HC Deb 11 February 1840 vol 52 cc116-31
Mr. Wallace

said, that it was a considerable number of years since he had first introduced to the House the subject of the motion he was about to make. During that period the business of the Supreme Courts in Scotland had very considerably decreased, and a very large increase had taken place in the salaries of the judges. At the time when the salaries were increased, he believed it had been in the contemplation of the noble Lord, the leader of the House, that the question now about to be submitted to the House should be taken into consideration—namely, whether with a large decrease in the business of the Supreme Courts the same number of judges was still required. It appeared from the returns laid before the House that five judges in the Outer House in 1831–2, had 1,956 causes before them in 1838–9, 1,486 causes, showing a diminution of about one-fourth, or nearly 25 per cent, in the number of causes brought into court. The return for the year 1839–40 showed an increase Upon the year of 72 causes, which, however, did not materially affect that calculation. With respect to the Inner House, it appeared from the returns that eight judges sitting in the two Courts of Review decided 495 causes in 1831–2, whilst in 1839–40 eight judges sitting in the same Courts of Review, decided only 288 causes, showing a reduction of more than two-fifths in their labour. The short period the judges sit in court, and the vacations extending to six months at least out of twelve, would show that one Court of Review would be quite enough for the business of the country; and that uniformity of decisions would by this means be ensured, the notorious want of which, under the present system of two Courts of Review, with co-ordinate jurisdiction, Would be provided against. By the return last laid on the table, the number of causes enrolled last year, for the first time before Lord Moncrieff, (one of the oldest and most able judges of the Court of Session) was only 216; whilst the new judge, Lord Cunninghame, in the same period, had 513 causes enrolled before him, showing an increase of more than double the number by 81 causes, and showing also that one judge did not perform one-half of the duty which another judge could and did perform. With regard to the diminution of the number of judges, it would appear that some diminution might be made, from a consideration of the returns which had been just printed, showing the time during which the judges of the Court of Session sat daily. It appeared that the first division of the Inner House sat, on an average, two hours and forty-nine minutes daily; and the second division two hours and eight minutes daily; making an average for both of less than two hours and a half, or a sitting from eleven o'clock to half-past one. It appeared that the Outer Court sat from four to five hours daily, but, in fact, the average length of its sittings was less that four hours, or from nine in the morning to one o'clock. The five judges of this court who sat about four hours a day, did not go into court more than one hundred and fourteen days in the year. Their vacation was more than six months in the year, and the same might be applied to the Court of Review. It was the universal opinion of his countrymen that the periods for which these judges sat was a great deal too short, and that the length of their vacation was one great cause of the delay and expense incurred in their courts. He had mentioned last session the case of Mr. Jones, which had lasted for four years and one month, or forty-nine months, during which time the court sat only sixteen months. When the length of the vacations was considered, it was not difficult to account for the delay of Mr. Jones's cause. Two occurrences had taken place last year which showed the possibility of diminishing the number of the judges. The Lord Justice Clerk, a distinguished judge, well known and well liked, having been afflicted with a severe complaint, was obliged to abstain from the performance of his duties for an entire session. During that time there was no complaint of the business of the court being badly done, or having fallen into arrear. At the same period a very distinguished judge was also afflicted with a severe calamity, which caused him to quit the bench. During these periods, when there were only three judges on the bench, there was no complaint of inefficiency or delay in the discharge of the public business. This was a good reason why the present vacancy should not be filled until inquiry was made. He hoped the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, would not refuse his assent to the motion for a committee of inquiry. It was of great importance that the inquiry should be conducted by persons in whom the country would place confidence, and that the committee should be chosen in the most careful manner. Any proceeding of the kind emanating from the Government would be more effectual than if it came from a private individual; and therefore he would earnestly beg of the noble Lord to take the question out of his (Mr. Wallace's) hands, and to move the committee himself. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for a Select Committee to inquire into the administration of the law in the Supreme Court of Scotland, with a view to ascertain whether the number of the judges may not be diminished.

