PETITIONS AGAINST THE INCOME-TAX.

HC Deb 11 April 1842 vol 62 cc200-15

Mr. T. Duncombe

moved the resumption of the debate on the question that the petition presented on Friday, 8th of April, against the Income-tax be brought up.

Order of the Day read.

Sir R. Peel

was sorry he could not acquiesce in the motion of the hon. Member, that the petition be brought up. As he had stated on a former occasion, he did not offer opposition to the presentation of the petition from any apprehension that the country generally was adverse to the proposals of the Government. He did not, however, mean to say, that a great number of petitions might not by active exertions be got up, not merely against those measures, but against any proposition for the imposition of a tax; but his opposition to the motion of the hon. Gentleman was not grounded on the apprehension, that the country generally would declare itself unfavourable to the measures which he had felt it his duty to propose. His opposition to the motion was founded on the obligation which he thought devolved on him to support that which had been the usage of the House for the last 150 years. He was aware, that this usage was not fortified by any standing order; but, at the same time, it was the practice of the House, which had been almost uniformly adhered to. He believed, that if the precedents were examined, it would be found that the usage had been uniformly adhered to for the period he had stated, namely, 150 years. He was influenced in his opposition to the motion, not by a consideration of present circumstances, but by a consideration of the position in which the country might be placed, were it permitted that obstructions should be offered to the adoption of taxes necessary for the public service for the supply of the year; and it was the same apprehension which had influenced the House in maintaining the existing practice. In 1808 a question of the same kind was raised; but, in that year, as on former occasions, the question was not so much whether or not the practice of the House should be departed from, but whether or not the petition which was the subject of discussion was directed against a tax under the consideration of the House. In 1808 the petition was directed against the orders in council, and those who contended most strenuously for the reception of the petition, contended, that the rule or usage of the House did not apply in the case; and Mr. Tierney, then in opposition to the Government, a high authority on these points, and certainly a man not disposed to construe illiberally rules or usages which might be supposed to operate against popular rights, expressly stated, that if he thought the petition was directed against a proposed tax, he should decidedly vote for its rejection, because it was his belief, that if they permitted petitions against taxes necessary for the supply of the year to be presented, every man would try to shift the burden from his own shoulders; and there would be consequently such an obstruction of the public business as would materially interfere with its progress. This was the opinion of Mr. Tierney, who contended that the petition was not against a tax, but against a regulation of trade, adding, that if it were against a tax, he should have felt it his duty to oppose the presentation. There were in the week only two days out of seven, namely, Monday and Friday, which her Majesty's Government had for the consideration of those measures which they felt it their duty to bring forward. Those days were supposed to be set apart for the convenience of the Government; but they were, in point of fact, set apart for the convenience and advantage of the public. He sat in the House eight hours every night, and it was to him personally a matter of comparative indifference how those hours were employed; but the two days devoted to Government business were not set apart for the private convenience of the Members of the Government. It was well known, that on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays, other business might interpose, at the discretion of individual Members, to the exclusion of Government business. He certainly did not believe, notwithstanding the motions for adjournment which had been made, that there was any disposition in the House of Commons, or in individual Members, to make an unfair use of any of the privileges they possessed for the purpose of obstructing the public business; yet it was clear that if petitions might be indefinitely presented with respect to taxes under the consideration of the House, and be debated, in that case it would be impossible for the public business to proceed, and a most material obstruction would be offered to its progress. He was not speaking, he again stated, of the present time; but of a time of war, and when they were under the necessity of raising supplies, those events which had been apprehended in former times, and referred to by Hatsell, might again occur, and a serious obstruction be given to the business of the country. It was argued, that there had been a departure from the ancient practice in another particular, and that Members were restricted from debating petitions; but this was not the result of any standing order: it was founded on the same basis as the rejection of petitions against taxes for the supply of the year. [Viscount Howick: There is a resolution of the House on that subject.] He was aware of the resolution of the House, but he apprehended that it had no binding effect beyond the Session in which it was passed. Where there was a standing order it was competent for the Speaker to interpose, and, fortified by that standing order, to prevent discussions on the presentation of petitions; and that constituted the distinction between a standing order and a resolution, which latter he apprehended had no force beyond the Session when it was agreed to. Consequently, the prevention of debates on the presentation of petitions rested very much on the same basis as the refusal to receive petitions against a tax or duty. It was founded on a sense of public convenience fortified by usage. In the one case the usage had existed 150 years, and in the other only five. He did not deny that he had reason to believe, that his opinions on this subject were not universally prevalent. He knew it was unpopular to oppose the presentation of petitions. As he had said before, he had no personal interest or motive to oppose the presentation of these petitions; but he did not know how a man could fairly discharge his duty, if he abstained from pressing that on the House which he believed to be consistent with propriety. It was better to submit a matter of this kind fairly to the House, and let it be determined by the House, than to presume that the practice of 150 years ought to be departed from without the least argument, and at once to give assent to that which might be deemed popular. He must persevere in the determination he had expressed on a late occasion when this question was discussed, finding himself fortified by a practice of 150 years, during which period the House had refused to receive petitions against taxes; and he felt so strongly the inconvenience of establishing a precedent which, in times of greater difficulty, might be appealed to for the purpose of embarrassing the public service, that he must, in compliance with what he conceived to be a sense of duty to the country, offer his resistance to the motion of the hon. Member; and, taking this course, he did not conceal from himself the power which the hon, Member and others possessed, of offering petitions of this sort, and provoking debates on them, which might give rise to greater inconvenience than even the reception of the petitions. He did not deny, that this inconvenience might arise, but feeling himself right in the objection he now made, he must deal with that inconvenience as it arose, and he could not give his assent to the alteration of what had been the practice of the House for a very long period.

