Commons Sitting of 15 April 1840

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Imprisonment for Debt (Ireland); Royal Burghs (Scotland); Police Rates Assessment; Exchequer Bills; Soap Duties.
Petitions presented. By Admiral Adam, from Clackmannan, for, and by Mr. J. Round, and Lord Ossulton, from two places, against the Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Mr. Hume, from several places, for an Extension of the Franchise, and the Ballot; also from Dumbarton, for a Mitigation of the Punishment of Frost, Jones, and Williams.—By the Attorney-general, from Edinburgh, in favour of the Inland Warehousing Bill.—By Mr. T. Duncombe, from a number of Individuals, against the removal of Vincent from Monmouth.—By Captain Gordon, from several places, for Settling the Scotch Church Question.—By Mr. Wakley, from Greenock, for Annual Parliaments, and Vote by Ballot; from Surgeons at Stowe, and Bridgenorth, for Medical Reform.—By Mr. W. Ellis, from Market Harborough, against the Opium Trade.—By Sir R. H. Inglis, from numerous places, for Church Extension, and against the Clergy Reserves Bill. —By Mr. B. Smith, from Norwich, for Church Extension.—By Lord G. Somerset, from several places, for the same.—By Lord Morpeth, from a number of places, for and against Church Extension, and in favour of Non-Intrusion; also from Medical Men of Ireland, for Reform of the Medical parts of the Poor-laws.

BUSINESS—ADJOURNMENT—DISPUTE WITH NAPLES.
Lord John Russellsaid, that in moving the adjournment of the

1119
House, it might be convenient to the House that he should state the course which he intended to pursue with respect to the public business, which stood fixed for certain days after Easter. He intended to propose that the House, at its rising, do adjourn to Wednesday, the 29th of April, on which day, of course, orders of the day would have precedence of notices. He believed, however, that the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Reading, wished to bring on his Copyright Bill on that day. On the Friday following he would not proceed with the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues' Bill, but would defer it to a future day. On Friday, the 1st of May, and on Monday, the 4th of May, it was intended to proceed with votes in committee of supply and the miscellaneous estimates; and on the Friday following, namely, the 8th of May, his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would make his financial statement. He had already fixed the committee on the Canada Bill for Monday, the 11th of May, and he should propose to proceed with it on that day, in which case he would postpone the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues' Bill till the following Monday, namely, the 18th of May. He would now move that the House, at its rising, do adjourn to Wednesday, the 29th instant.
Viscount Mahonbegged to ask the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, in the absence of his noble colleague, Secretary for Foreign Affairs, whether any directions had been issued for commencing a blockade, or taking other hostile proceedings against Naples?
Lord John Russellsaid, that certainly instructions had been given by her Majesty's Government with respect to the sulphur monopoly, and further instructions had been given, that in case, within a certain time, there should not be a satisfactory answer received from the Neapolitan government, that, in that case, the British admiral commanding in the Mediterranean, should detain all ships sailing under the Neapolitan flag, or belonging to Naples. These instructions had been sent out, and the last intelligence which the Government had received from Naples was, that our minister at the court of Naples, having delivered a note, had received a reply, which was evasive and unsatisfactory. The ambassador upon this had communicated with the admiral, who had at that
1120
time under his consideration what measures he should deem necessary to adopt, to carry into effect the instructions he had received.
Lord Mahonhad a further question to put as to the authenticity of a document which he had seen in the public prints, and which purported to come from the British consular authority at Naples, and directed to British merchants.
Lord J. Russell: I have not seen it.
Mr. Hume: I will read the document to the noble Lord. The hon. Member then read the following document:—
"Gentlemen—I am directed by the hon. W. Temple, her Britannic Majesty's Envoy Extraordinary to the court of Naples, to inform the British merchants resident in this kingdom that circumstances have arisen which very probably will oblige the naval forces of her Majesty to make reprisals upon ships sailing under the flag of the Two Sicilies, and to warn them to make such reserve in their shipments on board such vessels as in consequence of this notice they may think right. I hasten to communicate this information to you, and if any ulterior measures tending to fetter British commerce are deemed necessary, or may arise, you may rely upon my making you acquainted with them.
"April 2, 1840." TH. GALWAY."
Before the House adjourned for a single day, there ought to be given some explanation with regard to the treaty which had been agreed to be signed and ratified on the 1st of January last, by which the sulphur question was conceded. Why had not the treaty been carried into effect? The House ought immediately to have a copy of all the correspondence that had taken place, as it was likely that war would be the consequence. They were at war with China already; they were obliged to maintain a fleet on the coast of Turkey; matters in North America were in a very precarious state, and now they were to have a war with Naples. The House ought not to adjourn a single day until they received some satisfactory explanation upon the subject.
Lord J. Russellsaid, he had not seen the document which the hon. Gentleman had just read, but he was aware that her Majesty's minister at Naples had given instructions to the consul to issue a notice to British subjects and merchants, and he did not see any reason to question the fact that the document read by the hon. Gentleman had been issued in pursuance of such instructions. With regard to the