Mr. Fox Maule

said it was not the in- tention of her Majesty's Government to oppose the motion. That House, during the course of the last session, had most generously passed a measure giving the supreme judges of Scotland an increase of salary. They were therefore bound not to withhold from the public any inquiry which might be necessary as to whether the strength of the bench in Scotland was or was not more than was necessary to carry on the business of the courts of Scotland. He (Mr. Fox Maule) would not prejudge the matter by giving an opinion, but he was quite aware that there was an opinion existing in Scotland that there were too many judges for the performance of the duties required. That being the case, it was, in his opinion, far better for the administration of justice, and it would conduce to the credit of the courts themselves, that the public should be satisfied by impartial inquiry that the strength of the bench was not more than the judicial business required. After inquiry the House would be in a position to take steps, if any appeared necessary, for accommodating the bench of Scotland to the business it has to transact. It was not only in reference to the question whether the judges had or had not sufficient business to employ them—that the committee might inquire. In saying that there were other matters for inquiry, he was borne out by very high authority at the Scotch bar. The report of the law commission in 1834, stated explicitly that there was generally increasing dissatisfaction throughout the country with the mode in which justice was administered in the Court of Session. This arose from the intention of the Legislature in the act of judicature, with regard to the mode of conducting the business of the courts, not being fully carried out. The present vacancy need not for some time be filled up, and he saw no difficulty in a committee arriving at a conclusion between that time and the 12th of May, the beginning of the summer session, which might decide the necessity of filling up the vacancy, or lead them to regulate the strength of the court on some other basis. He would not oppose the committee; but if it was agreed to by Government, it ought to be carried on by Government. Under the circumstances, he would propose that his hon. Friend, having made his motion for a committee of inquiry, should leave to the Government the selection of the names. If he did so, it should be his endeavour to select such Gentlemen from both sides of the House as would give an impartial, attentive, and careful investigation to all the circumstances that might be brought before it. The committee would be attended by a member of the Government, and he trusted its proceedings would be such as to warrant the propriety of its appointment in the minds of the judges and the people of Scotland.

