Commons Sitting of 31 March 1840

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Messrs. James, Greg. R. Walker, Somers, Briscoe, G. Langton, M. Philips, C. Berkeley, Wallace, Easthope, Thorneley, Marsland, H. Hinde, Wilbraham, Clay, Brotherton, O'Connell, Muntz, T. Duncombe, Ward, Macauley, Morrison, Redington, Hawes, John Martin, Hume, Baines, Slaney, Warburton, Gillon, B. Wood, the Attorney-general, Sirs M. Wood, J. C. Hobhouse, G. Staunton, Colonel Davies, and General Johnson, from several hundred places, for, and by Messrs. Pakington, G. Knight, Barneby, B. Baring, G. Palmer, C. C, Cavendish, Neeld, Round, Waddington, Basset,

287
Bagge, Darby, Sanford, J. Young, R. M. Milnes, Pringle, O'Gore, Sirs B. Hill, J. Tyrrell, C. Burrell, E. Knatchbull, Lord Worsley, the Earl of Lincoln, General Lygon, Captain Perceval, and Colonel Rushbrooke, from several hundred places, against, the Total and Immediate Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Mr. Goring, from Worthing, against the Grant to Maynooth College—By Mr. M. Philips, from the Beer Sellers of Manchester, to be placed on a footing with the Licensed Victuallers.—By Messrs. Blackburne, Christopher, and Moneypenny, from three places, for Church Extension.—By Sir J. Duke, from Boston, for opening the Beer Trade.—By Mr. Lockhart, from Lanark, in favour of Non-Intrusion.—By the hon. H. T. Liddell, from the Dean and Chapter of Durham, against the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill.—By Mr. Brotherton, from Stockport, for the Release of John Thorogood, and the Abolition of Church Rates; also against the Opium Trade.—By Lord Clements, from Carrickfergus, for an Extension of the Suffrage.—By Lord Sandon, from Liverpool, for Protection to the West India Produce; from Maidstone, against the Opium Trade; and from three places, for Protection to that same Trade.

THE KING OF HANOVER.
Mr. Horsmanwished to put a question to the hon. and gallant Member for Sligo relative to what was understood to have been stated by him the other night with regard to the King of Hanover. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was understood to deny the statement that application had been made, at the instance of her Majesty, to the King of Hanover, to allow his apartments in St. James's Palace to be occupied by her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent, and that such application had been refused. Some days having now intervened, affording to the hon. and gallant Member an opportunity to obtain further information, he preferred inquiring of him whether he still persisted in that denial, to putting a question directly to the Government upon the subject.
Colonel Percevalsaid, he had not stated on the occasion alluded to, that no such application had been made to the King of Hanover. He said no such application had been made by the Duchess of Kent; and, lest any misconception should arise as to what fell from him on a matter of so much delicacy, after the observation of the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, that what he had stated was new to him, he begged to remind the House that he rose immediately after the noble Lord had sat down, and requested, as an indulgence, to be allowed to read the statement he now held in his hand, and which, with the permission of the House, he would again read, as the best answer to the question which had been put to him. These were the very words of the statement;—
"It has been erroneously conceived that the
288
King of Hanover's apartments in St. James's Palace were required by the Duchess of Kent. In fact, her Royal Highness did not only not express any wish for them, but even asserted they would not suit her; and her Royal Highness was not pleased that her name had been made use of in connexion with them."
His statement was, not that no application had been made to the King of Hanover, but that the application was not made by the Duchess of Kent, and that the Duchess of Kent was dissatisfied that such application had been made. He might also say, that since Friday last he had been in communication not only with Sir F. Watson, but also with a Member of the Government, and he was authorized to say, first, that the Commissioners of Woods and Forests had applied to the King of Hanover for the use of his apartments, which application had been refused, and that subsequently the noble Lord at the head of the Government, Lord Melbourne, had made the same application, which was also refused. He repeated his statement went only thus far—he denied that any such application had been made by the Duchess of Kent; and declared that her Royal Highness had expressed her disapprobation of the application.

PRIVILEGE—ARREST OF MR. HOWARD.
On the Motion of the Attorney-General,the Sergeant-at-Arms appeared at the bar, and acquainted the House that on Saturday last, the assistant-sergeant and four other officers of the House were served with a notice that a declaration in an action had been filed against them in the Court of Queen's Bench, at the suit of Thomas Burton Howard, and he had thought it his duty to obtain a copy of that declaration.
The declaration was then delivered in, and read by the clerk at the table. The damages were laid at 1,000 l.
The Attorney-Generalthen said, that in the absence of his noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies, it became his duty to make a motion on this subject, in which he had the concurrence of his noble Friend. From the verbiage of the document which had just been read, it was difficult to discover either what was the exact form of the action to be brought, or what it was of which the plaintiff complained. It did not appear that he questioned the privileges of the House or the

