§ Sir E. Knatchbull
thought the bill was such as the House ought not to agree to, and that it was at variance with the true principles of the British constitution. His wish was, that the whole subject of rural police should be re-considered. No one could deny that sonic alteration was necessary; but the question was whether that which was now proposed by the Government was the best, or whether some better and less expensive system could not be adopted. He would just mention, that in his opinion a separate and distinct provision was really necessary to regulate the police of canals and railways. He thought that the evidence collected by the commissioners was not of such a description as to justify the Government in bringing forward the measure of last Session or the present bill. The question was, whether the House was prepared to substitute for the existing constabulary force an organized body of an essentially military character, and one which would be solely and exclusively under the control of the Government. Another important consideration was the expense of the new system. In the county of Glocester, which had adopted the provisions of the act, the charge in the first year amounted to 17,253l., while the amount of the county-rate during the last three years had been about 6,000l. less. The operation 1270 of the new system, with regard to boroughs' was inconsistent with the principle of self-election, which the House had established by the Municipal Election Bill. When the House remembered that only thirteen counties had thought fit to accept the measure of last Session, he thought it would adopt his motion; which was, that the bill be referred to a select committee.
believed that the expense of adopting the rural constabulary system would not be found so great as had been apprehended, nor ought the expenditure in the counties which had adopted the system to deter other counties. The measure was especially calculated to protect the poor; for no class in the country suffered more from petty depredators than did cottagers during their absence from their homes in the hours of labour. It would be no small additional advantage if by this means they could get rid of poaching, which was always the first stage in rural crime. Twopence in the pound would probably be the whole amount of the rate required for the county of Kent—an amount which a farmer would almost save in the article of well-ropes stolen under the present system in the course of the year. Another great advantage consisted in the uniformity of practice secured within each county by the appointment of a chief constable. For these reasons he cordially supported the measure.
§ Mr. Benett
said, that 2d. in the pound was too small an amount of rate. In Wiltshire it was 6d., which was a serious sum to pay without a corresponding advantage. Having dropped in these days all constitutional objections which he had felt in other times to such a measure, he was now decidedly of opinion that if they were to have a rural police, it ought to be under centrical control, and paid from the general public funds, for he considered it to be the duty of Government to maintain the peace of the country. He should much prefer this to the plan of last Session, from the general adoption of which he anticipated nothing but disappointment, as had already been felt in Wiltshire from its adoption there. He thought it better that the two bills should be referred to a committee.
§ Mr. G. Knight
said, that in a question of this kind, the House ought not to look to the party who were the Government of the day, and ought to leave such a measure as this in their hands. He should be glad, not only to see the bill made compulsory, but that the Government should take upon itself the whole administration of the 1271 measure, so as to make it more effectual and more economical. It was highly inexpedient to keep the feelings of a part of the country in a state of uncertainty, and as to referring the bill to a committee, it would only prolong the uncertainty and suspense.
§ Mr. Bruges
said, if this was an act introduced for the first time to alter the law with respect to the constabulary force, he should vote for its further consideration; but when there was an act in force, and this bill was merely to remedy its defects, he could not support the amendment. He thought the bill before the House very necessarily and properly introduced.