Sir George Clerk

said, it was impossible for him to give a silent vote upon this occasion. On several former occasions he had felt it his duty to vote against similar motions, but on those occasions he had not felt it necessary to trouble the House with any observations, and was satisfied to rest his case upon the arguments brought forward by the Government. The hon. Member for Greenock had brought forward a similar motion last year, and he was then opposed by the Lord Advocate and the Attorney-General, and his motion was only supported by the hon. Member for Kilkenny and by another Member. In fact, so little support had the hon. Member for Greenock on that occasion, that he had not thought it necessary to divide the House. He now again brought forward this motion with no new facts or new arguments to support him, or to induce the House to grant a committee. The only new argument was that which had been stated by the Under-Secretary of State, that because the House last year increased the salaries of the judges they should now think it necessary to inquire whether they had over-paid them, or whether their number was greater than was necessary. He thought, that the Under-Secretary of State, in using that argument, gave a triumph to those who last year opposed his bill. It was objected on that occasion by the hon. Member for Greenock, that before that bill passed some inquiry should take place, and he believed he was correct in stating, that the hon. Member for Kilkenny moved an amendment to the effect, that the number of the judges ought to be reduced. He believed, that such an inquiry as the present was unprecedented with respect to the administration of the law either in England or Scotland. The hon. Member had said, that considerable dissatisfaction prevailed in Scotland at the mode in which the business was conducted in the Courts of Session. Now, if there were dissatisfaction, it had not arisen on account of adherence to anti- quated forms, but rather owing to too great a disposition to change. During the last thirty years no experiment had been allowed a fair trial before a new one supplied its place. About thirty years ago the Court of Session was divided into two separate courts instead of one, as it had been before, and that alteration was felt to be a great benefit. A few years afterwards the introduction of trial by jury in civil cases took place. There was a commission issued during the time that his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Bute (Sir W. Rae), held the office of Lord Advocate, to inquire how the law was administered in Scotland. That commission was not confined to Scotchmen, but included some of the most eminent lawyers in this country. The present Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and Mr. Justice Littledale, Sir W. Alexander, the Earl of Devon, and other eminent individuals were members of that commission, and they suggested many improvements with respect to the courts of Scotland. He must remind the House, that five years had not been allowed to pass in Scotland without alterations in the Courts of Justice. In 1830 a most important alteration was made, the number of judges in the Court of Session was reduced from fifteen to thirteen, and a reduction of two Barons of the Exchequer was contemplated. What were the consequences of the reductions then made? Why, that in the temporary absence of one of the judges the greatest inconvenience was felt; and in 1832 a bill was brought in by Lord Advocate Jeffrey to provide means for disposing of the vast arrears of business. A committee was then appointed on the motion of his hon. Friend, the Member for Caithness, in 1834, for the purpose of considering whether any increase should be made in the salaries of the judges, an act of justice which, in his (Sir G. Clerk's) opinion, should have occupied the House many years before., when the duties of the judges were increased by the reduction of their numbers. The hon. Member for Greenock was a member of that committee, and a great object of his in examining the witnesses was to ascertain from them whether, in their opinions, any further reduction of the number of judges could be effected. He believed, that the question was put to every witness examined, and very one stated his opinion that, while the form of procedure remained as it was, it would be impossible to effect any further reduction. Lord Jeffrey gave that opinion, as did also the Dean of Faculty and the Judge Advocate. Lord Brougham, who was also examined, gave his opinion, that the number of judges could not, with safety to the public interest, be lessened. The solitary hostile opinion was that of a young gentleman who styled himself a writer's clerk, and who acknowledged that he was not more than twenty-one years of age. Now, he would put it to the House whether, if they were to grant this committee, they would be likely to get witnesses more able to give a sound opinion than those he had just mentioned. He believed, that, if they were to examine the most eminent advocates of the Scottish bar—if they were to ask the question of the Lord Advocate, that all would agree, that no reduction of the number of judges could be effected without great injury to the efficiency of the court. The committee then asked the Lord Advocate whether the royal commission then sitting was authorised to make any inquiry as to the expediency of reducing the number of judges, and he answered, that such inquiry was not within the scope of