1121
general question of the commercial treaty, he thought that the House and the hon. Member had already received an answer from his noble Friend, the Secretary of State for the Foreign Department. There was a proposal made for a commercial treaty, but no authority had been given on the part of the Neapolitan government to sign that treaty, and no treaty satisfactory to the commercial interests of this country had been agreed to by the Neapolitan court. With respect to the sulphur monopoly, that was a question upon which her Majesty's Government held that the stipulations of a former treaty had not been complied with. Therefore, what they demanded from the government of Naples was, that the stipulations of that former treaty should be complied with, and that British merchants should not be injured by a violation of that treaty. This subject had already excited attention in this country, and it was probable that the hon. Member for Kilkenny was aware, as most persons were aware, that there had been a discussion in the other House of Parliament concerning it, and her Majesty's Government were accused of being very tardy and remiss in not demanding satisfaction for a clear violation of a treaty.
Mr. Humesaid, that he did not accuse the Government or the Secretary for Foreign Affairs with culpable neglect, but that House ought to know, before the country was involved in a war, every circumstance connected with the subject. The House had better adjourn till tomorrow.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that he did not think that any papers that the Government could lay before the House would materially alter the question. Before the discussion on the subject came on he thought the hon. Member for Kilkenny had better make up his mind, whether the Government had been tardy and remiss, or whether they had been hasty and intemperate in bringing this matter to at conclusion.
Sir J. Grahambegged to ask, whether any order in council had been passed for detaining Neapolitan vessels until reparation should be obtained, as in the case of China?
Lord J. Russellsaid, that no order in council had been issued, as none was necessary. In China such an order was rendered necessary by the time that must
1122
elapse before communications could be held with this country.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, that the noble Lord had admitted that instructions had been given to the British admiral under certain circumstances to detain all Neapolitan vessels. He had yet to learn that, according to the law of nations, any such proceeding could be authorised without an order in council.
Lord J. Russellsaid, he would not then enter into a dispute with the right hon. Baronet with regard to the law of nations. He trusted that the Neapolitan government, either upon its own motion, or by the advice of others, would give satisfaction on this subject; in which case all vessels that might be detained would be released without the necessity of bringing them before any court of admiralty.
Motion for an adjournment agreed to.

TOTNESS ELECTION.
Sir T. Fremantlesaid, he had that day received a communication from Devonshire, stating, that the writ which had been received by the under-sheriff he had in vain attempted to serve on the Friday and Saturday, but that he had since been able to serve it on the Monday, and as that was within the time allowed by the Act of Parliament and as the mayor had given notice of the election, he trusted that the delay which had occurred would not lead to any inconvenience, and he should, therefore, not bring forward the motion for inquiry of which he had given notice.

LORD SEATON'S ANNUITY.
On the order of the day for the third reading of Lord Seaton's Annuity Bill,
Mr. Humewished to remind the House of the valuable sum which it was proposed to grant to Lord Seaton. The grant, he believed, would amount to about 150,000 l; and he wished to ask the House, if they were prepared in the present state of the country, to grant so large a sum to one who had departed in many instances from all the principles on which Englishmen should act. He thought the noble Lord was in no way entitled to receive this sum for his services, and he therefore proposed to reject the bill altogether.
Lord J. Russellsaid, he had but one answer to make to the charges against Lord Seaton, and that was, that he was sure those charges made no impression upon the public mind. People of all

1123
parties were, on the contrary, agreed as to the merits of that noble Lord.
Mr. Hume Mr. Hume moved, that the bill should be read a third time on that day six months.
Mr. Wardwould vote against the principle of a grant for three lives. He would not, however, enter into a discussion on the conduct of Lord Seaton, but he should say that he entirely disapproved of the extent of the grant, and the attempt to create what he should call a pauper peerage. On these grounds he should vote for the motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny.
The House divided on the original question—Ayes 77; Noes 17—Majority 60.