§ Mr. Halford
said, his vote would be given in support of the amendment of the right hon. Baronet, as a proposal calculated to afford the opportunity for that maturer deliberation and discussion, which had not certainly been given to the subject on its first introduction during the last Session, but which, on account of its importance, it eminently deserved. The measure of which this bill formed a part had been supported from either side of the House without reference to party, he thought an appeal might fairly be made to both parties for caution and hesitation with regard to it, upon the respective principles of either. The plea in its favour was urged upon the ground of increase of crime, together with a decay of public spirit among the existing authorities, rendering them unfit and inadequate for its prevention and punishment. This might be true, it might be true that the progress of society was attended with corruption of manners, that there was always a tendency in a free constitution to degenerate from its liberty, and that in proportion as the spring of government became weakened and relaxed, it became necessary from time to time that it should be renewed and contracted; but if this were so, there were those in the House whom he might ask, how they reconciled such a supposition with the characteristic views they entertained—the administrative despotism now proposed with the political liberty of which they were the advocates, the apathy and indolence attributed to the class from which the ordinary constables were taken, to the influence upon general policy they would give to that class, or the notion of a general increase of crime and corruption with the extension of the franchise among the people at large. On the other hand the office pf conservatism was, he thought, not more 1272 to protect the order of society against the dangers with which it might be threatened under pretext of liberty, than to guard the constitutional liberties we enjoyed against encroachment or suspension, more than was absolutely and imperatively necessary for the sake of order. The county with which he was connected had been among the first to adopt the act of the last Session, they had done so he was free to admit, under a sense of deficiency among the ordinary constables, and of a necessity for assistance and improvement in the police, but they had done so also under a wrong impression of the extent and object of the scheme of which that act was a part. It was thought that the assistance of an active superintendent, to whom it was proposed to give a salary of 100l. with twenty-four subordinates, might be of use in cases of a graver and more difficult description in combination with the old constabulary. The order of the Secretary of State, however, fixing the salary of the chief constable at 250l., soon showed the intention of the Government to extend the plan far beyond what they proposed. He did not pretend to speak in the name of the body of Leicestershire magistrates, but he thought if the recommendations of the Commissioners were ultimately to be carried out to the full extent, there would be a general feeling of regret in the county at the insidious nature of the proposal, by which they had been beguiled into the surrender of functions he had been taught to consider essentially connected with the enjoyment of liberty. He had read the report with attention, and wished to speak of it with the respect so entirely due from every Member of the House, and which none felt more deeply than he did, to the name which stood first among the Commissioners, but he hoped there was nothing inconsistent with that respect to say, that he could not agree with all the reasonings it contained, nor assent to the conclusions at which it arrived. It was urged that no just estimate could be formed of the increase and extent of crimes from the number judicially pursued, because of a general forbearance to prosecute. Now the degree to which such forbearance might prevail was a very equivocal test of the increase of crime. He could not believe it to be very generally the result of intimidation and the fear of violence, because that would be to suppose a cowardice which was no part of the national character, while the dread of trouble and expense would hardly operate 1273 under a sense of injury from serious and frequent depredations. But the report was not without evidence of a contrary description. "We find," say the commissioners, "from the evidence that crimes of violence, whether originating in rapacity, or resorted to for the gratification of any vindictive or gross passion, other than for money, are generally in a course of gradual diminution. This diminution is the more satisfactory, inasmuch as it is the result of a gradual amelioration of the morals of the people, independent of any special agency for the purpose." A return also given in the report of the number of highway robberies committed in each year, from 1831 to 1837, showed a gradual and constant diminution of the number. It was not in the face of testimonies such as these, that he could think a case was made out, from the fears of commercial travellers who did not choose to pursue their journies late at night lest they should be robbed, but who, from any thing which appeared in the report, it did not seem ever had been robbed; nor from the pilfering which took place upon canals, for a change in the social system so entire as that which came within the recommendation of the commissioners. No doubt that in large towns, among a manufacturing population, or occasionally for the reformation of a demoralized rural district, an agency of a more constant and vigilant kind than could be supplied by the ancient parochial system was required; but were there no acts already for the purpose? There were the police clauses of the Municipal Corporations Act, the Lighting and Watching Act, the Special Constables' Acts; these were all enactments of recent date, and such as could hardly yet be said to have been fairly tried; but all these it was within the scheme of the commissioners to annul and merge in a new system, which, if it were done, would present an instance of an instability of legislation, which was in itself a great evil. The old principle of local responsibility, under which heretofore property had been effectually protected, it was said had fallen into desuetude; but the new plan renounced and repudiated that principle altogether. The correction and suppression of local discontents and disturbances was no longer to be left to the inhabitants where they occurred, because their interference might be followed by animosities among neighbours, and between labourers and their employers. The opposite proposal, however, he thought of a very questionable character. Wherever local dis- 1274 contents arose into actual disturbance, something was wrong in the relations of the society of the locality; the labouring class was either under the pressure of some actual grievance, or there was a defect of moral instruction among them: in neither case did he think those immediately in connection with them ought to be relieved from all responsibility. To place at the command of the wealthier inhabitants of any particular district an army of strangers, in order to stifle in their birth all signs of remonstrance or discontent, so far, in his opinion, from strengthening the bonds of society would be to weaken them, alienating the