibson) did not know on what ground his proposal could be objected to by the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. But he had some suspicion that the noble Lord would object to it on the ground, perhaps, of its being inconvenient or injurious to the public service to produce papers. It was a very favourite ground under which a great deal of neglect often found shelter. Now, he should be guided as to the amount of credence, or perhaps not exactly credence, but the degree of trust he would place in the statements, by the way in which the noble Lord might make them. If he could state that the public interest would be seriously injured by the production of the papers—if it appeared that a bonâ fide negotiation was going on—not a mere red tape and fictitious negotiation to be pleaded as a reason for the non-production of papers—but a real bonâ fide negotiation going on with the Swedish authorities relative to making Slito a free port—then he would not divide the House upon his motion. But unless the noble Lord would say, that the production of the papers would be detrimental to the public service, or that a bonâ fide negotiation would be interrupted by it, he should feel it his duty to call on the noble Lord to explain what course the Government had taken for the protection of British interests when this important question was before the Swedish government. It appeared, that the Russian minister had been extremely active and influential in protecting the interests of Russia. But it might be said, that this was a question of internal arrangement for Sweden herself to decide. He admitted it; but he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the noble Lord near him, what a diplomatic agent was for, if not to watch the effect of internal arrangements in other countries, and observe whether any of them were of a character to affect injuriously or beneficially the interests of their own country, that they might oppose or support them accordingly? But this country ought not to remain in a state of indifference upon this question as a matter of internal arrangements with which they had nothing to do. The Russian minister had actively endeavoured to prevent this concession, so advantageous to British interests, from being made by the Swedish government, which, if left alone, would have been willing to grant it. It was the duty of this Government to interfere for the protection of British interests, as Russia interfered for the protection of those of Russia. It might be said, indeed, that there had been no petitions on the subject—no pressure felt from British merchants. But how were British merchants to originate a question affecting the internal arrangements of another country? If the question were once taken up by the Minister of the country, and if there were an efficient consul to manage it on the spot—British merchants would then have legitimate sources through which to become acquainted with it. He had no wish to make a long set oration. He would conclude by repeating, that there was no doubt of the immense advantages to this country of making Slito a free port. It would open the Baltic trade, as he said, six weeks earlier and six weeks later. It would diminish the rate of insurance. It would prevent numerous wrecks, such as now took place on the coasts of Gottland and Finland. It would save British ships from several obnoxious regulations, and irksome and disagreeable rules which they were obliged to observe in going to the port of Cronstadt. The hon. Member concluded by moving, "That an humble Address be presented to her Majesty, praying her Majesty that she will give directions that there be laid before this House copies or extracts of any dispatches, communications, and correspondence that have passed between the British mission at Stockholm and her Majesty's Minister for Foreign Affairs, during the years 1837 and 1838, relative to the port of Slito, in the island of Gottland."

Viscount Palmerston

said, it appeared to him that the general practice of that House was, that a Member who proposed to call for papers should show sufficient parliamentary grounds for the motion he made. It did not appear to him that the hon. Gentleman had laid any such ground for the present motion. The hon. Gentleman had expatiated on the advantages which he conceived English commerce would derive from the establishment of Slito as a free port. That point he was not at all disposed to contest with the hon. Gentleman. There was no doubt that it would be advantageous to our commerce if Slito were made a free port. He was quite sum that it would be advantageous to our commerce if as many free ports as possible were established in all foreign countries. On that point there was no question between him and the hon. Gentleman. But the point that he did contest with the hon. Gentleman was, that this House or the English Government had not any business to meddle with the internal affairs of the government of Sweden. The question whether Slito was to be, or was not to be a free port, belonged to the government of Sweden to determine. If the Russian government had interfered, and if they had attempted to induce the Swedish government to refuse this concession, it had done what was exceedingly improper. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that he did not consider himself at liberty to take any active steps with a view to influence the government of Sweden in the matter to which he had alluded. Therefore, the return to his motion, if the House should agree to it, would simply be a statement from the chargé d'affaires or minister of Sweden mentioning the fact, that a certain number of Swedish merchants had applied to the government of Sweden to make Slito a free port, and that the Swedish government had, and still has, the subject under consideration. The hon. Member had stated that there was, on the part of the Government, great indifference to British interests connected with Sweden; and he had mentioned as a proof of it, that during a certain time the chargé d'affaires had been left alone at Stockholm and the office of consul had not been filled up. With regard to the first point, he who seemed to have bestowed a good deal of his attention on continental affairs might have known that nothing was more common in all countries and on all missions than that the minister should, from time to time, have leave of absence, and that during his absence his duties should be performed by a chargé d'affaires, or by the secretary to the mission or the embassy. This certainly proved no indifference on the part of the Government to the interests of the country. It was but the ordinary course of things, and it often happened that the business was as well done by the chargé d'affaires as by the minister himself. [Laughter]. Yes, there were many able men who were chargé d'affaires. Hon. Gentlemen, opposite, at all events, could say nothing against the individual who held that position at Stockholm. However the office might be laughed at, they could cast no sneer at the able Gentleman who was discharging his duties there. With regard to the consulship, it was perfectly true that no person had been appointed consul, but no neglect of the duties of the offices had taken place, for there was a person at present acting as consul to the satisfaction of the chargé d'affaires and of the Government. His answer, therefore, to the hon. Gentleman was, that this was a matter that concerned the government of Sweden, and it did not appear to him that the British Government, and still less that the British House of Commons had any occasion to interfere with matters purely domestic on the part of the Swedish government. If the hon. Gentleman should persist in his motion, he would be disposed to propose as an amendment that they should inquire as to what steps had been taken by the Swedish Diet relative to making docks at Southampton, or the management of the dockyards at Portsmouth and Plymouth. The Diet had just as much right to interfere in such matters as we had relative to making Slito a free port. He should certainly resist the motion of the hon. Gentleman. If carried it could obtain nothing more than simply a report from the chargé d'affaires, or minister at Stockholm, that a certain application was made to the Swedish government, and that that government was proceeding to deliberate on the application in reference to the interests and convenience of Sweden herself.