Viscount Howick

agreed with the right hon. Baronet in the general propriety of adhering to the usages of the House, and his opinion on this point was so strong, that he had come down the other night with the intention of not supporting the motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury; but he did not think that their admiration of the former practices and usages of the House ought to be blind and unreasoning; and, in his opinion, they were bound in all cases to consider whether the reasons on which the existing practices and usages had been founded still existed and were applicable. If those reasons still existed, it would be found the soundest wisdom to adhere to the usages, but if the reasons no longer existed, then they would act much more wisely if they made their practice conformable to the change of circumstances. He thought it had been shown most clearly on a former night, by his hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh and Devonport, that the grounds on which the old practice was founded no longer existed. The change made in the mode of receiving petitions had entirely taken away the reasons on which the practice for rejecting petitions like the present was originally founded; and, since the adoption of that new mode, it was impossible for the presentation of any conceivable number of petitions to impede the progress of the public business. He concurred with the right hon. Baronet in attaching importance to the preservation of those rules of the House by which Monday and Friday were reserved for the Government business; because, after all, that was the business of the country, and, as the right hon. Baronet truly stated, those days were not so set apart for the personal convenience of the Members of the Government, but for the advantage of the public service. He gave the right hon. Baronet some proof that he entertained that feeling very strongly, as he voted with him against a motion on the subject on a former evening, because he believed it would interfere with that practice; but it was demonstrated to him beyond all doubt, that the reception of this petition could in no respect tend to interfere with that rule. On the contrary, as his hon. Friend had shown most clearly, the maintenance of this practice would have an opposite effect. It was the maintenance of it, not the change, that would prevent the time of the House from being devoted to other great questions. For this would be the necessary consequence. They were now discussing the question whether this petition should be received. Suppose it were decided in the negative. His hon. Friend might have another petition to-morrow; he might give notice of his intention to present it, and might again divide the House. Every other hon. Member might take the same course, and those hon. Members to whom the petitions were intrusted, if they found any petition expressing the feelings of a considerable body of people, might think it their duty to bring that fact under the notice of the House, and, as his hon. Friend argued the other night, they would have a right to go further, and every night that the House went into committee of supply, or of any measure involving taxation, every hon. Member might state the number of persons by whom any petition on the subject was signed, and the substance and prayer of that petition; and he would ask whether that would not much more seriously interfere with the conduct of public business than changing a rule which bad been for some time in force? But the right hon. Baronet said, that the reception of petitions would very much interfere with taxes, even in cases where they were most necessary, if they were allowed to be debated. No doubt of it; he at once admitted it. But if they received petitions, they were much more likely to exclude debates upon them than if they adopted this course. The right hon. Baronet said, this rule of not debating petitions rested only on the same ground as the usage it was now proposed to change, and that the one was of five years' standing, whilst the other was of 150 years' standing. But, if he were not mistaken, there was no direct resolution of the House for not receiving petitions on the subject of taxation, whilst there was as to not permitting debates upon petitions. But then, in the one case, the rule was essential to the due conduct of public business, and in the other it was not. The rule against debates on petitions, now that petitions were so numerous, was obviously in the opinion of 9-10ths of the House necessary in order to get through the business they might have to perform but the other rule was, in his opinion, equally unnecessary. When he found that after two days' consideration of this question the right hon. Baronet, with all his experience, all his power of stating forcibly his reasons against taking any course of which he disapproved, could allege no one reason whatever against the change that was now proposed, except that it was a change, he could not hesitate as to the vote he should give. He certainly felt that the right hon. Baronet had stated the case to the House most temperately and fairly; but wishing, upon his own part, as much as the right hon. Baronet upon his, to expedite public business, he could not but regret the course he felt it his duty to adopt in voting with his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury.

