HC Deb 13 July 1840 vol 55 cc700-14
Mr. R. Gordon

moved the remaining estimates and civil contingencies. The vote proposed was, that 70,000l. be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge of the civil contingencies.

Colonel Sibthorp

moved that the grant be 66,420l., deducting from the amount the sum of 3,579l 7ls. 10d., being the sum granted to Dr. Bowring for the period of two years, six months, and five days, for services stated to have been performed by him. He wished the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department to state—first, what was the amount of practical public advantage derived from Dr. Bowring's services?—secondly, whether some of that Gentleman's reports had not been sent forth to the public in a shape somewhat different from that in which they were drawn up by the learned Gentleman himself, both as to omissions and additions; thirdly, why the report on Egypt had not been given to the public; and, fourthly, whether there was to be any future charge of this description.

Viscount Palmerston

said, that the employment of Dr. Bowring had certainly in no way altered his conduct as a Member of that House; for there had been various occasions during the intervals of his employment in which Dr. Bowring had not voted with the Government. Nor had Dr. Bowring's employment been detrimental to his constituents, for on each occasion the employment had taken place in the recess. The selection of Dr. Bowring, in all other respects, he con- ceived, could not be questioned. The Government deemed it essential to have information on various commercial and statistical subjects connected with foreign countries, and to collect that information Dr. Bowring was eminently qualified, not merely by his general talents, his peculiarly extensive knowledge of foreign languages, but from his having turned his especial attention to the subjects on which information was desired. As to the results of Dr. Bowring's employment, there could be no doubt as to the great practical benefit which the public had derived from the mass of information contained in that Gentleman's reports. The whole of that information was of the highest value to all persons in any way interested in commerce. As to the publication of the reports themselves, that on Prussia had been sent forth precisely as it was drawn up by Dr. Bowring. With respect to the report on Syria, it had been some time in Dr. Bowring's hands, in order that he might superintend the printing of it. He had looked over that report, and he had struck out one or two trifling passages of a political tendency, unconnected with the commercial matter to which Dr. Bowring's attention was directed, nor had these omissions in any way altered the value of the report in a commercial point of view. This report, he hoped, would soon be printed and laid on the table. He thought he had now said enough to show that Dr. Bowring had performed the duties upon which he had been employed ably and effectively, and that the sums which had been expended upon him, were not more than an adequate remuneration for his services. The reason must be obvious why the diplomatic officers of the Crown already abroad could not be employed to collect the information which Dr. Bowring had been the means of obtaining, inasmuch as it could not be obtained on any one spot, but demanded a great deal of travelling and research throughout the whole country, and the devotion of nearly the whole of the inquirer's time to the subject. Every one would at once see that if any of our consular agents were to be so employed, it would be impossible for him at the same time to attend to the other and more ordinary duties of his office. Besides, which, he would, without meaning any disparagement to British consular agents, observe, that he thought it would be difficult to find amongst them any individual who, from his habit of mind and previous attainments, could have obtained the various information desired in so satisfactory a manner as Dr. Bowring.