minds of the poor from the rich, exempting the latter from a principal motive to the well-being of the former, and impairing the only true security for peace and order which could rest upon no other good foundation than that of a reciprocity of advantages and attachment. It was said an organised police force would obviate the necessity of recourse to the military, and a distinction was drawn in favour of the former, on account of the less fatal character of their weapons than of the musket and bayonet; but there was a description of soldiers not armed with muskets and bayonets, he meant the mounted yeomanry. In the county where he lived that force had been preserved, and he well remembered hearing its commanding officer make it his boast that whenever they had been called upon they had performed effectually the service required of them, while their interference had, in no instance, been attended with the effusion of a drop of blood. Much was said in the report of the deficiencies of the parish constables and, no doubt, in great measure with justice; but those, also, of the unpaid magistrates were equally set forth, and appeared not less flagrant, nor, indeed, was it easy to use any argument against the one that might not apply to the other. But was the House prepared to abolish the unpaid magistracy? For his part he thought such deficiencies were a doubtful argument for the necessity of a more stringent system of police. The inexperience and inability complained of arose from want of practice—from the rarity of the occasion on which the village constable was called for, and proved more than any thing else the innocence of the neighbourhood where he lived. It was in the nature of self-government to improve with the necessity for it. Instances were cited of perplexity and confusion among magistrates and constables alike when the agricultural 1275 riots occurred in 1831, in the neighbourhood of Newbury. This was a consequence of the sacrifice attending such an unprecedented state of things. Surely it could not be necessary to organise and perpetually maintain an armed force to guard against such a contingency which, it was not probable, would ever happen again. We knew that he could not speak on the subject in connexion with political liberty without risking the imputation of vague and puerile declamation; and yet this was a point which ought not to be left out of consideration. He would content himself, however, with observing that the principal difference between the new force and a new standing army was one little to the advantage of the former, for it was without the constitutional security of an annual vote for its maintenance; once called into existence by the county magistrates it was to be continued at the arbitrary will of the Secretary of State by means of funds over which the people had no control.
§ Mr. Hume
said, there was great dissatisfaction on account of the increased county-rates, owing to the bill of last year; but that was because there was no responsible control over them. Though he objected to such a state of things as that, was he to allow the country to remain under the old system of want of protection? With a proper superintendence, he thought the expense of the police would not be half of what the expense was under the old system. But he thought the whole police of the country ought not to be put under the control of the Home Secretary of State. He should give his support to the bill.
§ Lord G. Somerset
said, it was most important to have such a police as should fairly protect parties and property; but it was important, on the other hand, to consider whether that object could not be effected by a more economical system than that which was adopted last year. Let the whole case be referred to a select committee, and if they could devise a more economical method, let the House adopt that rather than botch the system that was now in existence, and which left the House only the alternative of either having a very expensive or a very ineffective system of police. Where there was a very dense population it might be desirable to have a very stringent system of police. The bill of last year was not carried into very general execution, because it had not the concurrence of a very large portion of the rate-payers as it was constituted. The ex- 1276 pense of the police fell on the county-rates, which were chiefly paid by the landed interest, and it was the manufacturing population which gave occasion to the employment of that police. It was a great hardship to force the agricultural villages to contribute three-fourths more than was required for the protection of their own district. He did not think it necessary to have the same police machinery in the agricultural districts, where there was but a population of ten to the square mile, as in the manufacturing districts, where the population was 100 to the square mile. He hoped the House would consent to refer the bill to a select committee.
§ Mr. F. Maule
considered the amendment of the right hon. Gentleman opposite tantamount to closing this measure against any further consideration. It appeared to him that the whole course of the right hon. Gentleman's speech tended rather to throw an impediment in the way of their perfecting the present law. When they considered the period at which that act was passed, he was not prepared to deny that it was very natural to find considerable defect in the details. It was passed at a period when it was absolutely necessary to have some system of organized police in the rural districts; it was passed at the close of the Session, and certainly that consideration was not given to it which might have been under different circumstances. But very early this Session he had proposed to carry a bill into committee for the purpose of improving that system of police, which, notwithstanding all the objections made to it, he was sure in the long run would be approved, and from which the country would derive considerable benefit. It appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman opposite would be content with something of a middle nature. He would make the present bad system of local county constables a trifle better than it was, and leave it to sink in a very short time into its present inefficient state. It was for the purpose of making a decided improvement in the old system of constabulary that these bills were now brought forward, and he thought that this amended measure, which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to refer to a select committee, contained clauses which would enable the measure contemplated last Session to be carried into effect at considerably less expense than was originally anticipated in the act of last Session. He should not enter at that moment into the details of the measure. It ap- 1277 peared to him, as far as he could gather the general sense of the House, that the fairest way of dealing with the question would he by going into Committee on the hill, and then discussing the clauses. If any hon. Member proposed a substantial amendment, he should be perfectly ready to discuss it in committee. He had endeavoured to give every consideration to the subject; he had introduced the bill in one shape; he had, upon representations he had received from the country, modified it into another shape; and if the principle of the bill was not meddled with, he should be ready in committee to modify it again.