Mr. Milnes

said, that if the people got into the habit of petitioning against taxation, and no doubt such habit might be very easily got into, the case might well occur that universally, or almost universally, when this House was voting any tax an enormous body of petitions of the people of England might be presented against it. The consequence would be, that the decisions of this House on matters of taxation would be brought into disrespect, and there would be a notion among the people that the House did not fairly represent the opinions of the people. And he could not help thinking that the hon. Member for Finsbury had some notion of that kind in his head, and would render the people discontented with the constitution of the House. He therefore called upon the Members who were satisfied with the constitution of that House to consider whether it were right to abandon at once their ancient usage. During the ten years that hon. Gentlemen opposite sat on the Ministerial side of the House, with a professedly popular Government, they never thought of reforming what they now seemed to regard as an abuse; and now, when a tax was proposed which would, in his opinion, elicit fewer petitions than any other tax, which was more equal than any other tax, he thought it was not a proper time, without some more sufficient reasons than had yet been given, for changing the usage of 150 years.

Mr. H. Berkeley

said, his reason for wishing to say a few words on this subject was, that he had had presented to him a requisition from his constituents signed by upwards of 1,000 persons. They complained of not being permitted to express their opinion touching a tax which bore so unjustly as this, and as they were unable to approach the House themselves, they expected their representatives to stand forward in their places in Parliament, and express their sentiments, although they would much rather have expressed them on this occasion by petitions to the House. His hon. Colleague had a requisition to the same effect; he knew not what course his hon. Colleague would take respecting it; but he felt it incumbent upon himself to support what he thought most just and right,—namely, that the people should have an opportunity of expressing their opinion before so heavy an impost was placed upon them under circumstances which had not before occurred.

Lord F. Egerton

said, as he felt himself obliged to vote against the right hon. Baronet, he wished to explain his reasons for doing so. He could not but feel that the arguments of hon. Gentlemen who supported the presentation of this petition were based on a different ground from those which were urged in favour of discussing petitions, and that it would be impossible to conduct the public business, if they were to depart in any sensible degree from the rule, whether by resolution or otherwise, which they had lately observed, of restricting themselves from discussing petitions at the time of their presentation. Upon that ground, and viewing it distinctly as the ground of the argument of the noble Lord the Member for Sunderland, he must say he could not but concur with him in the reasons he had stated for doing that which he thought they were bound to do—viz., opening their doors as widely as possible, so far as the business of the House and the necessities and operations of the Government and of legislation would admit, to the petitions of the people on all subjects. He felt that this rule did not rest upon so formal a proceeding of the House as would preclude the danger of other discussions of this kind at some future period; but he would put it to the House, whether the practice with regard to the presentation of petitions and restriction of discussing them could not be fenced by some more formal proceeding than anything that had yet taken place?