289
legality of the warrant, but what he said was, that there was an excess of violence on the part of the officers of the House in the execution of that warrant. The hon. and learned Member for Ripon, whom he did not then see in his place, had, he believed, received a letter from Mr. Howard on that subject, and he himself had received one purporting to come from Mr. Laurie, Mr. Howard's solicitor, in which he stated that the complaint was of excess of violence on the part of the officers of that House. The question was, what course ought the House to adopt under these circumstances. He thought there could be no doubt, that whenever an action was brought involving the privileges of this House, the House had a right, and was called upon to interfere in a summary manner with its authority. He did not regret what the House had already done in vindication of its privileges; on the contrary, he thought that it had only exercised a constitutional and very wholesome power. The question, however, involved in the present case, was whether the officers of the House had been guilty of any excess in executing the warrant of the House; and this was a question which the House, and the House only, had a right to inquire into. The Court of Chancery, it was well known, would not allow an action to be brought against one of its officers for any alleged excess in the execution of their duty, but upon complaint made would cause inquiry to be made into the circumstances, would punish the offender if there had been any breach of duty on his part, and award compensation to the injured party. And was the House not to do the same by its officers if it thought proper? If any complaint were made by petition, alleging that its officers had acted improperly in the execution of the warrants of the House, it ought to interfere, inquire into the circumstances, and award such compensation as the case seemed to merit. But the question in this case was whether under all the circumstances, it would be expedient for the House to exercise this power in the present case. He thought as the privilege of the House had not been called in question by the plaintiff in this action, that the House should resolve, not that the Attorney-general should be instructed to appear and defend the action, but that the servants of the House, being the defendants in this case, should be
290
allowed to appear to and defend the action. For his own part, he had no doubt that it would be found that the defendants had been guilty of no excess in the execution of their duty, and that they had done no more than the warrant of the House justified and required them to do. It appeared that they had merely entered the house of Mr. Howard—that no opposition had been made to their so doing—that interchanges of civilities had passed between them and the parties in the House whilst they remained there—and that it was only after frequently calling, that they were enabled to execute the warrant against Mr. Howard. On such evidence as this, he (the Attorney-general) thought there must certainly be a verdict for the defendants, as they had done nothing more than their duty, and what the House required of them. He thought, under all these circumstances, that the most prudent and dignified course for the House to adopt, would be to allow the servants of the House (the defendants in this case) to appear to and defend the action; and he would therefore conclude with a motion to that effect.
Viscount Howickrose, and said, that it was not his intention to take up the time of the House by entering into any arguments against the course which the lion, and learned Gentleman had just advised the House to pursue in this matter, because he was well aware of the large majority that was ready to support that course. He could not, however, allow the House to submit to this further concession, and still more humiliating course than any to which they had already given way, without entering his protest against it. Any one who had listened to the lion, and learned Gentleman on this occasion, must have observed that he himself felt the humiliating submission which he was advising the House to enter into. He tells the House that the Court of Chancery would not suffer its privileges to be invaded by any law proceedings against its officers for an excess of duty, but would take into its own hands the punishment of those officers, and the compensation of the injured parties, if an excess had been committed; and yet the hon. and learned Gentleman recommends the House of Commons to submit to what the Court of Chancery would not tolerate. It could not be denied, that the constitutional mode of proceeding would be for the parties

291
complaining of any excess of duty by the officer of the House to petition the House to punish the offending party, and compensate the injured. Why, then, was the strict Parliamentary course to be now departed from? What indulgence, he would ask, did the complaining party here deserve from the House of Commons. Mr. Howard had brought repeated actions questioning their privileges, and he was now in Newgate for that offence, and he had never yet offered to make the slightest concession. This was the person for whom they were to depart from the usual constitutional course. The hon. and learned Gentleman says, he is confident that no trespass has been committed, and that such will be the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench. Now he was confident of no such thing. After the decisions to which that court had already come upon this subject, directly opposed as they were to all former decisions, he had no confidence whatever in that court. The Court of Queen's Bench might lay it down, that the officers of the House had no right to enter Mr. Howard's house at all; and there might be found many other grounds on which the court would decide against the defendants. The House was now about to submit itself unequivocally and for ever to the Courts of Law. This was the consequence of the false step they had taken by introducing the bill which they had passed the other night. They must hold all their privileges for evermore at the discretion of the Courts of Law, and must submit to have every exercise of their power questioned in those courts. "I, for one," said the noble Viscount," will not be responsible for the adoption of this humiliating and injurious course; for if I stand alone I will give my negative to the motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman."
Mr. O'Connellquite agreed in the views of the noble Lord who had just spoken upon this subject. The House had over and over again by resolution asserted its privileges by large majorities. There was an unanimous opinion amongst all legal men in the House, that the Court of Queen's Bench was wrong. Not only those on his side, but also the very eminent Gentlemen on the other side. They might differ as to the reasons, but they all unanimously came to the same conclusion, that the Court of Queen's Bench was wrong. The jury might be so di-
292
rected by the judge, and might have given the entire of the 1,000 l. at which the damages were laid; or the judge might for the trespass direct the jury to give one farthing, and the jury, turning rampant, might give the whole amount at which the damages were laid. The House was then asked to do what the Court of Chancery would not condescend to do—and was virtually called upon to affix a limit to its privileges—by submitting to a court of law the time (whether two minutes, or two minutes and a half, and that by a stop watch, perhaps) in which the officers of the House would be justified in remaining in the house of a person to whom the Speaker's warrant might be directed. Such a shrinking from the assertion of its privileges on a former occasion had involved the House already in difficulty, and would involve it in further difficulty. It would be a much more eligible course to examine the officers of the House at the bar, to ascertain from them what they had done Mr. Howard would then have an opportunity of contradicting or affirming their statements by a petition to the House, and could, as he had already done, communicate with such Members of the House as he thought most likely to support him. He could also claim compensation from the House for whatever (if any) excess in the discharge of their duties had been committed by the officers of the House; but he must protest against the question being referred to the Court of Queen's Bench or to any other legal tribunal, because the consequence of such reference would create a conviction in the public mind, when they saw the House shrinking from the assertion of its privileges, that no such right or privilege did exist.
Mr. T. Duncombeadmitted the imputation which had been thrown out against him by the hon. and learned Member who had last spoke, of having been in correspondence with Mr. Howard. [Mr. O'Connell said, that he alluded to the hon. and learned Member for Ripon.] Yes, but the same remark applies equally to me. The hon. and learned Member for Ripon, and it seemed the Attorney-general also as well as himself, had been in communication with Mr. Howard, who on that occasion did not complain against the warrant or its just execution, but he complained because it had been illegally executed. In fact, he complained of excess being committed by the officers