List of the AYES.

Abercromby, hn. G.R.

Hoskins, K.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Adam, Admiral

Irving, J.

Alston, R.

Jones, J.

Baillie, Colonel

Lemon, Sir C.

Baillie, H. J.

Lushington, rt. hn. S.

Baring, rt. hn. F. T.

Lygon, hon. General

Baring, hon. W. B.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Barnard, E. G.

Macnamara, Major

Bernal, R.

Mahon, Viscount

Blackburne, I.

Maule, hon. F.

Blair, J.

Maunsell, T. P.

Broadley, H.

Mildmay, P. St. John

Bruges, W. H. L.

Packe, C. W.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Palmer, G.

Byng, rt. hon. G. S.

Palmerston, Viscount

Campbell, Sir J.

Perceval, hon. G. J.

Chute, W. L. W.

Polhill, F.

Copeland, Alderman

Richards, R.

Craig, W. G.

Round, J.

Cresswell, C.

Russell, Lord J.

East, J. B.

Rutherfurd, rt. hon. A.

Egerton, W. T.

Seymour. Lord

Ellis, J.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Estcourt, T.

Smith, J. A.

Ferguson, R.

Smith, A.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Smith, R. V.

Freshfield, J. W.

Somerset, Lord G.

Gaskell, J. M.

Stewart, J.

Gordon, R.

Stock, Dr.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Greene, T.

Vernon, G. H.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir C.

Wodehouse, E.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Wood, G. W.

Hastie, A.

Wood, Colonel T.

Heathcote, Sir. W.

Wrightson, W. B.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Young, J.

Hodgson, R.

Holmes, hon. W. A'Court

TELLERS.

Parker, J.

Hope, G. W.

Stanley, E. J.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Duncombe, T.

Bridgeman, H,

Ewart, W.

1124

Godson, R.

Vigors, N. A.

Hawes, B.

Wakley, T.

Hector, C. J.

White, A.

Hill, Lord A. M. C.

Williams, W.

Hindley, C.

Yates, J. A.

Morris, D.

TELLERS.

Muntz, G. F.

Ward, G.

Salwey, Colonel

Hume, J.

Bill read a third time and passed.

PRISON REGULATIONS.
Report of the Prisons' Regulations Bill brought up.
Mr. Greenethought it a matter of great importance, that some general and uniform system should be introduced into all the prisons in the country with regard to debtors. He thought it led to great dissatisfaction, that one set of visiting justices should lay down one set of-rules in one county, and another set of visiting justices different rules in another.
Mr. Hawesthought the whole subject was one which ought to be proceeded in with very considerable caution, because he hoped the time was not far distant, when a report would be laid before that House recommending that imprisonment for debt should be altogether abolished, except with regard to fraudulent debtors. But to this class of persons a punishment would be awarded for misconduct, and they ought to suffer for that misconduct according to the rules of the gaol, and ought not to be considered as debtors under the ordinary acceptation of the term.
Mr. F. Maulesaid, the question was one which required to be treated with great delicacy. The object of the present bill was merely to relieve debtors from the stringency of certain rules at present in force at prisons.
Lord G. Somersetsaid, there was another point to which the attention of the Government ought to be directed, he meant the exceedingly anomalous position in which gaolers of the county prisons were placed. They were the servants of the high sheriff, whereas the rules and regulations for the management of the gaols were made by the county magistrates. The inconvenience of such an arrangement ought to be done away with.
Mr. Wakleyhoped the Government would be disposed to go a step further, and take the regulations of gaols altogether out of the hands of the justices of the peace. His opinion was that they, of all persons, were the most incompetent for

1125
the conduct of such business. The Government should appoint some responsible persons, who would be paid for the discharge of their duty, and not act in the factious spirit in which the magistrates too frequently acted with regard to certain prisoners. Until these regulations were taken out of the hands of the magistrates the country would never be satisfied. He wished to know, whether the noble Lord had made any regulations with respect to prisoners committed under the coroner's warrant, because a short time since he had occasion to have a female prisoner from Clerkenwell to give evidence before him, and upon that prisoner being sent back, the officer refused to receive her.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that some time since an order in council had been issued, by which Newgate was the prison to which the coroner was authorised to send persons committed by him. The order in council, however, did not extend to any other prison.
Report agreed to.