Lord J. Russell

was glad to find that the noble Lord who had just spoken concurred in favour of the reception of this petition. The noble Lord had alluded to the opinion expressed by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, in which he should agree with him if he thought it necessary to have any more formal proceeding of the House than had been adopted; but let him call the attention of the noble Lord and of the House to what occurred in an early part of this Session. A notice was given by the hon. Member for Greenock— That the usage which has prevailed of late years of abstaining from discussing the petitions of the people at the time of their presentation shall not be sanctioned in the present Parliament, but that the practice which formerly prevailed in the House, of discussing petitions at the time of their presentation, shall be restored. That motion was never made in that shape. The question came before the House, but it was then stated from the Chair, that the more regular mode to bring on that motion was to read the resolution of February, 1839, and move, that that resolution be rescinded. He had no doubt that the Speaker, in laying down that mode of proceeding, was acting in conformity with the rules of the House, nor could he doubt that it was in conformity with reason, because if they took any course whilst they had a resolution on the journals of the House, they would be acting contrary to it, unless that resolution were formally rescinded. When the motion came forward again, it was on the 7th of February, and after reading the resolution, the motion was made and the question put, "That the said resolution be rescinded;" and, on the House dividing, the numbers were found to be—Ayes 50; Noes 237. He thought it showed very clearly that, without any other proceeding of the House, it would be necessary to propose, that that resolution should be rescinded. Having alluded to that subject, he begged leave to say a few words on the question itself, upon which he had not addressed the House the other day. The right hon. Baronet hoped, that the Members of the late Government would not vote for the reception of such petitions; but it was because he concurred in the conduct of the late Government in respect of the presentation of petitions, and in the vote that was come to at an early part of the Session, that he felt himself bound to support the reception of these petitions. What was the course of their ancestors? He did not, as did some hon. Members, hold as a matter of indifference the practice of 150 years. He had a great respect for the practice of this House that had been adopted for a century and a half, and it was not without a good deal of argument, sufficient to satisfy his mind, that he should be ready to overthrow that practice. But what was the course of their ancestors? They said, "Let the doors of the House be opened to petitions Let them be received, and the substance stated—let other Members debate them— let the whole grounds of these petitions be before the House, and, if necessary, let the time of the House be occupied in discussing them." But they said on one particular subject, namely, fresh taxes, that this extreme liberty was so inconvenient, that they must put a stop to the exercise of that freedom. What had the House done since? Had they concurred with their ancestors as to this general discussion of petitions? By no means. They found that it led to serious inconvenience, and therefore they put a stop to that practice. They also made another rule as to the presentation of petitions, and obliged the Members presenting them to confine themselves to the subject of them, and prevented other hon. Members from discussing them. Having departed from it in that respect, was it reasonable that they should keep up the practice of their ancestors, and restrict the presentation of petitions on the subject of new taxes? Having altered the practice in one respect, he thought they ought to alter it in another, and therefore he was disposed to agree with this motion. When the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Milnes) was so much afraid of the presentation of petitions, that he said it would be utterly impossible for the House to impose any taxes at all, he begged to say, that with respect to taxes already imposed, there was no objection to the presentation of petitions against them. Suppose the Income-tax was passed this year, there was nothing against the presentation of petitions next year, from any number of persons, using whatever arguments they might please, and praying for the repeal of that tax. They might petition against any tax already in force. There was an inconsistency in that respect. Upon the whole, having altered the practice, as they had done, as to the discussion of petitions, he thought it would be much more to their advantage, with respect to the taxes hereafter to be laid on, that they should know what the petitioners had to say on the subject. With respect to particular taxes affecting particular classes, those persons might often have statements to make to the House which would be very valuable in considering those taxes. He hoped, therefore, that the House would now establish what he thought was a reasonable practice on this subject, that there should not be discussions, wasting the time of the House, on the presentation, but that they would allow these petitions, like all others that were respectfully worded, to be received.