293
of the House; that his house had been broken open; that the officers were ten hours in possession of his house and created great disturbance. For that outrage he sought compensation from the laws of his country—and to that redress, supposing; the excess to have been committed, he was justly entitled. It was said that Mr. Howard might petition the House for redress. Mr. Howard had had already experience sufficient of the mode in which redress had been given to petitioners by that House. Mr. Howard had written a letter, dated Newgate, March 12, 1840, stating that had not Mr. Gossett kept out of the reach of the service of the writ, the declaration would have long since been filed, and notice of such declaration served upon him. For that reason he hoped for the support of hon. Members to oppose the bill (the Printed Papers Bill) then in progress through the House, and to prevent his becoming the object of ex post facto legislation, by depriving him of the redress to which he would be entitled in a Court of Law for the excess committed by the officers of the House. In his opinion Mr. Howard was perfectly right not to petition the House for redress—for no attention would be paid by the House to his petition or to its prayer. A petition had been presented from Mr. Stockdale a short time ago, and it was decided that the petition was an insult to the House, and that it ought not to be received. It was read twice, and he sincerely believed that if it had been read the third time it would be received; for many hon. Members, not knowing their own minds, had followed the opinions propounded by the two noble Lords who took so prominent a part in rejecting that petition, and if an opportunity offered of reconsidering that opinion they would vole for its admission. Mr. Howard was of right in appealing to a Court of Law. Did the House, on a former occasion, interfere and prevent Sir Francis Burdett from taking an action against Mr. Speaker Abbot? Was that hon. Baronet then told to petition the House, and seek redress from its justice for the excess which formed the ground of his action against the Speaker? No such intimation was given by the House, and if it were offered it would not very probably be accepted.
Mr. Prymecontended that there was no such plea in the declaration as that of
294
excess; so that the superstructure of the argument of the hon. Member who had last spoken entirely failed. The declaration stated the trespass of entering his house, &c.; and it was only in the replication to the pleading of the defendant that the excess could be pleaded. He would support the motion.
Sir W. Follettapproved of the course suggested by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, and cited the recent instance where the Sergeant-at-Arms was directed to make a return to the writ of habeas corpus issued by the sheriffs, when the Court of Queen's Bench decided that they would not inquire into any thing but the Speaker's warrant. When the question of compensation in damages for the alleged excess came before the Court of Queen's Bench, it would, no doubt, adopt a similar course of proceeding, and the question at issue between Mr. Hansard and the officer of the House was one which was strictly a question for a Court of Law and a jury to decide. No such intimation as that suggested by the noble Lord, the Member for Northumberland land, had been given to Sir F. Burdett who brought an action against the Sergeant-at-Arms (as well as the Speaker) for an excess in the discharge of his duty.
The Attorney-Generalin reply protested against the imputation of concession or retractation of the privileges of the House, which had been urged against him.
The Solicitor-Generalsaid that it was a duty which he owed himself to give his unqualified and utter dissent to the course then pursued by his hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney-General. He did so with regret; but he did it from paramount self-justice.
The House divided. Ayes 142; Noes 51— Majority 91.

List of the AYES.

Alston, R.

Bruce, Lord E.

Bailey, J.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Buck, L. W.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Buller, C.

Barnard, E. G.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Barneby, J.

Clay, W.

Barry, G. S.

Clerk, Sir G.

Basset, J.

Collier, J.

Bethell, R.

Compton, H. C.

Blackburne, I.

Coote, Sir C. H.

Boldero, H. G.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Bradshaw, J.

Darby, G.

Briscoe, J. I.

Darlington, Earl of

Broadley, H.

Denison, W. J.

Brocklehurst, J.

Dick, Q.

295

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Mahon, Viscount

Duffield, T.

Marton, G.

Duke, Sir J.

Maunsell, T. P.

Duncombe, T.

Milnes, R. M.

Duncombe, hon. W.

Monypenny, T. G.

Dundas, C. W. D.

Morgan, C. M. R.

Du Pre, G.

Muskett, G. A.

Egerton, W. T.

Neeld, J.

Eliot, Lord

Neeld, J.

Filmer, Sir E.

Nicholl, J.

Fitzalan, Lord

Norreys, Lord

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Paget, F.

Fitzsimon, N.

Pakington, J. S.

Fleming, J.

Palmer, R.

Follett, Sir W.

Palmer, G.

Forester, hon. G.

Parker, R. T.

Fort, J.

Patten, J. W.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Gaskell, J. M.

Perceval, hon. G. J.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Phillpotts, J.

Gordon, R.

Planta, right hon. J.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Polhill, F.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Praed, W. T.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir C.

Pusey, P.

Grimsditch, T.

Richards, R.

Hamilton, C. J. B.

Rolleston, L.

Hawes, B.

Round, C. G.

Hayter, W. G.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Heneage, E.

Sheppard, T.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Slaney, R. A.

Herbert, hon. S.

Smith, R. V.

Herries, rt. hn. J. C.

Somerset, Lord G.

Hodgson, F.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Hodgson, R.

Stewart, J.

Holmes, hon. W. A.

Stuart, Lord J.

Hope, hon. C.

Sturt, H. C.

Hope, G. W.

Style, Sir C.

Houstoun, G.

Teignmouth, Lord

Hughes, W. B.

Thesiger, F.

Hurt, F.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Inglis, Sir R. H,

Turner, W.

Jackson, Serjeant

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

James, W.

Vernon, G. H.

Johnstone, H.

Villiers, Viscount

Jones, J.

Vivian, J. H.

Kemble, H.

Waddington, H. S.

Knatchbull, rt. hon. Sir E.

Wall, C. B.

Ward, H. G.

Lambton, H.

Wilshere, W.

Langdale, hon. C.

Winnington, Sir T. E

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Winnington, H. J.

Law, hon. C. E.

Wyndham, W.

Lemon, Sir C.

Wyse, T.

Lister, E. C.

Yates, J. A.

Lucas, E.

Young, J.

Lygon, hon. General

TELLERS.

Mackenzie, T.

Campbell, Sir J.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

List of the NOES.

Archbold, R.

Busfeild, W.

Beamish, F. B.

Corbally, M. E.

Bellew, R. M.

Courtenay, P.

Bewes, T.

Craig, W. G.

Brabazon, Lord

Davis, Colonel

Brodie, W. B.

Divett, E.

Brotherton, J.

Dundas, F.

296

Edwards, Sir J.

Philips, M.

Evans, Sir De L.

Protheroe, E.

Evans, W.

Pryme, G.

Ewart, W.

Redington, T. N.

Fenton, J.

Rundle, J.

Finch, F.

Sanford, E. A.

Gisborne, T.

Scholefield, J.

Hector, C. J.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Hill, Lord A. M. C.

Strickland, Sir G.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Tancred, H. W.

Horsman, E.

Turner, E.

M'Taggart, J.

Vigors, N. A.

Marsland, H.

Warburton, H.

Martin, J.

White, A.

Melgund, Viscount

Wilbraham, G.

Morris, D.

Williams, W.

Muntz, G. F.

Wood, B.

O'Brien, W. S.

O'Connell, D.

TELLERS.

O'Connell, J.

Howick, Viscount

O'Connell, M. J.

Wilde, Sir T.