Mr. Goulburn

said, that the noble Lord, with a dexterity which it was impossible not to admire, had contrived to pass by the whole of the gist and merits of the question now before the Committee, and had devoted himself almost exclusively to the discussion of the merits of Dr. Bowring, against which, at the present moment, he (Mr. Goulburn) did not wish to say a word. The point upon which he wished to speak was one entirely of a general and constitutional nature. It appeared that Dr. Bowring had been paid, in the course of nine years, 11,000l. for public services; and it would appear from the papers now before the Committee, that, whilst sitting as a Member of that House, that Gentleman had been employed by her Majesty's Government, and receiving pecuniary allowances in return. Now, this fact, as he apprehended, brought the case within the scope of a general principle, which every Member of that House was bound to notice. He alluded to the provisions of the Act of Anne, by which any Member of that House accepting office under the Crown, and receiving a salary, was obliged to vacate his seat. This was admitted on all hands to be a very wise and wholesome enactment, tending materially to guarantee the integrity and independence of Members of that House. The Act of Anne declared, that if any Member of this House accepted office, and received a salary, he should vacate his seat, and he (Mr. Goulburn) maintained, that if any hon. Member did accept of an office under the Crown, and received a salary, without vacating his seat, he violated that Act of Parliament. But if this were true in regard to offices in general, which were before the world, still more was it so with regard to employments of a more secret nature, and paid out of funds of which the public and this House had no knowledge, and over which they could exercise no control. These employments of Dr. Bowring's were treated as special services, under the special direction and control of the Treasury, and paid not by any specified and regular salary, but by allowances varying, and granted from day to day, just as the Trea- sury pleased to dole them out; and in doing which it was quite competent to the Government to give more or less according as the conduct of the recipient appeared to deserve. If Parliament recognized and sanctioned the proceedings which appeared to have taken place in this case, they would be opening wide the door for corruption, and laying the constitution open to that danger which it had been the intention of Parliament to guard against. But this was not the only feature in the case which called for his reprehension; for from the beginning to the end of these transactions a system of concealment had been adopted. The House would recollect, perhaps, that in the year 1837, when the ordnance estimates were under consideration, he (Mr. Goulburn) had made an observation in reference to one of the reports of Dr. Bow-ring, and he then said that if Dr. Bowring was receiving payment for his services on that work, the point to which he then referred ought not to be lightly passed over. On that occasion, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer gave him an assurance which he would now read to the committee, namely, that:— With respect to remuneration he could affirm that no sum of money had been received for this report by the hon. Member, nor would any sum be received by him for it. This was the distinct assurance given him by Mr. Spring Rice, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, that his (Mr. Goulburn's) suspicions on this subject were entirely groundless. But what happened? In August, 1837, Parliament was dissolved; and shortly afterwards it appeared by these papers that Dr. Bowring was specially remunerated for this very report with the sum of 600l. He might be told that this payment was made, not out of the special services fund, but under the civil contingencies of the ensuing year. But here again there was still concealment. The vote was thus entered amongst the civil contingencies: "Paid to Mr. Macgregor and Dr. Bowring (who were known to have performed certain services abroad) 3,826l." Now, who would have suspected that this sum included the 600l. paid to Dr. Bowring for this very report, if his hon. Friend had not ascertained this to be the fact, by moving for a most minute specification of the amounts? Upon reviewing all these circumstances, it could not but be considered, notwithstanding the assurance of the then Chancellor of the Ex- chequer, which he had read to the House, that this sum of money was paid to Dr. Bowring in fulfilment of a pledge previously given to him by her Majesty's Government. The whole case, therefore, appeared to involve so much concealment, and to be so pregnant with danger to the constitution of this House that he thought the House was bound to take marked notice of it; and with this feeling, he should undoubtedly give his cordial support to the motion of his hon. Friend.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, that two points had been mooted by the right hon. Gentleman, who had just sat down, upon which he thought it necessary to make a few remarks. The first position of the right hon. Gentleman was, that any payments of this description made to Members of this House were contrary to the letter and spirit of the constitution, and the second, that in the present instance such payments had been made in a deceitful manner. With regard to the first of these positions he would ask, had Parliament ever laid down as a principle that in no case the Government might give remuneration to a Member of this House for public services without subjecting him to the vacation of his seat? He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought not, for he certainly had heard of cases of a much stronger nature than that of Dr. Bowring, in which payments to Members of this House had been made and sanctioned by an express vote of Parliament. If he recollected rightly, the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Dundee, sat for several years in this House, whilst receiving the salary of Chairman of the Excise. Mr. Blackburn, also, whose loss they must all deplore, sat in this House whilst receiving salary as a commissioner inquiring into the corporations of England; he was appointed to this situation before he obtained his seat; he continued it afterwards, and received the payments attached to his appointment during the whole time he sat in Parliament. Mr. Frankland Lewis also sat in this House whilst receiving the salary of a commissioner of education in Ireland. There was another case also which occurred to him, which was not exactly similar, to the present; he referred to that of the hon. Member for the University of Oxford, who sat in this House whilst employed, and paid under the church commission. It might be said that this hon. Gentleman was not paid by Government, but by the public: but in his opinion, this only made the case stronger, because it was a payment over which this House had no control. With respect to Dr. Bowring, he had been first employed in inquiries into the state of public accounts in 1831, before the present party came into office; and who, finding him employed, and that he acquitted himself satisfactorily, continued to employ him in other matters. When Dr. Bowling came into Parliament, the Government saw that he was a man on whose knowledge, prudence, and sagacity, they could place the utmost reliance, and he would ask would the fact of that Gentleman's having become a Member of Parliament have been a sufficient reason for his not being employed any more, and so his industry and his talents be lost to the public. The Government had not thought so, they had employed him before he became a Member of Parliament, they continued then to employ him, and now that he was no longer a Member of Parliament they employed him. He apprehended that there were two sums of money which Dr. Bowring might have received for services rendered whilst he was a Member of Parliament. The first of them was in the shape of bills drawn between October, 1835, and February, 1836, amounting to 676l.; the other was of a larger description: both were paid out of the civil contingencies. There had been no attempt at concealment in this case; all the principal sums had been paid out of the civil contingencies, and had been open to discussion in the House; the very date of each transaction was given, and it was stated that the money paid was for service performed during the time that the learned docter was a Member of the House of Commons. Under these circumstances he thought there was no ground for the motion of the hon. and gallant Officer.