Mr. S. Wortley

said, that he was desirous of saying a few words on the subject under discussion, inasmuch as he was one of those who had supported the opposition of his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury, on a former evening, to the proposal of the hon. Member for Finsbury. He wished to remind the House that the question, as it seemed to him, before the House was not precisely the same as that on which they had to decide on the former occasion. The hon. Member for Finsbury had moved, the other evening, that the practice of the House should be discontinued which forbids the reception of the petition against a tax under the consideration of the House. Now, he so far concurred with his right hon. Friend, that he did not feel prepared to vote for the discontinuance of a practice which had been established so many years. He thought that that was a reasonable objection to the former motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury, because he could conceive cases of pressing emergency, as in time of war, in which it would be desirable to enforce the practice, which had been so long in existence, of not receiving petitions against a tax under the consideration of the House. But at the same time, now that they were called upon to receive a petition against an Income-tax, he owned, that he doubted whether they would be justified in enforcing the rule in that particular instance. They had been told by his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government, that the Income-tax was to be made part of a series of measures; and he thought it could scarcely be called a tax imposed merely for the service of the present year. He must concur in the opinion that this practice should be regulated by a strict construction, and that they should take care not to step beyond the strict limits in respect to necessary legislation. He thought there was something in this argument; and as one who was bound, in the administration of justice, to consider penal enactments, so he was bound to look to the practice which forbade the right of the people to petition Parliament. If he looked to the practice of the House—if he looked that very day to the votes and proceedings, there stood recorded thereon a petition against a tax which was more strictly one for the purposes or service of the year, than the Income-tax. There appeared there a copy of a petition against a coal-tax, by which it was intended to raise a sum of 200.000l. [Sir R. Peel: It had not been voted in committee.] His right hon. Friend made a distinction the other night, which he (Mr. S. Wortley) believed to be perfectly valid, when he said that this rule was to be applied only to cases in which they were about to raise taxes for the supply within the year, and not to cases in which it was proposed to raise taxes for commercial purposes. Within the latter class were the corn duties, and they had during the present Session received a number of petitions on that subject. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed last year to make the duties on corn a portion of his budget, and if he (Mr. Baring) had done so, would the people of England have been precluded from petitioning against it? It appeared to him that there would have been some difficulty in that case, and that those duties would have been strictly within the rule they were discussing. Upon the whole, though not disposed absolutely to discontinue the practice, he should vote for the present motion.

Sir J. Graham

confessed he could not see the force of the distinction which his hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire had drawn between what he had represented to be his practical intention now, and his abandonment of the usage which had prevailed for 150 years. He would not detain the House by any empty declamation on his sincere respect for the general right of the subject to petition; but he could not conceal from himself the vast importance of a usage, dating from the period of the revolution, when the rights and liberties of the people had been so nobly vindicated, and had been so recently and thoroughly triumphant. For a century and a half since that period this usage had been on clear, intelligible ground, maintained. It was true it had been originally accompanied with the privilege of Members speaking on petitions indiscriminately; but indeed had the right of petitioning combined with this privilege of speaking ever prevailed practically, on taxes being imposed, it would manifestly have been impossible for any servants of the Crown to carry any tax whatever which was unpopular; and it was certainly in the nature of all taxes to be unpopular. Nor could he confine his views on this occasion to the narrow circumstances of this particular case, but as a servant of the Crown he must do his duty in considering what were likely to be the consequences of a surrender of this usage. Now, he found, by established usage, the inalienable and undoubted right of petitioning restrained in this case of a tax actually in progress. If the hon. Member opposite had any good ground for abolishing this ancient usage, why they would certainly have equally good ground for re-establishing the older practice of indiscriminate speaking on petitions; for the limitation of that right of speaking had only existed some few years, and it was quite needless to observe how trifling must be the authority of so novel a regulation compared with a usage sanctioned by a century and a half of common consent. He had therefore, to put it to himself, what would be the practical effect of adopting this innovation as to the presentation of petitions against taxes in progress? And he was compelled to associate in his mind the probability of the innovation—as undoubtedly it was, and standing on so slender a foundation, compared with the present practice — he was compelled to anticipate the probability of the restoration of the old practice in one respect, following on the abolition of the old practice in the other. Nor could he disguise from himself the conviction, that were the innovations now sought for to be assented to on the one hand, and the regulation of so comparatively a recent date, abolished on the other, the future servants of the Crown would have no power to pass any tax through that House, and he must feel that they would owe this embarrassment and this evil to the present Ministers of her Majesty, were he and his colleagues to consent. This was a responsibility which he for one was not prepared to incur; and taking the most dispassionate view of the question, without reference at all to present circumstances, or to what he believed were the existing interests of the country, he could not reconcile it with his duty to participate in that responsibility. He therefore should assuredly vote against the proposition of the hon. Member for Finsbury.