Mr. Grote

said, that the question before the House was one of considerable importance to a most respectable body of his constituents connected with the Baltic trade; and though they had not petitioned the House on the subject, they could show that the statement of the hon. Member for Ipswich was fully borne out by the facts. It could be shown, that much property was destroyed, and many lives lost by the wreck of vessels trading to the Baltic, and that similar losses would be prevented if the port of Slito were declared a free port. It was therefore of great importance to our Baltic trade to have access to that as a free port; and he regretted to see, that the Government did not exert itself more actively in the promotion of that object. The noble Lord had said, that it was a matter solely for the consideration of the Swedish Government, and that we had no right to interfere in it. It was no doubt a question between merchants of Sweden and, their gym Government; but it was one in which British interests were greatly concerned, and therefore a matter in which the good offices and friendly interposition of our Government might well be applied. One thing which was not denied by the noble Lord was, that Russian influence was actively employed to prevent the Swedish Government from acceding to the petition of seine of its own subjects to have the port of Slito declared free; that being so, he thought that to counteract that influence would be a legitimate object of British diplomacy. If it appeared that Russian influence had been active in this respect, and that the British Minister was required to counteract that influence, he had neglected his duty. He would support the motion, because he thought a case had been made out for the production of the papers in question, and that it was one which greatly affected the interests of British commerce, as well as the preservation of life. If the Swedish Government had not been forward in this matter, it was more from Russian influence than from any want on their part to comply with what was wished for, which was the opinion of many of the English merchants at Stockholm.

Mr. Hawes

said, that the hon. Member for Ipswich had, in the course of his speech, spoke of the absence of a British Minister from Stockholm; but the noble Lord had said in reply, that this arose from accident, was of no importance, and that there had been no complaint made about it. Now, he must say, that representations on the part of the British merchants had been brought under the notice of the Foreign-office as to the appointment of a consul at Stockholm; for fifteen months ago he had himself laid such papers before the noble Lord, who fully agreed with him in the necessity of such appointment, and never had he had the honour of presenting to the Government, papers so numerously or respectably signed. He understood, that such an appointment had been made, but that it was afterwards cancelled. No doubt the noble Lord had some good reason for this, but application was again made to the noble Lord by memorial, and an individual was recommended for the office, but the noble Lard from that moment to the present time had taken no notice whatever of it, and the appointment had not taken place. He must say, that when a large number of the merchants of London did come before the noble Lord, and laid their case before him, stating their interests in the question, it was most desirable that the foreign department should condescend to pay some attention to their statement. The hon. Member for the city of London had said, that he was deeply hurt at no attention having been paid by the Government to this subject, but the noble Lord had said, that he believed, during the absence of the Minister, the duties of his office had been discharged in the most satisfactory manner. But, in his opinion, the stetement of the hon. Member was net met by the noble Lord; and if he could not give a more satisfactory answer, he must support the motion for the hone Member for Ipswich.