Mr. D'Israeli

observed that the question now raised by the hon. and gallant Officer appeared to him to possess much constitutional importance. It was always painful to enter into a discussion upon topics of a personal nature; but as the vote in the present instance was made to rest almost entirely upon the merits of the learned doctor, he must be allowed to observe that he could not agree in the estimate which the noble Lord (Palmerston) seemed disposed to place upon the services performed by that learned functionary. One of the principal reports upon which the compensating vote was now asked consisted of seventy-five pages, of which more than one-half consisted of a mere compilation from the labours of several celebrated German statists, whose works no doubt had obtained a place in the libraries of many Members of that House. There was an appendix attached to this report, containing undoubtedly very valuable data, but they were supplied by Mr. Irving, of the Custom-house. But, as he had before stated, the body of the report was copied either from German statists entirely, or supplied by the Vice-consuls of her Majesty, resident in the different countries to which the report referred. This document, so compiled, constituted one of the most valuable of Dr. Bowring's labours. There was, however, another report, which furnished a remarkable instance of the manner in which these public documents were prepared. It consisted of statistics of Tuscany, the pontificial states of Lombardy, comprising in the whole, all supplementary documents included, 140 pages, in quarto. Of these 140 pages, fifty-four related to Tuscany, nearly the whole of which consisted of official statements, furnished by the ministers of the Grand Duke. Obtained from such a source, he did not imagine that our resident minister at Florence would have had much difficulty in procuring the same information. At Trieste, indeed, it appeared from the learned doctor's own admission, that our Vice-consul furnished all the details comprehended in the report, and in so satisfactory a manner, that it was not deemed necessary to make any alteration in them. Then at Leghorn, where even the amount of money lodged in the savings bank was mentioned, he owned he did not see why the British cousul there could not have supplied all the information so carefully paraded in the report. That part of the report which related to Lombardy consisted of fifty-eight pages, more, in fact, than one-third of the whole volume. Speaking of that portion of his labours, Dr. Bowring had the candour to say "the principal part of the following statement has been collected by the assiduous care of Mr. Campbell, our consular agent at Milan," and it appeared that not one jot of the information so afforded by Mr. Campbell had been altered. On turning to the consular returns laid before that House, he (Mr. D'lsraeli) found that Mr. Campbell, who supplied more than one-third of this volume, to which so much importance was attached, received for his services as British consul for the whole of the Lombardy states, a salary of 80l. a-year, whilst Dr. Bowring was paid for this particular report a sum of 600l., in addition to 2,240l. which he drew in bills for travelling expenses during the eleven months, of which a portion was employed in framing this document. Whilst engaged in the service it appeared that the learned Doctor drewbills at the rate of three guineas a day for the expenses of living, and two shillings amile for posting. The learned doctor extended his travels over Egypt, Syria, and Turkey. Now for an hon. and learned Gentleman to wander over the deserts of Syria with three guineas a day for the expenses of living, and two shillings a mile for posting, was something so ludicrously preposterous that he could hardly imagine any thing more so, till he had heard, that the learned doctor arrived in Egypt in one of her Majesty's ships, being a distance of 2,000 miles, for every mile of which the two shillings was regularly and punctually drawn for the expense of posting. This sending forth of statistical emissaries, not only over the whole face of Europe, but into the less trodden wilds of Asia and Africa, appeared to him to savour of vain and profitless excess. Our diplomatic missions connected with the countries of the Germanic union cost us annually no less a sum than 20,000l., and if Austria and Hanover were added, the cost for our missions in that part of Europe alone would be found to amount to nearly 34,000l. a year. He should like to know what our Minister at Hanover, at Wurtemberg, or even in Saxony, could have done better than to attend the meeting of the Germanic League, for being present at which so large a compensation was now to be given to the learned Doctor? He should like to know, too, why all the information rendered by that learned individual with respect to Egypt, Syria, and Turkey, could not have been as well supplied by our consular agents resident in these countries? Observe the inevitable consequence resulting from this employment of statistical emissaries—in every country in which they appeared the result was this, either that the authorities of the country supposed that our diplomatic establishment was considered at home not capable of attending to the business in question, or that the business in question was too insignificant for regularly established agents to attend to—thereby, in the estimation of those countries, either causing our own authorities to be underrated, or else rendering the newly constituted mission of little importance. He should support the motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln.