the commission. In consequence of this, a second commission was issued in 1834, and that commission, amongst other objects of inquiry, was to ascertain the amount of judicial business in the Court of Session. So far from that commission considering, that the duty of the present judges could be performed by a smaller number, they stated in their report, that the accumulation of business was immense. He would ask, then, whether any reduction of the number of judges was possible? He would ask the House whether, if they reduced the number of judges as was proposed, the decision of the remaining judges would have proper weight with the country. He believed, that, on investigation, it would be found, that four judges would be the smallest number that could constitute a Court of Review. The hon. Member for Greenock had read a statement of the number of hours which the Judges of session sat in a year. But the hon. Member should recollect that the late Lord Advocate had told the House that the number of hours spent by the Judges in court formed no criterion of the amount of their labours; that they were occupied frequently several hours at home in reading over the long written pleadings which came before them; and that frequently, in cases where the delivery of judgment occupied them but half an hour, the consideration of the case in private had occupied them several weeks. The present Lord Advocate also distinctly stated that it would be impossible to reduce the number of judges. He had heard nothing whatever from the hon. Member who brought forward the motion, or from the hon. Member who supported it on the part of the Government, to induce him to alter the opinion he had formed last year. He was very much at a loss to know what new facts had come to the knowledge of the hon. Undersecretary, or the noble Lord opposite to alter their opinions of last year. It was then stated broadly by the hon. Member for Greenock, and the hon. Member for St. Andrew's that the great evils and inconvenience had arisen from the indisposition of two of the Judges of the Court of Session. He believed that afterwards the hon. Member for St. Andrew's stated, very much to his honour, that with regard to the state of one of these judges, he believed that he had been misinformed. They would all recollect the anxiety expressed in the House that those Judges would resign, and that the necessity for that step was urged as a strong reason for providing that a full retiring allowance should be given to them. Now, however, hon. Members thought that the business could be done by a greatly reduced number. The hon. Member for Greenock had also alluded to the small number of cases brought before Lord Moncrieff; but he should have stated at the time from what cause that arose. There was a general expectation that Lord Moncrieff would speedily be called to the inner Court, and consequently suitors did not wish to bring their cases before him. At the same time the other Judges were actually overwhelmed with business, from the number of cases brought before them. The House was aware that it was now in the power of any suitor to choose the Judge before whom to bring his plea, instead of leaving the matter, as formerly, to chance. He thought that, generally speaking, an excellent regulation, but one that in particular instances, such as that of Lord Moncrieff, might produce inconvenience. He would again ask the noble Lord opposite what was the cause of the extraordinary change which had taken place in his opinion since last year? He had observed that the hon. Member for Greenock gave notice of his motion a short time before the date of a most important motion, the object of which was to try the strength of parties. The hon. Member for Sheffield had told the noble Lord that his only chance of retaining the support of his party was to make concessions to them. The hon. Member for Sheffield had obtained the price of his support'—he spoke it to his honour—in the concession of open questions. Hon. Gentlemen opposite might consider that a ridiculous reason for supporting Government, but that was the hon. Member's own affair. He should like very much to know whether the support of the hon. Member for Greenock was conditional on the present committee being granted, because if that was not the reason, he had heard nothing from the hon. Member to show why Government had come to their present resolution. If the Government were really dissatisfied with the proceedings of the Court of session—if they thought there were too many Judges, they should, on their own responsibility, bring in a bill to alter the constitution of the court. He must say, that a committee of that House was not the proper tribunal to prosecute such an enquiry. How were the witnesses to be examined? Who would the Secretary of State call? If the hon. Gentleman summoned the eminent advocates of the Scottish bar, the hon. Member for Greenock would object that they were interested witnesses. From whom, or from what description of witnesses, would they get their information? He trusted they would be something more efficient than the young gentleman of twenty-one. If further enquiry was really necessary, why should not the commission, which had not as yet made its final report, be authorised to make enquiries? He believed, however, that there was no information which this House was likely to receive which it had not already received, and for that reason he should certainly feel it his duty to oppose the motion.