Lord J. Manners

begged to say one word only. The right hon. Gentleman had relied on the revolution precedent. Now this was an authority, of course, conclusive with the gentlemen opposite, who approved of revolutions. But for himself as he conscientiously believed all revolutions to be wrong, he did not attach any weight to the authority, and should vote with the hon. Member for Fins-bury.

Captain Hamilton

said, that he had voted against the motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury on Thursday last, and he did not think that any argument that had now been advanced would cause him to change his opinion. He had no desire to throw any impediment in the way of the undoubted right of the people to petition the House of Commons, but certain rules had been laid down and forms printed, and he did not think a special case had been made out why they should, on this occasion, be departed from. He (Captain Hamilton) must confess that the mode of presenting petitions to that House was not of a very imposing nature, or calculated to impress those who signed and sent them with the belief that any great attention would be paid to their prayers. And if any mode could be devised which, without interfering with the business of the House, would improve the present system, it should have his support, from whatever side of the House that proposition might come. In respect to the petition which was the cause of the present debate, he repeated the expression which had drawn so many remarks from an hon. Member opposite. He (Captain Hamilton) maintained that this was a petition from class interests, the unproductive classes, those who lived by the sweat of other men's brows. The petition came from the lawyers and gentlemen of Finsbury; and although they were, no doubt, a numerous and highly respectable body, and entitled to the consideration of the House, he did not consider that their interests could be in the slightest degree injured by leaving it to their able representatives (who rarely allowed any measure to pass without expressing their opinions) to oppose any part of the right hon. Baronet's measure they did not approve of.

Viscount Sandon

would not detain the House; but having voted with the majority on a former occasion, he wished to say that he would also now vote against the motion of the hon. Member. After the experience which they had of the inconvenience that arose from hon. Gentlemen being allowed to speak on petitions, he could not vote for the present motion till he had security that the departure from the rule in the present instance would not be attended with inconvenience, and lead to the restoration of a practice which all had admitted to be inconvenient.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

did not mean to detain the House, but wished merely to observe upon one point connected with the question, before the House assented to the present motion. He believed, that by such assent they would be placed in a most inconvenient and extraordinary position. He thought that whatever course the House took, it ought to be clearly defined, and they should not content themselves with passing an ambiguous resolution. Now he could understand hon. Gentlemen who wished to alter a practice of 150 years' standing, and to them it was perfectly competent to propose a resolution for that purpose. But that course had been taken on Thursday last, and the House had decided that it would not depart from the practice of 150 years, and yet on looking at the journals of the House, he found within one week after that decision a motion made to receive a petition, not only contrary to the practice which had been adopted for 150 years, but in direct opposition to the resolution by which that practice had been confirmed only on Thursday last. For that reason alone, if there were no others, he should feel bound to vote against the motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury.

Mr. T. Duncombe

had no hesitation in declaring it to be his intention to do every thing in his power to break down if possible, the unconstitutional barrier which had been interposed between the people and their inalienable right of petitioning the House against a tax. He was surprised after having consented to the adjournment, in order to give hon. Gentlemen opposite time to prepare themselves, that they should have come down with no better arguments than, that the practice had subsisted for 150 years uninterruptedly; the right hon. Baronet said, he had attempted to prove to the House that the practice had not been uninterrupted, and he was sick of repeating that the practice had very frequently been interrupted. But admitting, for argument's sake, that the practice had been uninterrupted, still no length of time could sanction injustice. And it was injustice to refuse to receive the petitions of the people on questions affecting their pecuniary interests. But suppose the right hon. Baronet to succeed in rejecting this petition to-day, how much further would he be advanced? To-morrow he would have to fight the same battle over again. The bold and proper measure to pursue would be for the right hon. Gentleman to come down to the House and propose a standing order for the rejection of petitions. If he did not do so, he would have to fight the fight day after day. The right hon. Gentleman said his tax was popular. He had taunted the opposition by asking where was their explosion. Why, they had refused to receive the petitions of the people; they had bound them hand and foot, and then asked why they did not move. They had gagged the people, and asked why they did not speak. The right hon. Gentleman would have to give way at last. He would persevere day after day when petitions were sent to him in presenting them to the House, and would leave to the majority of the House the responsibility of rejecting the petitions of the people. He would persevere in taking the sense of the House on this subject.