PRIVILEGE. — STOCKDALE. v. HANSARD.—DlSCHARGE OF THE SHERIFFS, &c] —
Sir R. Inglisdid intend, in the motion which he was about to make to the House to include all the parties committed by the House for a breach of privilege, but finding that such a course would not be so convenient as a separate motion for each party, he would adopt that suggestion. He could have wished that the task had been undertaken by the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, who, with his colleague, would have the grace of what he would then call, not an act of justice, but one of mercy, and who would also have the cordial support of the House in carrying the motion. However, not apprehending any opposition to the three first motions which he was about to submit to the House, he would avoid all provocative language, and content himself with saying, that the time was now come when the House would unanimously concur in this proposition, "That the order for the appearance of Mr. Sheriff Evans at the bar of the House on the 6th of May next, be forthwith discharged."
Lord J. Russell: I had placed a similar notice upon the paper, and I cordially second the motion of the hon. Baronet.
Motion carried.
Sir R. Inglis Sir R. Inglis moved that Thomas Howard, jun., the son of Thomas Burton
1126
Howard, and who was committed to the custody of the Sergeant-at-arms for conducting the action in the cause of Stockdale v. Hansard, according to the instructions of his father, be forthwith discharged without payment of the usual fees.
The Attorney-Generalwould suggest the propriety of omitting the recital after the name of Thomas Howard, jun., because it was unnecessary.
Sir R. Inglisacceded, as he was anxious to proceed in a conciliatory manner; but the language he used was the identical language of the resolutions upon the books of the House.
Motion agreed to.
Sir R. Inglis Sir R. Inglis moved, that Thomas George Johnson Pearce, clerk to Thomas Burton Howard, &c. be discharged.
Mr. Warburtondid not intend to make any objection to the motion, but he would be glad to know in what manner the privileges of the House had been vindicated? There had not been a petition even presented from any of these persons deprecating the justice, or soliciting; the forgiveness of the House. But the House was informed that as an Act of Parliament had been recently passed, the entire matter would be buried in oblivion.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, that if these individuals had suffered punishment which the House considered sufficient, he did not see why they should not be discharged. There was no receding from the privilege either by the motion made by the hon. Baronet, or by the bill which had been lately passed, and which was an act merely to afford "speedy protection" to publications made by the order of the House.
Lord J. Russell: After the remark made by the lion. Member for Bridport, it is necessary for me to state, that in agreeing to the motion, I do not agree to it on the ground stated by that hon. Member. I agree to it, because, with regard to Mr. Howard, jun., and to Mr. Pearce, they were the inferior instruments in the actions brought by Stockdale against the printers of the House, and in committing them the House acted in vindication of its privilege. The imprisonment, however, which they have suffered I deem a sufficient atonement for the offence they have committed; considering, as I have already said, that they were merely the inferior instruments. But I do not agree to their release on account of the Act of Par-