Mr. Hume

considered, that when her Majesty's Government had determined upon an increase of the salaries of the judges last session, they were now only doing their duty by making an inquiry into the complaints made by him and others. They had returns showing that the business in the Scotch courts had declined one-fourth within the last few years. Now, all that he and others wanted was inquiry. The hon. Baronet opposite had made no objection to a committee having for its object the increase of the salaries of the judges; but he now objected to a committee to inquire whether the number of hours for their sitting might not be enlarged, or the vacancies amongst them not filled up. For himself he was prepared to say that he would not make any reduction, if it were to interfere with the proper administration of justice.

Mr. Gillon

had, he said, given his opposition to the increase of salaries last session, on the ground of the small amount of duties performed by the Scotch judges. If a comparison were made between the salaries of the Scotch and English judges, would it not be fair also to compare the amount of duties respectively performed by them. Why was the House to inquire into the means of increasing their salaries without ascertaining what were their duties? According to a calculation he had made, the first division of the Court of Session only sat thirty-four days: the second division did not sit more than twenty-six days, and the Lords Ordinary did not sit more than forty-seven days eight hours, each, in the whole year. The support of the present motion was the only redeeming apology for their passing the Bill of last session.

Mr. Pringle

, in opposing the motion, observed that the hon. Member for Falkirk had omitted in his estimate of the sittings of the court the taking into calculation the time devoted by the judges to criminal business, as also to jury trials.

Mr. R. Steuart

said, that the inquiry sought for by the hon. Member for Greenock was one which that House might well and properly entertain. He did not vote for inquiry, because he agreed with the hon. Member for Kilkenny and the hon. Member for Greenock that the result would be to prove that the number of the judges was too great. On the contrary, he had last year voted for giving an increased salary to the judges, because he considered that they were insufficiently paid, and he would now vote for the proposed inquiry, because he was sure that not only were not the judges overpaid, but also that the number was by no means too great. With a fair committee, presided over of Member a by the Government, and uninfluenced by party spirit, he was satisfied that the truth would be elicited, and it would be generally acknowledged that the constitution of the courts of Scotland was of the description and character required, and that the number of judges was not greater than was required for the due performance of the functions imposed upon them.

Mr. Hope

said, that he was certainly surprised at the grounds upon which this inquiry was granted by the Government, namely, that the result would be to prove that inquiry was wholly unnecessary. He should object to such inquiry, as he considered it no other than putting the judges of the Supreme Courts upon their trial.

The Lord Advocate

said that certainly, while he should vote inquiry, he was of opinion that the result of that inquiry would be to show that the Court of Session had not too many judges properly to discharge the duties that were imposed upon them. His opinion in 1834 was that the judges could not safely be reduced below the number of thirteen, and also his opinion was, that the court was well constituted, and to those opinions he still adhered. The circumstance of the judges of the Supreme Court performing a very large and a very important part of their duties in their chambers, instead of performing them in open court, had led to an opinion among persons out of the profession, that the judges were too numerous; and he thought that the best way to disabuse the minds of the people of such wrong impressions was to have a deliberate and impartial inquiry before a committee of the House.