Viscount Palmerston

said it was perfectly true, as his hon. Friend had stated, that he did press the appointment of a particular individual as consul at Stockholm some months ago, and it was also perfectly true, that for certain reasons he had thought it his duty not to appoint that person; but his hon. Friend was mistaken if he thought that the appointment was still vacant for there was an individual performing the duties of that situation as well as the individual whom his hon. Friend had named, would have done.

Mr. Hume

said, it appeared, that the noble Lord either did not, or would not, understand what he was about. He only stated the opinions of some of our British merchants, and they certainly did think, that the British commercial interests had been neglected in the quarter referred to. If our Minister was not there, he ought to have been there, and, if he were not necessary there, why then remove him, and save his salary. His hon. Friends had stated, the strong opinions there were in the commercial world, that our affairs in Sweden were not attended to, as if there were a resident Minister, and that a mission would not satisfy the people of England; and he thought, that when it was found, that both Swedish and British interests were contending for the same point, as it was the interest of Russia to prevent England having any hold in that country, that the English interests could not be attended to, when there was no proper officer there. The motion was, in his opinion, a very fit one; but when the noble Lord stated, that the hon. Gentleman had directed great attention to continental affairs, which was very much to the credit of the hon. Member, for he had been to Sweden, where the noble Lord had never been, and, therefore, understood this subject; he wished the noble Lord was on the Continent, and he should like to see those who were sent abroad, more alive to the interests of their country; for three-fourths of those who were sent, did not attend to their duty. He thought, that the noble Lord had not given a full answer to the case which had been so ably stated by the hon. Member, or to the neglect with which the Government had been charged in this instance.

Mr. P. Thomson

would be happy to meet the hon. Member for Kilkenny on both his points, either as to the neglect of British Ministers generally at foreign courts, or as to the neglect of the Ministers at Stockholm. He would confine himself, however, on the present occasion to the last point, and to the question of Slito. The papers connected with this subject had naturally come before him in the duties of his department, and he defied the hon. Member, or any of the hon. Gentlemen opposite who had any knowledge of the subject to point out any period at which one half the attention was paid to our British commercial matters in that country as had been the case in the last few years. Considerable correspondence had been carried on between the Ministers there and the Government here relating to a better system of commerce, in order that every facility might be afforded to the commercial connexion between the two countries, and no subject relating thereto had been passed over by the Chargé d'Affaires or other Minister, nor any opportunity lost of extending and securing the commercial inter- ests of this country. The hon. Gentleman had asked why they did not renal the. Minister or the Chargé d'Affaires if he did not attend to his duty, but he must say that the charge of neglect could not be brought against any of the gentlemen who had lately been employed in Sweden—he meant Mr. Bligh, Mr. Bloomfield, or against the gentleman who was now there, Sir Thomas Cartwright; for correspondence had passed under his eyes, from which it was impossible to say that more attend in could have been paid to he subject of the commercial interests of England than had been paid to it by those gentlemen. They had directed the attention of the House government to the fact of the ease which was now brought forward, and every, thing had been done that could be expected or desired. Still that did not justify the motion then before the House. The hon. Member for Ipswich had stated, on his own authority, that the Russian Government had interfered to prevent making a free port of Slito. That might be so, and still we might have been able to afford some assistance or countenance to the establishment of that port. This, however, on one side and the other, could only have been by friendly representation, and by advice; however, as had been stated, the affair really regarded Sweden alone, and did not justify the remonstrances of foreign states. That circumstance, therefore, would form no ground whatever for this motion; no ground whatever for the production of these papers; for whatever might be the authority or recommendation for their production, they were of a character and description which the House had not a right to ask, and which, if granted, would only defeat the object of the hon. Mover. It would lead to a precedent for the production of all papers of this kind, and, instead of furthering the present object, would materially mar and prevent the efforts the Government were now making to effect it. He could again assure the hon. Gentleman that, whether he regarded the reduction of duties, or the taxation of British merchants in Sweden, or the question of the canal, or the port communication, or their interests generally, there had been no neglect, no indifference, no want of attention; but if the Howe supported the hon. Member in calling for these papers they would injure the promotion of our commercial interests in that part a the world, and would greatly mar their own object.