INQUIRY INTO CHARITIES.
Mr. C. Bullerrose lo move for the following papers, without which, he stated that the reports of the Commissioners for Inquiring into Charities would be useless:—
An Analytical Digest of the whole body of Reports made by the Commissioners for Inquiring into Charities, upon the plan adopted in a digest relating to certain counties, in pursuance of an order of this House made on the 27th day of March, 1835. Also a more particular digest of all schools and charities for education reported on by the said commissioners, setting forth, as far as appears from the said reports—1. The date and mode of foundation. 2. To what persons the government is intrusted. 3. To whom the patronage belongs. 4. Whether there is any special visitor. 5. The qualifications required in the masters. 6. The instructions prescribed. 7. Who are entitled to the freedom of the school. 8. Whether any exhibitions are attached to it, and whether they are made available. 9. The amount of the income, distinguishing whether it is improvable or not. 10. The state of the school at the time of the inquiry, with the date thereof, as regards the instructions afforded therein, and the number of free and other scholars, with a note of such observations as the Commissioners may have made on the case; and that such Digest may distinguish and classify such schools and charities in the following manner—first, all schools in which Greek or Latin is required to be, or in fact is taught; secondly, all other schools: thirdly all charities for the purposes of education not limited to any particular local establishment. Also, Return of all Charities for the poor of any parish or district, the income whereof is or may be distributed in money, fuel, or other articles, with a note of such observations as the Commissioners may have made, on the case distinguishing and

297
classifying such charities as follows—first, those given for the poor, or the use or benefit of the poor, without any directions or reputed directions by the donor as to the description of poor persons, or the mode of distribution; secondly, those as to which the donor has or is reputed to have limited the application only by describing the objects as poor and receiving parish relief; thirdly, those in which the donor has or is reputed to have given some other directions as to the selection of the objects of the charity, or as to the mode of distribution. Also an alphabetical index to the whole."
Sir R. Peelhad stated last year that he thought it highly desirable that some summary remedy should be adapted for the abuses pointed out by the commissioners. He knew several cases of endowments for the education of the poor in which, owing to the neglect of the trustees the proper number of trustees had not been filled up, and consequently the acts of the present trustees were invalid. Hence they had no control over the education provided in those institutions. In one case with which he was acquainted the original appointment was, that there should be four trustees. There were now only three, owing to neglect of re-election. The master of the school had been appointed by the requisite number, and therefore his appointment being legal his removal by three trustees would be invalid. In these circumstances, no power could be had to review his acts or control the appropriation of the revenue, except by an application to the Court of Chancery. The endowment was 30 l. a-year, which, if properly applied, would suffice for the education of the whole parish, and as the application to Chancery would cost 70 l., he did not think himself justified in advising them to sacrifice two years' income for the purpose. He thought it of great importance to education, and with reference to the original intentions of the testators, that some simple mode should be devised of application to a proper tribunal to provide that the trustees should be properly appointed. Such a measure might be attended with very valuable results, and he hoped the Attorney-General would turn his attention to the subject.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, that the object was one of great national importance. No doubt, the endowments for education were not of one tenth part the benefit that they might be. He should be glad if a good measure could be framed, but there would often be very great diffi-
298
culty in carrying into effect the wishes of the testator, or in finding what he would wish at present if he were summoned back to this world.
Mr. Hopesaid, he had long thought that the best means of settling doubts oil this subject would be through the appointment of a secretary for grammar schools, by whom applications might be made to the Master in Chancery.
Mr. Estcourtwould mention another instance of an endowment, where there was an insufficient number of trustees, and the funds were consequently misapplied. He also knew a case where some of the trustees wished to resign their trusts, owing to infirmity, but though the funds were ample, the invalid trustees were going on in the office, rather than apply the funds to the expenses of an application to Chancery for the power to resign.
Mr. Slaneysaid, it was absolutely necessary for the interests of the poor that some cheaper and more effectual mode should be found for securing the appropriation monies which had been left for their education. Some system of inspection over trustees ought to be adopted. A great number of these trustees were persons in the humbler classes, who wished that the education given should be narrowed rather than extended; and he knew one instance where, whenever an examination of the scholars took place, the trustees used to rejoice rather when the children could not spell, because they said that they would make better servants.
Mr. J. Stewartwas satisfied that the Court of Chancery without any new machinery was a proper tribunal for the rectification of these abuses. A great portion of the expense of an application, fees namely, for filing bills and for briefs, would be avoided by authorizing an application to the master without going to the court at all.
Motion agreed to.

CANADA—CLERGY RESERVES.
Mr. Pakingtonsaid, deep as were his feelings of indignation with regard to the whole nature of the Clergy Reserves Bill, and strong as his opinions were as to the want of policy of that act, he should, nevertheless, not go into a discussion on that wide subject on an incidental motion of this kind. The returns for which he was about to move were such as the House had a right

299
to expect. If the Clergy Reserve Bill remained on the table of the House thirty days, it became the law of the land; the House ought not, therefore, to be left in ignorance on this subject. He was inclined to suspect either that the Colonial-office did not know the extent of this bill, or that it was disposed to conceal it from the House. They had a right to expect distinct and explicit information on this subject. He had a right to ask that they should have distinct return on the table of the limitations to be made. He therefore moved for
"A return of 'the religious bodies or denominations of Christians,' who would be entitled, in the event of the Royal assent being given to the Clergy Reserve Bill, passed by the Legislature of Upper Canada, to receive a portion of the proceeds of the reserved lands."
Mr. Vernon Smithsaid, without saying a word on the Clergy Reserves Bill, he entertained an opinion as directly opposite to that of the hon. Member as words could express. He denied that there was any intention of concealment. He believed it was his noble Friend's (Lord J. Russell's) intention to lay the acts and ordinances on the table; further than that he did not think that the information which the hon. Gentleman seemed to require, could be obtained in this country. If the hon. Member wrote to Canada, he apprehended his object would be answered, though too late to be of use. He did not wish to oppose the motion; he only gave the hon. Member warning, that the probable answer would be "no return in the Colonial-office of this country," which would involve the necessity of writing to the colonies, and the information would arrive too late to be of use before the passing of this measure.
Sir R. Inglistrusted that without the necessity of writing to Canada, the hon. Member would find either in the library of that or the other House of Parliament, sufficient information on the subject.
Motion agreed to.