§ Mr. Darby
said, the evil of the bill of last year was, that it was not compulsory and he was of opinion that all the points urged against the measure, both by the magistrates and the rate-payers, could be best discussed by a select committee up-stairs. By that means prejudices which now existed might be removed.
§ Mr. Hodges
said, that he should have been disposed at the commencement of the Session to consent to refer this bill and the measure which he had introduced, and which stood for a second reading to-night, to a select committee up-stairs; but at this advanced period of the Session he did not wish to risk the enactment of a measure necessary to amend the act of last year. He thought it duo to the counties which had adopted the measure of last year, that without delay they should have the benefit of the amendments which the present bill proposed to make. With these feelings he should not be able to support the amendment moved by the right hon. Baronet.
§ Mr. Plumptre
expressed his regret at being compelled to differ from the views of his right hon. colleague on the present occasion. He thought the Government bill would be of use in putting down the evils arising from beer-shops, and he also was of opinion that the objections to the bill on the score of expense were groundless, inasmuch as the magistrates of each district could check them.
§ The House divided on the original question: Ayes 105; Noes 39; Majority 66.
|List of the AYES.|
|Adam, Admiral||Blair, James|
|Aglionby, Major||Blake, W. J.|
|Alston, R.||Bodkin, J. J.|
|Baines, E.||Bowes, J.|
|Barry, G. S.||Bramston, T. W|
|Bernal, R.||Bridgeman, H.|
|Blackburne, I.||Brotherton, J.|
|Bruges, W. H. L.||Parker, R. T.|
|Busfield, W.||Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.|
|Clay, W.||Pease, J.|
|Collier, J.||Pechell, Captain|
|Courtenay, P.||Pendarves, E. W. W.|
|Cripps, J.||Pigot, D. R.|
|Currie, R.||Plumptre, J. P.|
|Dalmeny, Lord||Pusey, P.|
|Eastnor, Viscount||Rawdon, Col. J. D.|
|Finch, F.||Rice, E. R.|
|Gordon, R.||Roche, E. B.|
|Greenaway, C.||Roche, Sir D.|
|Greg, R. H.||Round, C. G.|
|Grey, rt. hon. Sir C.||Round, J.|
|Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.||Rundle, J.|
|Harcourt, G. G.||Russell, Lord J.|
|Hawes, B.||Rutherfurd, rt. hon. A.|
|Hawkins, J. H.||Sanford, E. A.|
|Hill, Lord M.||Sinclair, Sir G.|
|Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.||Slaney, R. A.|
|Hobhouse, T. B.||Smith, R. V.|
|Hodgson, R.||Stansfield, W. R. C.|
|Horsman, E.||Stock, Dr.|
|Hoskins, K.||Strickland, Sir G.|
|Hume, Joseph||Strutt, E.|
|Humphery, J.||Style, Sir C.|
|Hutt, W.||Talbot, J. H.|
|Kemble, H.||Thornely, T.|
|Knight, H. G.||Tufnell, H.|
|Labouchere, rt. hn. H.||Turner, E.|
|Lascelles, hn. W.S.||Turner, W.|
|Lister, E. C.||Verney, Sir H.|
|Lushington, C.||Vigors, N. A.|
|Lushington, Sir S.||Wallace, R.|
|Lynch, A. H.||Warburton, H.|
|Macaulay, T. B.||Ward, H. G.|
|Marsland, H.||White, A.|
|Martin, J.||White, H.|
|Mordaunt, Sir J.||Williams, W. A.|
|Morpeth, Viscount||Wilshere, W.|
|Norreys, Sir D. J.||Wood, G. W.|
|O'Connell, D.||Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.|
|O'Connell, J.||Wyse, T.|
|O'Connell, M.||Yates, A.|
|Paget, F.||Maule, hon. F.|
|Pakington, J, S.||Parker, J.|
|List of the NOES.|
|Bailey, J;||Hector, C. J.|
|Bailey, J. jun.||Hughes, W. B.|
|Benett, J.||Ingestrie, Viscount|
|Blakemore, R.||Jones, J.|
|Broadley, H.||Lennox, Lord A.|
|Buller, Sir J. Y.||Mackenzie, W. F.|
|Burroughes, H. N.||Maclean, D.|
|Canning, rt. hn. Sir S.||Marsland, T.|
|De Horsey, S. H.||Norreys, Lord|
|Drummond, H. H.||Perceval, hn. G.J.|
|Duffield, T.||Rickford, W.|
|Egerton, W. T.||Rolleston, L.|
|Estcourt, T.||Rushbrooke, Colonel|
|Fitzroy, hon, H.||Scarlett, hon. J, Y.|
|Freemantle, Sir T.||Scholefield, J.|
|Gladstone, W. E.||Sibthorp Colonel|
|Godson, R.||Somerset, Lord G.|
|Halford, H.||Thornhill, G.|
|Williams, W.||Knatchbull, Sir E.|
|Wood, Col. T.||Darby, G.|
§ On the question that the Speaker do leave the chair,
§ Mr. G. Knight