Mr. Darby

observed, that there was a great discrepancy between the statements of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. The noble Lord had said, that no mischief would ensue from the production of these papers, but that no case had been made out for their production; and most undoubtedly, from what the noble Lord said, that he should have been induced to vote, if the House divided on the question, with the Government; but when the right hon. Gentleman had said, that it was not on that ground he objected to the motion, but because it would be most detrimental to the object in view to produce them, when two such different opinions were given by Members of the Government, it was hardly possible for him to decide as to his vote. The noble Lord, however, had more to do with this subject than the right hon. Gentleman; and therefore he must conclude, that he was right, and the right hon. Gentleman was wrong. He should support the motion, though he should have voted with the Government if it had been shown to have been detrimental to their proceedings.

Viscount Palmerston

said, there was no inconsistency between his statement and that of his right hon. Friend, for his right hon. Friend had not said that the production of the papers in question would be detrimental to any proceedings on the part of the Government, but that it would most likely defeat the object of the hon. Mover.

Mr. Warburton

thought the papers should be produced; first, because the English public were not generally informed of the importance of this station, and, secondly, that if they were laid on the Table their attention would be called to this subject, and consequently the attention of the Government would be drawn to it as well. There was no question about the importance of this station; and, in his opinion, it was of the utmost importance to establish the closest possible alliance between this country and Norway and Sweden.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, there was no difference of opinion on the part of any of the Gentlemen who had addressed the House in the course of the debate, as to the importance of the establishment of a free port in the island of Gottland; but the question was, how, in a matter of internal legislation belonging exclusively to Sweden, that object could be best attained. Reference had been made to Russian influence; but suppose that there were interests in Stockholm contrary to the establishment of a free port at Slito, did they think, putting the question in that point of view, that Russian influence would be best counteracted be best affected by the interference of that House. Let them remember the question of inland warehouses in Great Britain, which had frequently been mooted. When that question was before Government and Parliament did the House think that a satisfactory settlement of it would have been in any shape favoured by its being urged forward in the Chamber of Deputies in France? He would only ask them to apply to foreign countries the same rules which we should ourselves adopt, sensitive as we were to foreign interference in British affairs. Even at the present time, when the question of the corn-laws was being agitated, how would hon. Gentlemen opposite relish discussions in foreign countries tending to control or even to influence our own legislation on this subject, and yet if they carried the motion of the hon. Member they would sanction and recommend the adoption of that principle. His noble Friend had stated, that there was no political danger in the production of the papers, and yet that statement which had been made with the most perfect candour on his part, had been most unfairly turned against him. Nothing had been easier than for his hon. Friend to have passed over that part of the subject, and he then would have answered the motion: but though there was no political danger, what he doubted was, whether a case of political expediency had been made out to qualify the production of these papers, or rather whether there was not a case made out showing the political inexpediency of our Legislature interposing in the internal concerns of another country. He was fully warranted in saying, that there had not been a single application from any quarter asking for his noble Friend's interference in obtaining the establishment of this free port. How then could the Secretary of State be charged with neglect. And would it not be a case of direct Quixotism when there had been no representation on the subject, made to the Foreign Office, where there was consequently no complaint of neglect, it would be a case of Quixotism for the House to come forward and say that there had been neglect, and that there was a necessity for the active interference of the Foreign Secretary in such a matter. When ever complaints had been made to the Government, they had never been dismissed without inquiry; and this was the first instance in which any individual Member had come forward, and in the absence of all complaint had endeavoured to make out such a case against the existing Government; the House would remember the admission made by his noble Friend, the Secretary for the Foreign Department, that the establishment of this free port was an object of importance to British interests, but coupled with this, there was the mere assertion that the House ought not to interfere actively with the internal affairs of another country. The House might assert and vindicate its perfect freedom of action within our own territory, but there could be no doubt that if the papers were granted, and if the House should interfere, such a step, marking censure and want of confidence in the Government would only tend to counteract the exertions of the Foreign Office, and mar the object they all had in view.