LORD SEATON'S PENSION.
Mr. J. Parkerbrought up the Report on Lord Seaton's Pension.
On the question that it be agreed to.
Sir R. Inglissaid, in the absence of the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, he gave notice, that in a subsequent stage of this bill, be should
300
call the attention of the House to the unequal measure of justice which had been awarded to another governor of that colony, Sir Francis Head. He did not object to the honour awarded to Lord Seaton, but he felt also that in the case of Sir F. Head—[Mr. Hume;—Hear.] He could understand that cheer perfectly from the friend of Mr. Mackenzie. When he considered how that man was put down not, as had the day before been stated by Sir J. Colborne, but by Sir F. Head, he could understand that what he had stated should be disagreeable to the hon. Member. He considered that under Providence, Sir Francis Head had done great service to this country, and he trusted that there would be found some occasion in which he might justifiably call the attention of her Majesty's Government to the meritorious services of that Gentleman. He was most unwilling to make that House the dispenser of the favours of the Crown. He held that they should come from the unprompted liberality of the Crown, and the unprompted sense of public services; but when he saw such services so long neglected, he felt that it was due to the public character of this country to draw the attention of her Majesty's Government to them.
Sir C. B. Veresaid, whenever the House should be called on to assent to any declaration of the services of Sir Francis Head, he hoped it would be by a measure totally distinct and separate from any other.
Mr. Humesaid, that when this motion about Sir Francis Head should be brought forward, he should be quite ready to prove that that man who had been branded as "a traitor" to his country, would, under circumstances of success have been called a "patriot." He could prove, and would pledge himself to prove that Sir Francis Head did not deserve the character which the right hon. Baronet had given to him. He should be very glad to prove, when the right hon. Baronet brought forward his motion, who were the parties who did put down that rebellion.
Report agreed to.

SALE OF BEER.
Mr. Pakingtonmoved that the Sale of Beer Bill (No. 2) be now read a second time.
Mr. R. Alstonrose to oppose the motion. This bill, which purported to be a measure to afford facilities for the sale of beer, would, if passed into a law, effect a

301
positive, entire, and total repeal of the Sale of Beer Act—a measure which, in his opinion, had been of the greatest possible advantage to the industry of the country. Let any man, knowing the country districts, but look to the 3rd and 14th sections of this bill, and he roust see that its effect would be such as he (Mr. R. Alston) had stated. The 3rd section disqualified a person from having a beer license who was not rated at 15 l. per year—an amount unknown in many rural districts; and the 14th section provided, that no license should be granted except upon the certificate of six individuals, each rated at 12 l.; so that, in fact, licenses in many parts of the country could not be obtained; and hence the present Beer Act would virtually be repealed. He could not think the amount of rating was any test of a man's respectability; and with such clauses as those to which he had alluded in the bill—clauses which could not, he thought, be altered in committee—he would not allow the bill to receive the sanction of a second reading. On these grounds, and remembering, also, that at present there were no less than 45,000 licensed beer-shops in which property had been invested by brewers who had taken up the trade to supply them—remembering, also, the interference which the bill would have with such property, he should move, as an amendment, that the bill be read a second time this day six months.
Mr. Jamesseconded the amendment. He admitted all the evils attributed to the present system of beer-shops, but still he thought the present bill would not have the effect of remedying those evils. The mode of improving the moral condition of the working people was not by interfering with the beer shops, but by the establishment of an improved system of police, and by the adoption of means for the better education of the people. At all events, so convinced was he of the inutility of the proposed measure as far as his county was concerned, that if the bill went into committee, he should move that Cumberland be excluded from the operation of the bill.
Mr. R. Palmersaid, he had been a member of the select committee which sat on the original Beer Act, and for one, had always been, opposed to that part of it which allowed the consumption of beer on the premises., At the same time, he
302
had always been, and still was, favourable to a free trade in beer, provided that it should not be consumed on the premises. He thought beer ought to be sold with as little restriction as any other article. But he foresaw at the time of the passing of the Beer Bill, the evils which would follow from the establishment of beer-houses in rural districts. As chairman of a bench of magistrates he was well aware of the evils of the beer-shop system, and looking to the morality of the country, he could not but think some advantages might be gained from the bill now under consideration. He concurred in the desire expressed by the hon. Member who had spoken last for an improved system of police in the country; but as this measure would, in his opinion, be productive of utility, he should support the second reading.
Mr. Warburtondid not think the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down could have read the bill. The first clause certainly raised the tax upon the certificates of persons where beer was sold upon the premises, but other clauses raised the rating of persons who sold beer to be consumed not on the premises, and placed other difficulties in their way—what, then, became of his admission, that he wished to see beer sold freely like bread or cheese. The object of this bill was to restore the monopoly as it existed before beer-shops were established. The complaints of Gentlemen had been hitherto confined to beerhouses where beer was consumed on the premises, but this bill would put down nine-tenths of the beer-houses of all descriptions. This was a measure not for confining the sale of beer to respectable houses, but for destroying the trade entirely. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire had alluded not to the large brewers, but to those who had brewed purposely for these houses, and who had invested large amounts of capital in their trade. Hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to have a romantic attachment to public-houses and persons who brewed their own beer. It was nonsense to attempt preventing the same laws which regulated capital in other trades regulating it likewise in the beer trade. They heard a great deal of the immorality of their houses, but nothing of the immorality of the victualling-houses. There was tippling in clubs and in victualling-houses, and it was rank hypocrisy to talk of the tippling in beer-houses. It