Sir R. Peel

I do not know who the Gentlemen are that the Lord Advocate has referred to, who ground their support of the increased salary of the Scotch Judges on the increase of business in their Courts. This not the argument I use, for I think it is a most dangerous one. When you place persons in any public situation, judicial or otherwise, you have a demand on all of their time. If not, where would increase of salaries stop? Why, there is not a Bill that passes this House but imposes some additional duties on the Secretaries of State; and yet, how would the House look if they were to come down on each of these occasions to ask for an increase of their salary? The ground I went on was that the salaries of the Scotch Judges were not sufficient to mark the distinction between the bench and the bar, or to secure the services of the best talents at the latter for seats on the former. I thought that the relation of the Judges to the advocates should be such as to secure a due superiority to the former, otherwise they would not meet with the respect to which the bench was entitled; and I thought it due to the country to purchase the highest talent at the bar to place it on the benches, when vacancies occurred. I do not mean to say that the income of the Judges from their office is such as to tempt the two or three of the most eminent men at the Scottish Bar to relinquish their practice, which must be more than the amount of a Judge's salary—I do not say that these gentlemen would be won by this. I speak alone of the average profits of the bar in Scotland, and on that ground I supported the increase of the judicial salary. What surprises me most, however, in this matter is, that the hon. Member for Greenock should think it worth while to bring forward the motion, now that the Government by acquiescing in it will take the nomination of the committee altogether out of his hands. This committee, if I understand right, is to be presided over and composed of men whose minds are already made up on the subject. The hon. Member himself has made up his mind—the Government have made up their minds—he thinks that a reduction in the number of Judges is necessary, they think that it is not necessary. What is to accrue from this contrariety? If the Government have made up their minds, why go into an inquiry? Why not oppose the motion at the outset? Do they see the results to which this course of conduct will lead? The same inquiry may be instituted by any hon. Member similarly disposed as the hon. Member for Greenock, on the self-same grounds, into the judicial bench of England, and thus the greatest injury might be inflicted on the country by unsettling public opinion as to the bench. The hon. Gentlemen opposite said that this inquiry is granted by the Government to satisfy public opinion. Let us see what are the grounds of this acquiescence on their part. "The public," says the learned Lord, "are in error on two points in regard to this subject: first, in the matter of a reduction in the number of the judges; secondly, in the matter of the amount of business transacted before these functionaries." With respect to the number of Judges, he says that there is not a single person in the country who knows anything about the subject who thinks the present number is too great. All the profession whose opinions are worth anything, he says, are of the same view in the matter. The Government, likewise, come to the same conclusion. Is it decent, then, for them to enter into any inquiry on this subject, simply for the purpose of satisfying those who, according to the testimony of the hon. Member, are incompetent to form, an opinion on it? Is it just, I ask, or seemly, to give way to the clamour of a set of persons who, on the Lord Advocate's own showing, know nothing of the subject in question? I cannot conceive, if the mind of the Government is made up on the question, on what grounds they can enter on this inquiry. The hon. Under Secretary (Mr. F. Maule) says he thinks that, as regards the constitution of the Court, the number of four Judges is preferable to three; and the hon. Member who sits beside him says the same; yet they profess their willingness to enter on an inquiry into a subject on which they have expressed so decided an opinion. I repeat, then, that I look upon it as strange and unnecessary on the part of the hon. Member for Greenock to proceed with the motion, when by their conduct the Government, after expressing such sentiments, have taken it out of his hands. But there is another point that I gather from the hon. Member's speech, which is, that some people, according to his statement, think that the Judges of the Court are not sufficiently patient with counsel; that they are rather restive in hearing long law arguments from the bar; and that the written pleadings are not sufficiently attended to satisfy the advocates. Now suppose that charge made in a tangible form, how will you entertain it? How can you ascertain the fact, except by individual examination of the Judges themselves, as well as of the complaining counsel? And would that, I ask you, be decent? Would it be just? The Judges, however, may deny the general allegation; what then? How will you be able to come to a conclusion? But you call the Judge before you—setting decency at defiance—and you press the charge and press him for "his answer. If you do, what will assuredly take place? Why, this. He will tell you that the counsel are so tedious and so verbose that he feels it a duty to the country and the suitors in his Court to cut them short, and so save the public time and public patience. I must say, were I on the committee, that my leaning would be to the Judge in this respect—and I would state that, in my opinion, the Judge in no case discharged his duty better, or more satisfactorily, than when he silenced irrelevant argument, and shut out frivolous speeches, having no bearing on the case before him. I, who recollect a speech of eleven hours in length, delivered during two days at the bar of the House of Lords by a Scotch counsel—[The Lord Advocate—sixteen hours.] The question is, whether the Judges are sufficiently patient in hearing the speeches of counsel; and yet here is the hon. Gentleman correcting my unintentional error in his zeal for the honour of the Scottish bar, by informing us, that the eleven hours which I stated as the length of a speech were in reality sixteen. That I suppose he means to be understood as the ordinary time. Can there be anything imagined more ridiculous than to call on the learned judges, who perhaps have made up their minds about the eighth or ninth, or at most the eleventh hour—to hear the advocate for the remaining portion of the usual time, when it may be that he has only got to the eighteenth head of his subject. Can any one blame him for cutting short this interminable discourse, and thus saving the public time, as well as the pockets of the other suitors in the court? But, after all, what a degrading inquiry it must come to. What is it you propose to do? To drag before a committee of unprofessional people, a judge who wishes to despatch the business of the court, that he may answer why he was so brief with this advocate, or so curt with that other. I am surprised, as I said, that the hon. Member should bring forward this motion under the peculiar circumstances that I have pointed out; and I am the more surprised that the learned Lord, and the Government, should agree to it, after the decided expression of adverse opinion to which they gave utterance ast Session. But I think the House will best consult its own honour, the interests of the public, and the dignity and usefulness of the judicial bench of Scotland, by refusing to accede to it.