1127
liament which has recently passed, which does not make any difference with respect to the privilege of the House.
Motion agreed to.
Sir R. Inglishoped that the next motion which he was about to propose would be passed with as little opposition, and which stood upon equal grounds of justice as those which preceded it. The motion which he meant to propose was for the release of Thomas Burton Howard himself, who was entitled to release, on the ground stated by the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), with respect to the son and the clerk; viz., that he was an inferior instrument. However, if that was a good reason now, it would have been a more conclusive one for not committing him or any of the parties for whose release he then moved. It was now too late for the House to state, that they could detain any person for an appeal to a court of law on any matter connected with the publication of a libel by the House. By assenting to the bill which had recently passed, the House admitted that a court of law alone could give summary protection to persons engaged in printing Parliamentary papers, and the House, moreover, by that bill, established the principle, that an appeal to a court of law was not inconsistent with the privileges of the House. Whatever might be done before the committal of these individuals, it was then clearly ascertained by the bill, the last clause of which declared and enacted, that nothing therein contained should be deemed or construed to affect the privileges of Parliament in any manner whatever. If such be the case, and if it were not, as appeared by the provisions of that bill, inconsistent with the privileges of the House to appeal to a court of law to-morrow, what violation of privilege could there be in appealing to a court of law on Monday, or last week, or last month, or last year, or at any time. The bill stated that the privilege of Parliament was not affected by its clauses, and that bill gave, at the same time, power of appeal to a court of law; where, then, could there be the breach of privilege? The moment the House affirmed an appeal to a court of law without a violation of its privileges, from that instant he held that it could not punish any person on such ground for a breach of privilege. It therefore followed that Mr. Stockdale had not, by applying to a court of law, violated the privileges of the House, and a fortiori,
1128
Mr. Howard, who was merely his attorney, and who ought not to have been committed in the first instance. He would now proceed with his motion, and avoid those recitals to which the noble Lord and hon. Gentlemen opposite had dissented; but, before he read the terms of his motion, he would state a fact that Mr. Howard had refused by letter to take any part in the action brought by Mr. Stockdale, and it was not until Mr. Stockdale appealed to him upon professional grounds, charging him with a neglect of duty to him as his client, that he took any part in the proceedings. There was another ground which it was important for the House to recollect, it was this, that if the House wished to make Mr. Howard a rich, a powerful, and a triumphant man, they would refuse the motion. Mr. Howard had taken an action against the officers of the House for excess of duty; that action was proceeding in despite of the House, and, when it ripened to a hearing, a British jury will give him such damages as will make him a rich man, in compensation for the loss of liberty he will suffer by the rejection of the motion—rich and triumphant, if not powerful, the rejection of the motion will indubitably make him. He begged to move, "That Thomas Burton Howard, having on the 6th of February, been committed to Newgate by a warrant from the Speaker, under the orders and resolutions of the House, because, as attorney for John Joseph Stockdale, he served a writ of summons upon Messrs. Hansard, the printers of this House, to cause an appearance to be entered in the court of Queen's Bench, in an action at the suit of John Joseph Stockdale, in respect of a publication ordered by authority of this House, be forthwith discharged."
Lord J. Russellconfessed, that he was not disposed, when he came down to the House, to agree to the motion which the hon. Baronet had just made; but even if he had been disposed to agree to it, everything the hon. Baronet had said ought to induce the House not to accede to this motion. Before the hon. Baronet spoke, he was afraid it might be implied by some persons that the House considered it had not the privilege of committing Mr. Stockdale and Mr. Howard for this action, but the hon. Baronet had specially removed any such implication. He denied that the bill, which was now part of the statute law of the land, bad made any

1129
difference in relation to the privileges of the House—privileges which had so frequently been asserted by a majority of the House, and which he (Lord J. Russell) should be ready again to exercise iii any future case that might occur. The House had never resigned any of its powers, or abandoned any of its privileges, by passing the Printed Papers' Act. On the contrary, it was stated in the preamble of that Act, that those powers and privileges were necessary to the House for the due performance of its functions, and it then went on to state, that the Act was passed for the purpose of giving more speedy protection, in case the privilege was invaded, against all civil or criminal proceedings which might be instituted against any officer of that House acting under its authority. One of the effects of the Act would be, that if during the vacation, or during the approaching recess, any proceedings were instituted against any officer of the House for acts done for the maintenance of the privilege, those proceedings could at once be determined; but. it did not at the same time follow, that the attorney who might institute such proceedings would not be guilty of a violation of privilege. On the contrary, should such a case occur, he (Lord J. Russell) should immediately after the recess proceed at once for a breach of privilege and move a commitment, and he felt that he should be as perfectly justified in taking that step after the passing of the Printed Papers' Act as he should have been before. Indeed he might rest his justification upon the last clause and the preamble of the Act itself, for the words "more speedy protection" implied that the protection already existed, but that it was not sufficiently speedy for the purpose. If, for instance, the hon. Member for Warwick obtained an Act of Parliament for summary conviction in cases of petty larceny, though the summary conviction was granted, still cases of petty larceny might go to a jury. It was true that the Printed Papers' Act gave summary protection to the privilege, but it was not true to say, that it took away the other powers of the House, for the power of commitment for violation of privilege remained the same as before. With this view of the case, he felt himself bound to oppose the motion. As to the alleged disinclination of Mr. Howard to violate the privilege in the first instance, it was now apparent that, whe-
1130
ther from motives of gain or of obstinacy, he was the person who most pertinaciously opposed it; and the best mode of protecting the privilege in future was to show, that the House was not likely to suffer such attempts to pass with impunity. There was no other way to deter others from attempting a like violation, and to show, that the House had not parted with any portion of its powers. In the last action which had been brought by Howard, it could not be alleged, that he was urged on by Stockdale against his will. He, of his own accord, brought an action against the officers of that House, who were only acting in the performance of their duty, who had been guilty of no act of unnecessary violence, nor had exhibited any intention of going' beyond their instructions. This action had been undertaken with a view of disputing the commitment which had attracted so much ill-directed sympathy from several hon. Members, and not for the purpose of redressing any real injury sustained by the invasion of this House, or having been subjected to more violence than was necessary for the arrest of his person.
Mr. Freshfieldthought, that if it were not inconsistent with the honour or dignity of the Mouse, it would be highly desirable that Mr. Howard should be discharged from custody. He would put it to the House whether, as a question of punishment, the detention from business of a professional man for such a period was not quite sufficient. If the noble Lord objected to the discharge at present, it would be accepted as some concession, if it were understood that a similar proposition would be more favourably entertained, after the recess.
Mr. Wakleydid not see, after what had taken place, how the proposition of the hon. Member for the University of Oxford could be consistently opposed by the noble Lord. The noble Lord must confess, painful though the confession might be, that Mr. Howard was upheld in the course he had adopted by the Lord Chief Justice and the Court of Queen's Bench. No person was more opposed than he (Mr. Wakley) to attempts which had been made to violate the privileges which that House possessed, as representatives of the people, but the bringing in a bill to protect the privileges was an admission on the part of the House that it had not the power to maintain them. Yes, he maintained, that