Mr. Ward

said, that to employ the language of remonstrance in a case of the kind, would be to use a species of coercion, which neither Government would be justified in exercising towards a friendly Power, in regard to its internal interests. If he supported the motion of the hon. Gentleman, that support would rest more on the speeches of the hon. Gentleman's opponents than on his own. However clearly the hon. Gentleman had made out his case, still he (Mr. Ward) did not think it a case which called for the interference of that House. There was no violation of British interests, no disregard of British remonstrance. This was not a case, therefore, for Parliamentary interference. The support which he should give to the motion of the hon. Gentleman rested on the speech of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The noble Lord laid down as a maxim, that British diplomacy ought not to meddle in such an affair, but if this were so, of what possible value could diplomacy be in the mercantile affairs of this country. He thought this a proper case for diplomatic interference, and when it was found that Russian influence was employed to prevent the establishment of a free port at Slito, was it not the duty of the representative of British interests at Stockholm to counteract that influence. It was essential to the trade of this country, as well as that of Sweden, that there should be a free port at Slito. This country had no political interests with Sweden, our communication with that country was merely mercantile, and therefore, if our mercantile interests were not facilitated by the British agent at Stockholm, he should like to know of what advantage it was, to keep up the expense of such an establishment. Suppose the question relating to the Danube on a system of reciprocity of trade being introduced, could it be said that the influence of Russia, or of any other power adverse to this country, should not be counteracted by our accredited agents. He thought it could not, and therefore, as he considered it highly expedient for the noble Lord himself that the papers should be produced, in order that it might be seen how far the interests of this country were supported in Sweden, he should certainly give his vote in favour of the hon. Gentleman's proposition.

Mr. Gibson,

in reply, said, the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, had admitted that his statement as to there having been no Consul in Sweden the last sixteen months, was correct; but he added, that, although such was the case, nevertheless there was a person at Stockholm who performed the duties of Consul quite as well as if he had been appointed. Now, that might be satisfactory if the House considered that an alien, a native of Sweden, a man engaged in trade, the partner in an extensive mercantile house in Stockholm, not trading even with this country, a man receiving no salary, and responsible to no one would be as fit to look after the interests of this country as a British subject. Unless they considered this, they could not admit the argument of the noble Lord, but for his (Mr. Gibson's) own part, he must say that it was monstrous to intrust the duties of consul to this kind of person, and the more especially when they must know that his whole time was fully occupied by his own concerns. When he found, that there had been no British Consul in Stockholm for nearly seventeen months, he must presume, that there was some truth in the rumour which was current, that our interests had been neglected at Stockholm. The parliamentary ground on which he rested his motion, and he thought no better could be required, was, that the public had a right to the production of these papers, in order to see that the government had not suffered the interests of this country to be prejudiced in Sweden. The party in charge of British interests at Stockholm, was, no doubt, a most respectable person, but it was not to be justified that he should have been left in so forlorn a position, and without the advice of either a Minister or a Consul, properly accredited from this country to assist him in the protection of British interests. It was as much a matter of justice to the noble Lord, as to satisfying the public that there had been no grounds for the charge of neglect which was imputed to the noble Lord that called for these papers.

The House divided: Ayes 118; Noes 140: Majority 22.

List of the AYES.
Acland Sir T. D.	Gladstone, W. E.
Acland, T. D.	Glynne, Sir S. R.
Adare, Viscount	Gore, O. J. R.
Aglionby, H. A.	Goring, H. D.
Alsager, Captain	Grant, F. W.
Archdall, M.	Grote, G.
Bagge, W.	Halford, H.
Bailey, J. jun.	Hall, Sir B.
Barrington, Viscount	Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.
Bateson, Sir R.	Hawes, B.
Bell, M.	Hector, C. J.
Blackstone, W. S.	Hepburn, Sir T. B.
Blair, J.	Hodgson, R.
Blake, W. J.	Hope, hon. C.
Blandford, Marq. of	Hughes, W. B.
Bramston, T. W.	Hume, J.
Broadley, H.	Humphery, J.
Bruce, Lord E.	Hurt, F.
Bruges, W. H. L.	Jackson, Mr. Serg.
Chalmers, P.	James, Sir W. C.
Chute, W. L. W.	Jervis, S.
Clive, hon. R. H.	Jones, J.
Colquhoun, J. C.	Jones, Captain
Conolly, E.	Kemble, H.
Courtenay, P.	Kinnaird, hon. A. F.
Darby, G.	Knight, H. G.
Dick, Q.	Knox, hon. T.
Douglas, Sir C. E.	Leader, J. T.
Dugdale, W. S.	Lefroy, rt. hon. T.
Duncombe, hon. A.	Liddell, hon. H. T.
Dungannon, Visct.	Mackenzie, T.
Du Pre, G.	Mackenzie, W. F.
Eaton, R. J.	Marsland, H.
Egerton, W. T.	Marsland, T.
Estcourt, T.	Master, T. W. C.
Estcourt, T.	Maxwell, hon. S. R.
Evans, W.	Miles, P. W. S.
Fector, J. M.	Monypenny, T. G.
Finch, F.	Mordaunt, Sir J.
Forester, hon. G.	Noel, W. M.
Gaskell, J. M.	O'Neill, hon. J. B. R.