303
was proposed to put on an additional tax on the licenses. Why these houses already paid 45,000 l. a-year more than the victualling-houses. He trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer never would sanction such a plan. Then with regard to increasing the rating, he would contend that property was not the test of respectability, and in this he was borne out by the noble Lord the Member for Cornwall. Every crime had been attributed to these houses. Chartism, it was said, had sprung out of them. How hon. Gentlemen blew hot and cold. If you looked to Ireland and Father Mathew, they told you temperance was the origin of all evil. If you looked to England, every crime was attributed to beer-houses, so that whether the people tippled, or whether they were temperate, there was no satisfying hon. Gentlemen. The noble Lord, the other night, in allusion to the outbreak in Monmouthshire, had said that it was not the tipplers who were Chartists—the Chartists had other objects in view. There was a Mr. Wright, who attributed all the riots in the agricultural districts to the beer houses. He was glad to hear that charge, because it showed what excellent historians hon. Gentlemen were. Those riots occurred before the Beer Act came into operation. The fact was, that hon. Gentlemen opposite wished to get back the power they had lost by this Bill. The remedy for crime was what hon. Gentlemen opposite were so averse to—a good system of police, and an extension of education. He hoped, if the bill reached a committee, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer would adopt the course pursued by his predecessor.
Lord Sandonwould not follow the hon. Gentleman in attributing motives; the complaints against the Beer Bill originated not with the magistrates alone, but with all classes of the community. The whole of the Roman Catholic clergy of Liverpool had petitioned against the present beer-laws. He intended to adopt the course he had pursued last year when the bill was in committee.
The Chancellof of the Exchequerwould not attribute motives to any Gentleman. Undoubtedly, there was a great and, he believed, a most exaggerated idea throughout the country of the evils produced by these Houses. The hon. Gentlemen opposite must be aware that there was an interested and a rival party which had
304
been very active on this subject—he meant the licensed victuallers. They had, during the course of last year, instituted a very active canvass on this subject, not on the score of morality, but because they thought by putting down beer-houses they should improve their own property. That, however, he believed to be a most mistaken view, and he thought that if a bill similar to that which was brought forward last year in the House of Lords, were to pass into a law, the result would be, that they would have annual motions on the subject, and the licensed victuallers would be placed in the same situation in which the beer-sellers were now placed: they would not know, for twelve months together, whether they could venture to carry on their trade or not. He should, with regard to this bill, pursue the same course that his noble Friend had pursued last year with regard to a similar bill, and not oppose the second reading. There were two modes of considering this question—the one was by returning to the old system of monopoly, and destroying beerhouses altogether; and the other was by the introduction of measures for their better regulation. If he thought the object of the right hon. Gentleman in introducing this bill was to return to the old system, he should feel bound to oppose its second reading—but he believed his only object was to introduce a better system of regulation. It was, however, his duty to look narrowly into the provisions of the bill, in order to guard against its having the effect of destroying, when it was only desirable to regulate. He did not disapprove of the regulations being made applicable to houses which only sold beer, as well as those where the beer was consumed on the premises, because the result of limiting its application to the latter description of houses would be, that persons would take out a license for beer to be sold out, and they would violate the law by permitting it to be consumed on the premises. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Berkshire had admitted, that those houses which sold beer for consumption off the premises ought to be encouraged; it therefore behoved them to be very careful in the examination of the provisions of this bill, as if they were of too stringent a nature, it should be recollected they would act equally upon those whom they ought to encourage, as well as upon those whom the hon. Gen-

305
tleman wished to discourage. He was of opinion that the rating and rental were, by the proposed bill, fixed at much too high a rate. The object of the hon. Gentleman he understood to be, merely to put down those houses which were the worst conducted, and, from returns which he had seen, he did not think that object would be attained by the means proposed. He must object to the rating clause—the operation of it in the rural parishes must necessarily be, to throw the trade in beer into the hands of one or two individuals, and a great power into the hands of the squire or his steward. So also the necessity of certificates. The result would be, that no one obnoxious to the steward would ever get their licenses. The bill required six certificates from persons rated at 12 l., so that if a butcher or a baker were rated at the desired amount, the applicant for his certificate must deal with them under all circumstances. If such a system was necessary, he would rather, much as he would object to going back, but if such a power were absolutely necessary, he would rather again lodge the power in the hands of the magistrates, for they were gentlemen acting openly before the public. They might pass what laws they pleased, but until they had an effectual and efficient police, they would do no good. He had refrained from bringing the question before Parliament, because the House of Lords had, last year, agreed to resolutions which showed him that they would not agree to anything but a return to the old system. He strongly deprecated the annual agitation of this question; its only effect must be, to prevent any prudent or honest man from venturing his property in a trade which he is not sure he will be allowed to continue for six months. For the reasons he had given, he would not oppose the second reading of the bill, but if it were not greatly altered in committee, he should feel it his duty to oppose it in a future stage.
Mr. Darbyexpressed his determination to support the second reading of the bill, and said that something was necessary to be done to put an end to the present system. He asserted that the class of persons who frequented public-houses were very different from those who were to be found in the beershops. It was an ascertained fact that no respectable labourer would go into a beerhouse, It was in the
306
beerhouses that nightly robberies and all other crimes were concocted. Notwithstanding what had been said about the increased consumption of malt and hops, his belief was that the farmers would be better pleased to have a greater degree of security and a less consumption of those articles. There was a growing feeling throughout the country that the nuisance of beerhouses ought to be got rid of; and, although a police force was now the panacea for all ills, he was convinced that even if they had a policeman to every one thousand persons, they could not prevent the mischief which resulted from beerhouses. The truth was, that beerhouse-keepers were men of straw, put in by brewers—they were the mere servants of the brewers; and while things remained in their present state there could be no doubt that attempts would be made to remedy an evil with which it was the duty of the Government to deal effectually. The statement of the noble Lord the Member for Monmouthshire was perfectly true; for he knew that it was at the beer-shops, and not at the public-houses, that meetings for criminal purposes were held.
Mr. Gisborneadmitted that this bill was more moderate and less objectionable than any previous measure; but although, the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had spoken of it as a measure for regulating beerhouses, he regarded it as a bill for their suppression. As this measure was totally opposed to the Act which it sought to amend, and would suppress and not regulate this trade, he felt no difficulty in determining to give his vote against the second reading.
Sir T. Fremantlesaid that, although he approved of the principle of his hon. Friend's bill, he would express no opinion as to its details. Like a good tactician, his hon. Friend had put into his bill more than he wished to carry; but without discussing the nature of the restrictions which the measure proposed, it was impossible for them to conceal from themselves the fact that the beerhouses constituted a most serious evil. He attributed this to the trade being overstocked, and that the number of those houses greatly exceeded the wants of the community. Without encouraging bad characters the beerhouse-keepers could not make a living. Without touching the question as to rating being a test of respectability, he could not help observing that it was perfectly true that