Mr. Labouchere

said, if the subject had been argued merely as a constitutional question, he (Mr. Labouchere) should have been perfectly satisfied to leave the debate on that side of the House with the speeches made by his noble Friend (Lord Palmerston) and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but alter what had been said of Dr. Bowring, having, in the course of his official duties, had opportunities of witnessing the zeal and ability with which that learned gentleman discharged the various important duties that were imposed upon him, he felt bound, not so much in justice to Dr. Bowring as from a sense of duty incumbent upon himself, not to allow the discussion to terminate without offering a very few observations. The hon. Gentleman had stated that, having carefully considered the various reports furnished by Dr. Bowring, he had been led to form a very low estimate of that gentleman's talent and ability. He could only say, that he had never heard that opinion expressed by anybody else. He firmly believed, that the hon. Gentleman was the only individual by whom, in the course of this or any other debate, such an opinion had been uttered. In the commercial world, at least, the labours of Dr. Bowring were not held in the low estimation in which the hon. Gentleman appeared to hold them. It was generally acknowledged, that the various reports he had furnished contained a greal deal of most valuable information upon topics of great interest and great importance. With respect to the late report in reference to the Germanic union, he (Mr. Labouchere) could only say, that he believed the task, by no means an easy one, had been executed with great zeal, ability, and discretion, and that the result of his labours was to furnish the country with a mass of most valuable information. He could not assent to the doctrine that the employment of special missions for special purposes had the effect of casting any reflec- tion upon the regularly established agents of the Government in foreign countries. It would often be quite impossible to obtain the necessary information upon questions of great importance, unless individuals peculiarly qualified for the duty were selected. The practice of appointing missions of this description was not confined to England. Of late years, there had been an increasing desire on the part of foreign powers to obtain correct information, with the view of promoting commercial objects; and the practice of sending persons peculiarly qualified to conduct inquiries of that nature was yearly prevailing more and more. This was particularly the case as regarded France and Russia, and the United States of America had not been slow to follow the example. He should regret exceedingly, if the House were disinclined to sanction a payment of this kind, because he was satisfied there were no better means of obtaining information than the manner in which Dr. Bowring had been employed. It would be unworthy the House of Commons, if they agreed to the expenses of the different diplomatic bodies, and at the same time grudged the remuneration of the very useful labours of the gentlemen he had named. His only object in rising was to bear testimony to the merits and labours of Dr. Bowring, a question which he thought had been somewhat wantonly introduced by the hon. Member opposite.

Mr. Hume

said, he was one that had received considerable information from the reports of Dr. Bowring, and with regard to his labours, he thought that he had been most miserably rewarded. He never had the means of acquiring so much information as the reports of Dr. Bowring furnished him with: and the only fault of Dr. Bowring, in the eyes of Gentlemen opposite, was, that he had been diligent and had given a faithful report.