Pakington, J. S.	Spry, Sir S. T.
Palmer, R.	Strutt, E.
Parker, R. T.	Style, Sir C.
Perceval, Colonel	Teignmouth, Lord
Perceval, hon. G. J.	Thomas, Colonel H.
Plumptre, J. P.	Vere, Sir C. B.
Praed, W. T.	Vivian, J. E.
Richards, R.	Waddington, H. S.
Rickford, W.	Wakley, T.
Rolleston, L.	Warburton, H.
Round, C. G.	Ward, H. G.
Rushout, G.	Williams, R.
Salway, Col.	Winnington, T. E.
Sanderson, R.	Wood, T.
Scarlett, hon. J. Y.	Wynn, Williams
Shaw, rt. hon. F.	Young, Sir W.
Shirley, E. J.
Sibthorp, Colonel	TELLERS.
Smyth, Sir G. H.	Gibson, M.
Somerset, Lord G.	Rushbrooke, Colonel

List of the NOES.
Abercromby, hn. G. R.	Ferguson, Sir R. A.
Adam, Admiral	Fitzroy, Lord C.
Aglionby, Major	Fleetwood, Sir P. H.
Ainsworth, P.	Fort, J.
Alston, R.	Gordon, R.
Anson, hon. Colonel	Grattan, J.
Archbold, R.	Grattan, H.
Baines, E.	Grey, rt. hon. Sir C.
Bannerman, A.	Grey, Sir G.
Baring, F. T.	Hawkins, J. H.
Beamish, F. B.	Hayter, W. G.
Bellew, R. M.	Heathcoat, J.
Berkeley, hon. H.	Hill, Lord A. M. C.
Berkeley, hon. C.	Hindley, C.
Bernal, R.	Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.
Bewes, T.	Hobhouse, T. B.
Blake, M. J.	Howard, F. J.
Bodkin, J. J.	Howard, P. H.
Bridgeman, H.	Howard, Sir R.
Brocklehurst, J.	Howick, Visct.
Brotherton, J.	Hutton, R.
Bryan, G.	James, W.
Busfield, W.	Labouchere, rt. hn. H.
Callaghan, D.	Langdale, hon. C.
Cavendish, hon. G. H.	Lemon, Sir C.
Clay, W.	Lister, E. C.
Clive, E. B.	Lushington, C.
Collins, W.	Lushington, rt. hn. S
Craig, W. G.	Lygon, hon. General
Crawley, S.	Lynch, A. H.
Crompton, Sir S.	Macleod, R.
Curry, W.	Macnamara, Major
Dalmeny, Lord	M'Taggart, J.
Davies, Colonel	Maher, J.
D'Eyncourt, rt. hon. C. T.	Marshall, W.
	Maule, hon. F.
Divett, E.	Mildmay, P. St. John
Donkin, Sir R. s.	Morpeth, Lord Visct.
Duckworth, S.	Morris, D.
Duke, Sir J.	Murray, rt. hn. J. A.
Dundas, C. W. D.	Muskett, G. A.
Elliot, hon. J. E.	Nagle, Sir R.
Etwall, R.	Norreys, Sir D. J.
Evans, G.	O'Brien, C.
Fenton, J.	O'Brien, W. S.

O'Ferrall, R. M.	Sheil, R. L.
Paget, Lord A.	Slaney, R. A.
Paget, F.	Smith, R. V.
Palmer, C. F.	Stanley, M.
Palmerston, Visct.	Stanley, W. O.
Parker, J.	Stansfield, W. R.
Parnell, rt. hon. Sir H.	Stewart, J.
Parrott, J.	Stuart, Lord J.
Pechell, Captain	Stuart, V.
Philips, Sir R.	Stock, Dr.
Philips, M.	Strickland, Sir G.
Philips, G. R.	Thomson, rt. hon. C. P.
Phillpotts, J.	Thorneley, T.
Pigot, D. R.	Townley, R. G.
Power, J.	Turner, E.
Protheroe, E.	Vigors, N.
Pryme, G.	Walker, R.
Redington, T. N.	White, A.
Rice, E. R.	White, H.
Rice, rt. hon. T. S.	Wilbraham, G.
Roche, E. B.	Winnington, H. J.
Roche, W.	Wood, G. W.
Roche, Sir D.	Worsley, Lord
Rolfe, Sir R. M.	Yates, J. A.
Russell, Lord J.	TELLERS.
Sanford, E. A.	Seymour, Lord
Seale, Sir J. H.	Steuart, R.

Paired off.
FOR.	AGAINST.
Pigot, R.	Grey, c.