307
here were no persons of either property; or capital in this trade. They were for the most part the mere servants of the brewers. The hon. Member for Bridport had denied that the beerhouses were established prior to the disturbances of 1830. This however, was not the fact, because it was in 1830 that the bill establishing them passed, and it was in the autumn and winter of that year that riots and disturbances took place. Indeed, of the two persons who were left for execution at the Buckingham special commission one was the keeper of a beerhouse; but he mentioned this circumstance only to shew that these houses had given facilities to dishonest and wickedly disposed persons. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the reason why he did not take the matter up was because of the resolutions of another place last year; but could it be doubted that if the right hon. Gentleman were now to introduce a salutary measure it would receive the attentive consideration of the other branch of the legislature? Before the right hon. Gentleman hazarded such an assertion, he surely was bound to make the experiment.
Mr. M. Philipshad long been convinced of the policy of legislating upon this subject. Two years ago he had suggested the appointment of a Select Committee, and had that suggestion been acted upon, he was sure the House would have been enabled, even in the very same session, to have passed some satisfactory measure on the subject, because they would have had clear and positive testimony upon which to proceed. He confessed that in some parts of the country with which he was acquainted, the present system worked so defectively as to convince him of the necessity of some legislative measure, in order to protect the moral as well as general condition of the working classes. He would vote for the second reading of the bill because he thought that the principle it involved, would, if properly worked out, effect that object. He however, hoped, if the bill went into Committee, that such clauses would be introduced as would remedy the abuses which existed in agricultural districts, and at the same time afford a free scope to trade and an adequate supply to the poorer classes.
Mr. Gillonrejoiced at having an opportunity of entering his protest against
308
a measure of so tyrannical a nature, and of expressing his disgust at this species of petty interference with the comforts and recreations of the poorer classes. When hon. Members who supported this bill would consent to regulate the number of bottles of wine to be drunk at their own tables, then, and not until then, would he consent to such a measure as this. They first complained of the great consumption of spirituous liquors, and now that they had got a good beer bill they were not content, and wanted to drive the people back to their former habits, or something worse.
Mr. Estcourtprotested against the doctrine that those who would vote for the second reading of this bill, amongst whom was the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and who thereby merely professed to be desirous of amending the present system, were by any means anxious to destroy or interfere with the comforts of the poor. He had no objection to beer-houses when they were well-conducted, but he would ask whether those beer-shops which were erected under hedges, and over which no superintendence could be exercised, could be conducive to the happiness or the morality of the people? He called on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take this measure into his own hands, for the reason which the right hon. Gentleman had given for not doing so, was most unsatisfactory. The resolutions which had been passed in another place were certainly not sufficient grounds for the Government refusing to bring forward a remedial measure upon this important subject. He should give his vote in favour of the second reading of this bill.
Mr. Humeagreed with the hon. Member who had just addressed the House, that the Government ought to take this measure into their own hands. Whatever others might do, that House was bound to perform its duty, and they ought not to be influenced by resolutions passed in another place. He approved of the principles of the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he should be glad to see the right hon. Gentleman take this measure into his own hands. He trusted, that whatever might be done on this subject would be done by the Government. He could not give his consent to this measure, and he thought the people had just grounds for complain-

309
ing of the course of legislation pursued in that House, as it too often interfered with their comforts and amusements, and exhibited a partiality for the higher classes. Why should not the poor man be allowed to spend his twopence in any manner he might think proper, as well as the hon. Member who had brought forward this measure, his half-guinea or guinea, upon wine? Why, if the principles of the hon. Gentleman were to be adopted, should not hon. Members interfere with those who spent their money and ruined their health in taverns, as well as with those who went to beer-shops? The reason was, because the hon. Member was one of that class himself. If it was light to put down beerhouses because there were some of the keepers of those houses who could not make a living, then they might just as well limit the number of butchers and bakers, because all those employed in those trades were not equally prosperous. The effect of this bill would be to create a property qualification for the sale of beer, and that was carrying the principle of a property qualification to a very improper extent. If a property qualification was to be required for the sale of beer, why should they not require grocers, and bakers, and butchers, to possess a house of the value 8l. or 10 l. before they were allowed to embark in their respective trades? How was it possible to have men of property in beer-houses when every year the Legislature was threatening those houses with destruction? This bill would not put down crime, and the only way to diminish the amount of crime was to extend the means of education to the people, and in that manner they would go to the root of the evil. He contended, that the object of this bill was to keep up the influence of the magistrates in the counties. Upon the whole, he considered this a most unjust and objectionable measure, and he should certainly oppose the second reading.
Mr. Ricewould support the second reading of the bill, and his object in doing so was thereby to declare, that some measure of this kind was necessary. He, however, would pot pledge himself to support the details when the bill came to be considered in committee, and he agreed with those who wished that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken the subject into his own hands.
Mr. Protheroesupported the bill, and said, that he had gone into beer-houses,
310
and found that the beer sold there was mere trash. The Legislature had failed, by its former Acts, in giving a wholesome beverage to the public, and he thought that in supporting a measure of this description, he should be contributing to the comforts, the happiness, and the morals of the poor.
Mr. Muntzcould not allow this bill to go to a second reading, without slating his objections to what he considered a most unjust and unnecessary measure. He had yet to learn why beer was not to be sold as other articles. His experience on the subject was very considerable, and, so far as that went, he had never seen a great increase of crime occasioned by the beer-houses. One circumstance Gentlemen had forgotten, or, rather, perhaps, never knew, when they said, that if the beer-houses were shut up, publicans would not take in the same men. They were much mistaken. All publicans had two classes of customers—one higher and one lower, and took low company as well as the beerhouses. He believed there had been a great increase of crime, and particularly within the last twelve months, but to what was it to be attributed? Not to the beer-houses, but to the pressure on the working classes, which always increased crime; but if he could agree to the general principle of the bill, there was one provision in it he could never vote for, which was the disfranchisement of those parties who now held licenses under a certain amount, which he considered would be most unjust—as unjust to the beer-house keepers as the establishment of beer-houses was to the licensed victuallers.
Sir C. Burrellconsidered that a measure of this description was absolutely necessary, for the existing Beer Act had been most injurious in its operation, and had completely disappointed the wishes and intentions of the Legislature. It had; been stated that this bill was introduced for the purpose of keeping up the influence of the magistrates, and he could only say in reply to that charge, that the power of licensing beer-houses was one of all others the least desired by the magistrates. He knew that in many parts of the country the morals of the people had been greatly injured by the existing act, and he thought that it was the duty of the Legislature to pass some remedial measure of this description.
Lord G. Somersetsaid, that the present