Mr. Wallace,

in reply, said, he was anxious to have this inquiry, as having respect to the court and to the judges, and as one which would be acceptable. An hon. Member had taunted him with saying that every Scotch Member had his price. He begged to say, that there had been three Parliaments which had seen a Scotchman without a price. Did any hon. Member contradict that. He had been daily in the habit of voting in the teeth of Government, as well as with it, and he would tell the House, that at any rate he was not to be caught with chaff. Which of the two things would hon.' Members give him—half the judges' salaries or their full time? He contended that the public ought to have the judges' full time. He begged to say, that all the judges of the Court of Session were very good and upright men, and all of them very learned in the law, but for want of that practice which the English and Irish judges had, they disliked their duties exceedingly. With regard to the constitution of the Committee, he should be perfectly content if its appointments were in the hands of the noble leader of that House; and if the noble Lord believed that he ought to exclude him (Mr. Wallace) he would willingly be left out of it, as his sole desire was for the public good.

The House divided; Ayes 128; Noes 111: Majority 17.

List of the AYES.
Adam, Admiral Greig, D.
Aglionby, H. A. Grey, rt. hn. Sir C.
Aglionby, Major Grey, rt. hn. Sir G.
Baines, E. Grote, G.
Bannerman, A. Guest, Sir J.
Baring, rt. hn. F. T. Handley, H.
Barnard, E. G. Harland, W. C.
Barry, G. S. Hastie, A.
Beamish, F. B. Hawes, B.
Bellew, R. M. Hayter, W. G.
Benett, J. Heathcoat, J.
Bernal, R. Hector, C. J.
Bewes, T. Hill, Lord A. M. C.
Blake, M. J. Hobhouse, right hon. Sir J.
Blake, W. J.
Bodkin, J. J. Hobhouse, T. B.
Bridgeman, H. Hodges, T. L.
Briscoe, J. I. Horsman, E.
Brocklehurst, J. Howard, F. J.
Brodie, W. B. Howard, P. H.
Brotherton, J. Hume, J.
Byng, G. Hutton, R.
Clay, W. James, W.
Collier, J. Jervis, S.
Craig, W. G. Labouchere, rt. hn. H.
Crawley, S. Langdale, hn. C.
Curry, Serjeant Lushington, C.
Dalmeny, Lord Macaulay, right hon. T. B.
Dennistoun, J.
Divett, E. Macleod, R.
Duke, Sir J. Maule, hon. F.
Dundas, F. Melgund, Viscount
Dundas, Sir R. Morpeth, Viscount
Elliot, hn. J. E. Morris, D.
Ellice, rt. hn. E. Murray, A.
Ellis, W. Muskett, G. A.
Evans, G. Nagle, Sir R.
Evans, W. O'Connell, D.
Ewart, W. O'Connell, M. J.
Ferguson, Sir R. A. O'Conor, Don
Fitzalan, Lord O'Ferrall, R. M.
Gillon, W. D. Oswald, J.
Gordon, R. Parker, J.
Grattan, J. Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.
Greg, R. H. Pendarves, E. W. W.
Pigot, D. R. Thornely, T.
Ponsonby, hon. J. Tollemache, F. J.
Pryme, G. Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Redington, T. N. Tufnell, H.
Rich, H. Vigors, N. A.
Roche, W. Vivian, J. H.
Rumbold, C. E. Wakley, T.
Russell, Lord J. Walker, R.
Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A. Warburton, H.
Salwey, Colonel Wemyss, Captain
Seymour, Lord White, A.
Sheil, rt. hn. R. L. Williams, W.
Smith, B. Williams, W. A.
Smith, R. V. Winnington, Sir T. E.
Stansfield, W. R. C. Wood, Sir M.
Stuart, W. V. Wood, B.
Stock, Dr. Wyse, T.
Strutt, E. Yates, J. A.
Style, Sir C.
Surrey, Earl of TELLERS.
Talfourd, Serjeant Wallace, R.
Tancred, H. W. Steuart, R.
List of the NOES.
Acland, T. D. Halford, H.
Arbuthnot, hon. H. Hamilton, Lord C.
Ashley, Lord Heneage, G. W.
Bagge, W. Hepburn, Sir T. B.
Baillie, Colonel Herbert, hon. S.
Baker, E. Herries, rt. hn. J. C.
Bentinck, Lord G. Hodgson, F.
Blackburne, T. Hodgson, R.
Blackstone, W. S. Hogg, J. W.
Blair, J. Hope, hn. C.
Boldero, H. G. Hope, G. W.
Bradshaw, J. Holham, Lord
Broadley, H. Ingestrie, Visct.
Broadwood, H. Ingham, R.
Cantalupe, Viscount Inglis, Sir R. H.
Clive, hon. R. H. Irton, S.
Cochrane, Sir T. J. Jackson, Serjeant
Colquhoun, J. C. Johnstone, H.
Conolly, E. Jones, Capt.
Corry, hon. H. Kemble, H.
Courtenay, P. Kirk, P.
Cresswell, C. Knatchbull, right hon. Sir E.
Darby, G.
Dick, Q. Knight, H. G.
D'Israeli, B. Law, hn. C. E.
Dottin, A. R. Liddell, hn. H. T.
Dowdeswell, W. Lincoln, Earl of
Dunbar, G. Lockhart, A. M.
Duncombe, hn. W. Lowther, J. H.
Du Pre, G. Lygon, hn. Gen.
Eaton, R. J. Mackenzie, T.
Egerton, W. T. Mackenzie, W. F.
Ellis, J. Mahon, Viscount
Fox, S. L. Mathew, G. B.
Gladstone, W. E. Miles, W.
Glynne, Sir S. R. Milnes, R. M.
Godson, R. Nicholl, J.
Gordon, hn. Capt. Norreys, Lord
Goulburn, rt. hn. H. Ossulston, Lord
Graham, rt. hn. Sir J. Pakington, J. S.
Greene, T. Palmer, R.
Grimsditch, T. Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.
Hale, R. B. Pigot, R.
Polhill, F. Sotheron, T. E.
Powell, Colonel Sutton, hon. J. H. T. M.
Praed, W. T.
Pringle, A. Teignmouth, Lord
Pusey, P. Thompson, Alderman
Rae, rt. hn. Sir W. Trench, Sir F.
Reid, Sir J. R. Vere, Sir C. B.
Rushbrooke, Col. Verner, Colonel
Sandon, Viscount Waddington, H. S.
Shaw, rt. hn. F. Whitmore, T. C.
Sheppard, T. Wood, Colonel T.
Shirley, E. J. Young, Sir W.
Sinclair, Sir G. TELLERS.
Smith, A. Clerk, Sir G.
Somerset, Lord G. Fremantle, SirT.