1131
the passing of the bill was an acknowledgment of Mr. Howard's right to institute his action, and the only course which it could now with any sense of propriety or show of justice pursue, was to liberate all the parties implicated. By a longer continuance of their imprisonment the House would be seriously injured in public estimation.
The Attorney-Generalhad hoped that it would have been unnecessary for him to rise on the present occasion, but the observations which had been made called for some reply. If Mr. Howard had exhibited any signs of submission to the House or have tendered any expression of regret, he should himself at once have seconded the motion for that gentleman's discharge. On the contrary, the course pursued by Mr. Howard was most contumacious, and the case had been argued by the hon. Baronet and others who supported him on grounds which would be subversive of the rights and privileges of the House, It should be remembered, that Mr. Howard was the person who had expressed regret for the part he had taken in the action brought by Stockdale, and, though he did not admit having committed a breach of privilege, he expressed himself sorry for having incurred the displeasure of the House. On that occasion he was not committed to custody, but was let go at liberty after having been reprimanded from the chair; yet in twenty-four hours after he brought another action in the same case. This was a gross violation of the privileges of the House, which ought no to be passed lightly over. The hon. Baronet said, that Mr. Howard first refused to undertake the case of Stockdale until compelled by professional duty. He denied that it was the duly of a professional man to undertake any case which he might be called upon to conduct. He should first inquire if there were good grounds, and finding that not to be the case, he should not proceed. If the House were to consent to this motion on the grounds maintained by the hon. Baronet, it would entirely do away with its power of commitment.
Mr. Wardhad supported the privilege and the commitment as long as there was a great object to be maintained. That being done, and the punishment already inflicted on Mr. Howard being sufficient, he thought they ought to throw a veil over the past.
The House divided: Ayes 22; Noes 42: Majority 20.

List of the AYES.

Broadley, H.

Pemberton, T.

Bruges, W. H. L,

Perceval, hon. G. J.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Plumptre, J. P.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Polhill, F.

Darby, G.

Richards, R.

Duncombe, T,

Round, J.

Godson, R.

Somerset, Lord G.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Wakley, T.

Hope, G. W.

Ward, H. G.

Ingestre, Viscount

Mahon, Viscount

TELLERS.

Maunsell, T. P.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Packe, C. W.

Freshfield, T.

List of the NOES

Aglionby, H. A.

Mildmay, P. St.J.

Baring, right hn. F. T.

Morris, D.

Barnard, E. G.

Muntz, G. F.

Blackburne, I.

Palmerston, Viscount

Bowes, J.

Parker, J.

Campbell, Sir J.

Roche, W.

Clay, W.

Russell, Lord J.

Davies, Colonel

Seale, Sir J. H.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Smith, J. A.

Ellis, J.

Smith, R. V.

Ewart, W.

Thornely, T.

Fox, S. L.

Tufnell, H.

Gordon, R.

Vigors, N. A.

Grey, right hon. Sir C.

Villiers, hon. C. P.

Grey, rt. hn. Sir G.

White, A.

Harcourt, G. G.

Wood, G. W.

Hector, C. J.

Wyse, T.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Yates, J. A.

Hodgson, R.

Young, J.

Hoskins, K.

Jervis, J.

TELLERS.

Lemon, Sir C.

Maule, F.

Lushington, rt. hn. S.

Rutherford, A.

Sir R. Inglisproposed a similar motion with respect to Mr. Stockdale, which was negatived without a division.
Adjourned till April 29.