Mr. Hamilton

had come prepared to support the claim of Dr. Bowring, but from what he had heard he would now give his vote on constitutional grounds. He did not think, that the hon. Member for Kilkenny had, by his advocacy improved the case, and was surprised to hear him treat 3l. 3s. per day and 2s. a mile for travelling expenses as a miserable remuneration.

Sir R. Peel

said, that in 1837, when Dr. Bowring was in Parliament, his right hon. Friend objected to any payment being made to him because he held a seat in Parliament; and on that occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted the validity of the objection, and stated that the Ministers of the time had no intention to pay any money to Dr. Bowring. Than the present Comptroller of the Exchequer he could not conceive any person to be more shocked, if called upon to make such a payment; and he hardly thought, that hon. Gentlemen opposite would press the vote in direct contradiction of what he had just stated. He would say nothing as to the reports, or as to the value of Dr. Bowring's labours; but he must say, that he thought his hon. Friend (Mr. D'Israeli) had been rather hardly dealt with; because, forsooth, he questioned the utility of the reports, he was to be told that he was making a personal attack. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, for the few years they had been in office, had become exceedingly sensitive. It would be for their advantage would they but come to the opposition side of the House for a short time. What his hon. Friend had said was, that when Dr. Bowring went to Turkey he only produced such information as our diplomatic agent could, and which in fact he did supply. He would not say, that they were never to send a person on such a mission as that on which Dr. Bowring had been employed, but he thought as a rule it was bad. It had a tendency to depreciate the regular diplomatic agents, who, when they found others employed to do their duty, would soon altogether neglect what properly belonged to them. In time of peace, he did not think it too much to expect them to perform such duties. They paid the consular agents about 230l. per annum: yet the hon. Member for Kilkenny vents his indignation because they would only allow 3l. 3s. a day, with 2s. a mile extra, to Dr. Bowring, a friend of the hon. Member, and a gentleman politically allied with him. Had they not heard the hon. Member for Kilkenny declare, that his chief objection to the vote was that it was only for 3l. 3s. a day and 2s. per mile, although this was in addition to a payment of some other sort. If he had been in office, and had employed a Member of Parliament during the recess on some special mission, and contracted to pay him the sum that Dr. Bowring had received, the hon. Member for Kilkenny would have decidedly ob- jected to such a proceeding as unconstitutional; nor would he have said that his chief objection to the vote was its inadequacy. Now, in respect to the Act of Anne, he found that no person a Member of Parliament, was at liberty to accept an office of profit from the Crown during such time as he continued a Member, but that on such an acceptance his election was to be declared void, and a new writ issued for the vacancy. The situation which Dr. Bowring held was one of profit, and he could not see how that gentleman was exempted from the clause of the Act. It appeared to him, that his case fell directly within it. It was clear that it was an office of profit, and that it was held by him during the time he had a seat in Parliament. The precedents to which the hon. Gentleman had referred he did not bear exactly in his mind, but his impression was, that the appointment to the Carnatic mission was made under an Act of Parliament. He doubted whether the appointment was made under the Crown. It was quite clear that a director of the East India Company did not fall within the meaning of the Act. With regard to Mr. Frankland Lewis, if there was not an Act of Parliament which exempted his case from the operation of the Act of Anne, there was, at least, an address to the Crown, praying that commissioners might be appointed to inquire into the state of education, and he was appointed one of those commissioners. There was also this difference in the case of Mr. Lewis—he was specifically paid by a vote of Parliament, and the names of the commissioners were brought before the House of Commons; but the payment was not made to Dr. Bowring in this way —it was made for a special service. He would not call in question the merits of Dr. Bowring, or the intentions of Government— he was speaking of the tendencies of these things. Suppose that a Minister of the Crown found some person that had been previously employed in making certain inquiries for the Government, afterwards a Member of that House, and that he continued to employ him during the recess; that he sent him abroad on some mission, paying his expenses, and remunerating him for his trouble—would it have been a sufficient answer had the Minister said that the gentleman was qualified for the task? Would he not have been told that he had no right to make the appointment, and that if he had done so in one case, he might do so in many others? If the situation of parties in that House had been reversed, would they not have condemned it in him as an Act leading to great abuse? Suppose he had had the misfortune to have denied the fact when questioned, and that the Member so employed remained three or four years in his seat in Parliament, what construction would they have placed on his conduct? He could wish no greater punishment to Gentlemen opposite than to be doomed to hear the speeches which they would have come out with on such an occasion. Would they have supported it as they have done the present appointment of Dr. Bowring?—No. Non ego hoc ferrem calidus inventâ, Consule Planco. He did not think that the hon. Member for Kilkenny would have supported him in such an unconstitutional course. In regard to the precedent he named, then, if they established no limit, any other Government might select whomsoever they pleased for such a service. The precedent was an objectionable and a dangerous one, and he was sorry that the consequences of it might be visited on Dr. Bowring, while the fault rested with the Government. He could not, however, see how he could so well mark his disapprobation of the transaction, but by voting for the motion of his hon. Friend.