said, that this was the most fitting occasion that could occur for him to urge a suggestion he had to make. He found from the information already before the House that about 70,000l. per annum was paid out of the consolidated fund in aid and support of the metropolitan police force. Why should not the same principle be applied to the proposed general police force, and thus relief be given to the agricultural districts? There had been an hesitation to adopt the measure of last Session on the ground of expense; but if assistance was given in the way he suggested, it would ensure the general adoption, by all counties, of the measure. To effect any good, the adoption of the measure ought to be universal. He was well aware that he could not move such an amendment as that he suggested without the consent of the Crown; he hoped, however, that the noble Lord would not hesitate to signify that assent, and suffer the suggestion to be discussed and entertained.
§ Lord J, Russell
was not prepared to give the assent of the Crown to the proposition of the hon Member.
§ House in Committee.
§ On clause one,
§ Mr. F. Maule
, alluding to the amendment, of which the hon. Member for Bath had given notice, said that the proportion of one policeman to every thousand of population had not been acted upon heretofore, and he was of opinion that it would be better, as the bill proposed to leave the matter as to the numbers of the police force in the discretion of the magistrates.
§ Mr. Darby
said; that though he admitted the magistrates were the proper persons to fix the number of constables, yet, that the proportion of one constable for every thousand of population would treble the amount of the county-rate; this, of course, would be greatly objected to by the rate-payers, and would be productive of evil.
§ Mr. Hume
remarked, that the country would never consent to the appointment of an unlimited number of police; they never would acquiesce in such an unlimited power as the bill proposed to give to a single individual. He was induced to move at the proper time to strike out all the 1280 words after the enacting part of the present clause.
§ Sir R. Peel
said, that the bill in its present form only dealt with those counties which were willing to adopt its provisions. If a county chose to adopt the provision of the bill, there would in that case be a power vested in the chief constable, when once appointed, to make any additional number which might be deemed necessary. What he wished was, that means should be provided of applying the same principle to counties, which did not require such cumbrous establishments. He was, therefore, desirous of seeing a clause introduced enabling the rate-payers of any parish, who wished to have a single police constable for the preservation of the peace, to have the power of making such an appointment. Such a provision would be useful where no large police establishment was required, but where one or two constables were desirable. Though small, such appointments would be effectual in a country where so much deference was paid to the law and to the legal authorities.
§ Mr. L. Bruges moved, as an amendment, at line 12, after the word "increase," to omit all the words to the end of the clause, and substitute the following words, viz., "or reduce the number of constables for their county, so that the number of such constables shall not exceed at any time, the proportion of one constable for every thousand of the inhabitants, according to the last census." A similar provision was in the last act, and was well calculated to prevent any misapprehension. To carry the object fully into effect, magistrates should be authorized from time to time to reduce the number of the police as occasion might occur.
§ Mr. F. Maule
could not consent to any proposition for doing away altogether with a police force where it had once been established. No part of the country ought to be without the ground-work of such a force, however small the skeleton to which it might be reduced. The right hon. Baronet the member for Tamworth, had suggested, that a power should be vested in parishes of appointing one to two constables for the preservation of order, but then the question arose as to whom the persons thus appointed should be responsible? The great danger was, that they would soon become masters in their own right. Still, any suggestion coming from the right hon. Baronet was highly deserving of the utmost deference, and the hint would 1281 be attended to at some future period in the progress of the bill. As to the amendment now proposed, he did not think it at all necessary, and rather than adopt it, it would be better to omit the clause altogether.