311
beer-house system had been productive of an injurious effect upon the morals of the people in all the mining districts of the country. In that particular district where there had recently been disturbances, it was the unanimous opinion of the magistrates who had been employed for a length of time in the investigation of those disturbances, that the beer-houses had much to do with the unfortunate disposition of the people. It was at those beer-shops that the people congregated, and it was there that they read those inflammatory publications which had so strong an influence over them. That was the unanimous opinion of the magistrates, an opinion which he believed had been expressed in a communication made to the Government. In that opinion, too, the mayor of Newport, himself a Liberal, had concurred. He therefore thought that something ought to be done in order to remedy the evil which was allowed to exist, although he would not agree to all the provisions of the bill before the House. That, however, was no reason why he should oppose the bill going into committee, where alone its details could be amended. He should therefore vote for the second reading.
Mr. B. Woodthought it was impossible that a bill containing so much that was objectionable could ever be carried into operation after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In his opinion, a measure of this description ought to be taken up by the Government. The House had created the property which now existed in beer-shops, and he thought it would be exceedingly unwise should they now interfere to destroy it.
Mr. Pakingtonsaid, that on a former occasion the hon. Member for Bridport had interfered in such a manner as to prevent the progress of this bill at that time, but the hon. Gentleman had not done so till after he had made his statement to the House. Having, then, addressed the House, at the period to which he alluded, at considerable length, he should only trouble them with a few observations on the present occasion. During the whole debate he had not heard anything which ought, in his opinion, to induce the House to refuse its assent to the second reading of this bill. The details could be amended in committee if they were found objectionable, but he thought it could not be denied that some
312
measure of the kind was necessary to remedy the evils which were allowed on all hands to exist. A great number of petitions had last year been presented upon this subject, and the magistrates of from thirty to forty counties has come to that House, praying by petition for some alteration in the present beer-laws. These petitions were not confined to one class of politicians, for they came from men of all parties, and the magistrates had been strongly supported by the clergy and by the most influential inhabitants of the country districts. A number of petitions had that night been presented in reference to this bill, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and by the hon. Member for Bridport and other hon. Members, and what, let him ask, was the character of those petitions? He believed every one of them came from beer-sellers, and he therefore contended that they were not entitled to the same weight as those petitions which came from the magistrates and clergy. The mover of the amendment had said, that this was a measure of repeal, that it was of a destructive character, and that he would therefore oppose it. But let them contrast that statement with what had fallen from the seconder of the amendment. The seconder of the amendment said, that the system of beer-houses had been productive of an increase of crime, and he had opposed the bill, because in his opinion its provisions did not go far enough. Looking at these conflicting statements, he was inclined to draw the inference that this was a fair and moderate measure, and he contended he was not open to the charges which had been made against him. Some persons thought that the Beer Act ought to be repealed, and others that the consumption of beer on the premises only ought to be prohibited, but he had not adopted either of those plans, and he thought that the plan which he had proposed was reasonable and moderate. He had been charged with having a wish for repeal, and with a desire of restoring a monopoly to the magistrates, but he must deny that he was open to those charges. This was not a sweeping measure, and if it could be proved in committee that any of the provisions of the bill were unfair and oppressive, he should be ready to alter them. It had been said that this measure would do away with nine-tenths of the beerhouses, but such was not his wish, and he

313
believed that that statement was a great exaggeration of what the real effects of the bill would be. He was convinced that if this bill were passed to-morrow, there would be no diminution in the consumption of beer. He was asked, why not deal with the licensed victuallers? But they were not within the scope of his bill, as they were under the control and superintendence of the magistrates, while the beer-houses were not. He was sorry the Government had taken the course it had adopted upon this question. He quite agreed that this was a bill which ought not to be in the hands of a private Member of Parliament. He had only taken it up because the Government had refused to grapple with the evil. At all events, it was the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, admitting, as he did, that the beer-houses required regulation, admitting the necessity of legislation, either to take the bill out of his hands, or to render him every assistance in his power to enable him to accomplish his object.
The House divided on the original question. — Ayes 110; Noes 30; Majority 80.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Estcourt, T.

Attwood, W.

Evans, W.

Bailey, J.

Farnham, E. B.

Bailey, J. jun.

Feilden, W.

Baines, E.

Fellowes, E.

Baring, rt. hn. F. T.

Filmer, Sir E.

Barnard, E. G.

Fleming, J.

Barrington, Viscount

Greene, T.

Basset, J.

Grimsditch, T.

Bell, M.

Halford, H.

Bethell, R.

Hall, Sir B.

Blackburne, I.

Hamilton, C. J. B.

Blakemore, R.

Hawkes, T.

Bradshaw, J.

Heathcote, G. J.

Bramston, T. W.

Hector, C. J.

Briscoe, J. I.

Henniker, Lord

Broadley, H.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Brocklehurst, J.

Hindley, C.

Brotherton, J.

Hodgson, R.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Hope, hon. C.

Buck, L. W.

Hughes, W. B.

Burrell, Sir C.

Hurt, F.

Burroughes, H. N.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Cavendish, hon. C.

Jermyn, Earl

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Jones, Captain

Chetwynd, Major

Kemble, H.

Compton, H. C.

Knight, H. G.

Darby, G.

Lennox, Lord G.

Duffield, T.

Lennox, Lord A.

Dundas, C. W. T.

Liddell, hn. H. T.

Du Pre, G.

Lygon, hn. General

Eastnor, Viscount

Mackenzie, T.

Egerton, W. T.

Mild may, P. St. J.

314

Miles, W.

Slaney, R. A.

Monypenny, T. G.

Smyth, Sir G. H.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Somerset, Lord G.

Packe, C. W.

Sotheron, T. E.

Paget, Lord A.

Spry, Sir S. T.

Palmer, R.

Teignmouth, Lord

Parker, J.

Thornhill, G.

Parker, R. T.

Townley, R. G.

Patten, J. W.

Turner, W.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Philips, M.

Vivian, J. E.

Plumptre, J. P.

Waddington, H. S.

Praed, W.T.

Walker, R.

Protheroe, E.

Welby, G. E.

Pusey, P.

White, A.

Rice, E. R.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Richards, R.

Winnington, H. J.

Rolleston, L.

Worsley, Lord

Round, C. G.

Wyndham, W.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Young, Sir W.

Rushout, G.

Sandon, Viscount

TELLERS.

Scarlett, hn. J. Y.

Pakington, J. S.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Sanford, E. A.

List of the NOES.

Beamish, F. B.

Muskett, G. A.

Busfeild, W.

Pryme, G.

Duke, Sir J.

Rundle, J.

Ewart, W.

Scholefield, J.

Finch, F.

Strickland, Sir G.

Gillon, W. D.

Thorneley, T.

Gisborne, T.

Vigors, N. A.

Hill, Lord A. M. C.

Wakley, T.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Wallace, R.

Hume, J.

Ward, H. G.

Humphery, J.

Williams, W.

James, W.

Wilshere, W.

Johnson, General

Wood, B.

Jones, J.

Marsland, H.

TELLERS.

Morris, D.

Warburton, H.

Muntz, G. F.

Alston, R.