Lord John Russell

would make a very few observations only. The right hon. Baronet had said that, according to the Act of Anne, Dr. Bowring held an office, and ought to have vacated his seat. He believed that an employment of this kind, which was not a regular office, and to which no regular salary was annexed, did not come under the operation of that Act. There were precedents of the kind, and his opinion was that there might be special occasions, in which a person being fitted for the service in which he had been employed, and it being for the public interest that he particularly should be employed rather than any other, the remuneration should be permitted. If indeed it were done in the way which the right hon. Baronet had alluded to, namely, to secure the services of a Member of Parliament, who was not exactly fitted for the task, it would be a most objectionable practice. He admitted, that if it were not done rarely, and for a very good purpose, it might become most objectionable. When, however, the purpose was good, no evil could arise to the public service, but, on the contrary, very considerable advantages might accrue from permitting the remuneration.

Mr. Villiers

said, the right hon. Baronet had condemned the employment of a person in the capacity of Dr. Bowring as unnecessary, in conjunction with the large diplomatic service that the country had to maintain, and which ought to furnish any information that was required. He was not indisposed to admit the justice of that observation, but what was the remedy? Why, to appoint only efficient persons to those situations, persons who would furnish the requisite information, and what assurance could the right hon. Baronet offer, or had a prospect of offering, that such appointments would be made? Could he, or could any Minister, set at defiance the influence which was brought to bear upon him by those who really constituted the legislative power in the country, and who chiefly sought these situations? Had the right hon. Baronet set that influence at defiance? And could he, should he again be placed in office? Would the right hon. Baronet say, that high diplomatic situations were always given according to the merits of the individuals who sought them, or could he deny that they were bestowed chiefly from political influence in this House or in the other? Such being the case, were the commercial classes of this country to be deprived of information that they desired to obtain, or to have their statements questioned, because our ministers and ambassadors were inefficient, or was the House to act in ignorance, because there were no official documents before it to refer to. These agents for commercial purposes, though evils, were rendered requisite by the necessity of the case, and the result of Dr. Bowring's mission had been the collection of valuable information bearing importantly upon great questions in agitation, and he could not but think that if the conclusions to which the evidence he collected led, had been more favourable or convenient to the views of hon. Members opposite, that he would not have been selected for so prominent an attack. With what had been said of the policy of employing Members of this House for this purpose, he did not disagree, but really he thought that they should judge of the case upon its own merits. The question was, whether Dr. Bowring had been appointed for any corrupt purpose, or for any reason but that of being a fit person, and that it was desirable to obtain his services. Not a word had been said in opposition to this, and nearly all had admitted that his services had been well worthy of their hire. Why then were they to withhold the remuneration that had been awarded him, and which with reference to the manner in which other services were remunerated in this country, could not be considered excessive, It seemed, then, that the objection was either personal to Dr. Bowring, or had reference to the purpose of his mission and was not made from any love of economy. He should vote for this item, because he considered that Dr. Bowring had been appointed with the knowledge of the House, with no corrupt view, and his services merited the compensation awarded him.

The Committee divided on the amendment: Ayes 66; Noes 98: Majority 32.