§ Sir R. Peel
thought the bill would have the effect of driving such persons from one parish to another, as the parish to which they went would then be necessitated to establish a police force, and thus those persons would ultimately be got rid of. This country was undoubtedly out-growing the use of the old police. He would recommend persons to be sent down who were unconnected with the localities, and upon their becoming intimately acquainted with them, to have them removed elsewhere. If persons so appointed did not perform their duty, the parishioners would soon evince a disinclination to pay for their services. He thought it would be well that the application should he made in the first place to the Secretary of State.
§ Mr. Slaney
observed, that where a county was divided into districts, some being manufacturing and others rural districts, it would be quite unfair to expect that the manufacturing districts should pay an equal proportion of the expense, if they did not require an equal number of policemen.
§ Clause was struck out.
§ On clause 11, which provides superannuation allowances,
§ Mr. Williams Wynn
thought the clause an exceedingly beneficial one. Under the present system he had frequently known constables to remain in service when they were unfitted for the discharge of their duties.
§ The Committee divided on the clause: — Ayes 99; Noes 13: Majority 86.
|List of the AYES.|
|Abercromby, hn. G.R.||Blake, W. J.|
|Adam, Admiral||Bowes, J.|
|Alston, R.||Bramston, T. W.|
|Bailey, J.||Broadley, H.|
|Bailey, J. jun.||Brotherton, J.|
|Baring, rt. hon. F. T.||Bruges, W. H. L.|
|Beamish, F. B.||Burroughes, H. N.|
|Bewes, T.||Busfeild, W.|
|Blackburne, I.||Cavendish, hn. G. H.|
|Blake, M. J.||Chalmers, P.|
|Clay, W.||Packe, C. W.|
|Clements, Viscount||Pakington, J. S.|
|Compton, H. C||Palmer, G.|
|Dalmeny, Lord||Parker, R. T.|
|Darby, G.||Pease, J.|
|Eastnor, Viscount||Pendarves, E. W. W.|
|Egerton, W.T.||Perceval, hon. G. J.|
|Estcourt, T.||Plumptre, J. P.|
|Fitzroy, lion, Henry||Pryme, G.|
|Fremantle, Sir T.||Pusey, P.|
|Gordon, R.||Rawdon, Col. J. D.|
|Greenaway, C.||Rice, E. R.|
|Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.||Roche, Sir D.|
|Grimsditch, T.||Rolleston, L.|
|Halford, H.||Round, C. G.|
|Hastie, A.||Rundle, John|
|Hawes, B.||Rushbrooke, Colonel|
|Hawkins, J. H.||Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.|
|Hindley, C||Sandon, Viscount|
|Hodgson, R.||Sanford, E. A.|
|Holmes, hon. W. A'C||Scarlett, hon. J. Y.|
|Horsman, E.||Sibthorp, Colonel|
|Hughes, W. B.||Slaney, R. A.|
|Hurt, F.||Smith, R. V.|
|Hutt, W.||Stanley, hon. E. J.|
|Ingestrie, Viscount||Stansfield, W. R. C.|
|Ingham, R.||Strutt, E.|
|Jones, J;||Talbot, J. H.|
|Kemble, H.||Thornely, T.|
|Knight, H. G.||Verney, Sir H.|
|Lennox, Lord A.||Vigors, N. A.|
|Lincoln, Karl of||Warburton, H.|
|Lynch, A. H.||Welby, G. E.|
|Mackenzie, W. F.||Williams, W. A.|
|Maule, hon. F.||Wood, G. W.|
|Mordaunt, Sir J.||Wood, Colonel T.|
|Morpeth, Viscount||Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.|
|Morris, D.||Wyse, T.|
|Norreys, Sir D. J.||TELLERS.|
|O'Connell, J.||Parker, J.|
|O'Connell, M.||Tuffnell, H.|
|List of the NOES.|
|Aglionby, Major||Knatchbull, right hon. Sir. E.|
|Buller, Sir J. Y.||Nicholl, J.|
|Duncan, Viscount||Pechell, Captain|
|Ewart, W.||Scholefield, J.|
|Hodges, T. L.||Johnson, General|
|Hume, J.||Hector, C. J.|
§ Clause agreed to, as were also the clauses 12 to 16 inclusive.
§ The House resumed, the Committee to sit again.