List of the AYES.
Arbuthnott, hon. H. Holmes, W.
Attwood, W. Hope, hon. C.
Bailey, J. Hope, G. W.
Bailey, J. jun. Hughes, W. B.
Blackburne, I. Irton, S.
Blackstone, W. S. Jackson, Sergeant
Blair, J. Jones, Captain
Bolling, W. Kemble, H.
Brooke, Sir A. B. Knatchbull, right hon.
Bruges, W. H. L. Sir E.
Buck, L. W. Knight, H. G.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Lincoln, Earl of
Canning, rt. hn. Sir S. Lowther, hon. Col.
Clerk, Sir G. Lygon, hon. General
Cochrane, Sir T. J. Mackenzie, T.
Colquhoun, J. C. Packe, C. W.
Dalrymple, Sir A. Parker, M.
Darby, G. Parker, R. T.
Douglas, Sir C. E. Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
East, J. B. Perceval, Colonel
Egerton, W. T. Pringle, A.
Eliot, Lord Reid, Sir J. R.
Estcourt, T. Rolleston, L.
Fremantle, Sir T. Round, J.
Gordon, hon. Capt. Rushout, G.
Gore, O. J. R. Sandon, Viscount
Gore, O. W. Sheppard, T.
Goulburn, rt. hn. H. Somerset, Lord G.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J. Thompson, Mr. Ald.
Grimsditch, T. Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Hamilton, C. J. B. Vivian, J. E.
Hamilton, Lord C. Wyndham, W.
Hayes, Sir E. TELLERS.
Henniker, Lord D'lsraeli, B.
Hodgson, R. Sibthorp, Colonel
List of the NOES.
Adam, Admiral Muskett, G. A.
Ainsworth, P. Nagle, Sir R.
Alston, R. Norreys, Sir D. J.
Baines, E. O'Brien, C.
Baring, rt. hn. F. T. O'Connell, M. J.
Basset, J. O'Ferrall, R. M.
Bellew, R. M Palmerston, Viscount
Berkeley, hon. C. Parker, J.
Bewes, T. Fechell, Captain
Blackett, C. Philips, M.
Blake, W. J. Pigot, D. R.
Briscoe, J. I. Power, J.
Brodie, W. B. Protheroe, E.
Brotherton, J. Rawdon, Colonel
Buller, E. Redington, T. N.
Clay, W. Rice, E. R.
Clements, Viscount Roche, W.
Clive, E. B. Rundle, J.
Craig, W. G. Russell, Lord J.
Duke, Sir J. Rutherford, rt. hn. A.
Elliot, hon. J. E. Scrope, G. P.
Euston, Earl of Seale, Sir J. H.
Ewart, W. Seymour, Lord
Fitzpatrick, J. W. Sheil, rt. hn. R. L.
Grey, rt. hn. Sir C. Smith, R. V.
Grey, rt hn. Sir G. Somers, J. P.
Hawes, B. Somerville, Sir W.M.
Hector, C. J. Stanley, hon. W. O.
Hindley, C. Steuart, R.
Hobhourse, rt. hn. Sir J. Stuart, Lord J.
Hobhouse, T. B. Stock, Dr.
Hodges, T. L. Strutt, E.
Hollond, R. Talbot, C. R. M.
Horsman, E. Tancred, H. W.
Hume, J. Thorneley, T.
Hutt, W. Troubridge, Sir E. T.
James, W. Tuffnell, H.
Labouchcre, rt. hn. H. Turner, E.
Lemon, Sir C. Verney, Sir H.
Lushington, C. Vigors, N. A,
Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B. Villiers, hon. C. P.
M'Taggart, J. Vivian, J. H.
Marshall, W. Vivian, rt. hn. Sir R. H.
Martin, J. Winnington, H. J.
Maule, hon. F. Wood, B.
Melgund, Viscount Wyse, T.
Mildmay, P. St. J. Yates, J. A.
Morpeth, Viscount
Morris, D. TELLERS.
Muntz, G. F. Stanley, hon. E. J.
Murray, A. Gordon, R.

Original question, to grant 70,000l. for civil contingencies, was agreed to.

The House resumed.