The House divided on the question that the petition be brought up:—Ayes 221; Noes 222: Majority 1.

List of the AYES.
Aglionby, H. A.	Bernal, Capt;
Ainsworth, P.	Blackstone, W. S.
Aldam, W.	Blake, Sir V.
Archbold, R.	Blewitt, R. J.
Baldwin, C. B.	Bodkin, J. J.
Bannerman, A.	Borthwick, P.
Barclay, D.	Bowes, J.
Baring, rt. hon. P. T.	Bowring, Dr.
Barnard, E. G.	Brocklehurst, J.
Bell, J.	Brodie, W. B.
Berkeley, hon. Capt.	Brotherton, J.
Berkeley, hon. H; F.	Browne hon. W.

Bryan, G.	Hanmer, J.
Bulkeley, Sir R. B.W.	Hardy, J.
Buller, C.	Harris, J. Q.
Burroughes, H. N.	Hastie, A.
Busfeild, W.	Hatton, Capt. V.
Butler, hon. Col.	Hayter, W. G.
Byng, G.	Heathcoat, J.
Cave, hon. R. O.	Heron, Sir R.
Cavendish, hn. G. H.	Hill, Lord M.
Cayley, E. S.	Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J,
Chapman, B.	Howard, hon. C. W. G.
Childers, J. W.	Howard, hon. J. K.
Clay, Sir W.	Howard, Lord
Clayton, R. R.	Howard. hon. E. G. G.
Clements, Visct.	Howard, P. H.
Cobden, R.	Howard, hon. H.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E.	Howick, Visct.
Collins, W.	Hutt, W.
Colvile, C. R.	James, W.
Cowper, hon. W. F.	Johnston, A.
Craig, W. G.	Labouchere, rt. hn. H.
Crawford, W. S.	Lambton, H.
Currie, R.	Langston, J. H.
Curteis, H. B.	Langton, W. G.
Dalmeny, Lord	Leader, J. T.
Dalrymple, Capt.	Lemon, Sir C.
Dawson, hon. T. V.	Listowel, Earl of
Denison, J. E.	Loch, J.
Dennistoun, J.	Macaulay, rt. hon. T. B.
Dick, Q.	McTaggart, Sir J.
Dickinson, F. H.	Mahon, Visct.
D'Israeli, B.	Mainwaring, T.
Divett, E.	Mangles, R. D.
Duff, J.	Manners, Lord J.
Duke, Sir J.	Marjoribanks, S.
Duncan, Visct.	Marshall, W.
Duncan, G.	Martin, J.
Dundas, Admiral	Mitcalfe, H.
Dundas, F.	Mitchell, T. A.
Dundas, hon. J. C.	Morris, D.
Du Pre, C. G.	Morison, General
Easthope, Sir J.	Morrison, J.
Ebrington, Visct.	Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.
Egerton, Lord F.	Murphy, F. S.
Ellice, rt. hon. E.	Napier, Sir C.
Ellice, E.	Norreys, Sir D. J.
Ellis, W.	O'Brien, C.
Elphinstone, H.	O'Brien, J.
Etwall, R.	O'Brien, W. S.
Evans, W.	O'Connell, D.
Ewart, W.	O'Connell, J.
Ferguson, Col.	Ogle, S. C. H.
Fielden, J.	Paget, Col.
Ferrand, W. B.	Paget, Lord A.
Fitzwilliam, hn. G. W.	Palmer, R.
Forster, M.	Palmer, G.
French, F.	Palmerston, Visct.
Gibson, T. M.	Parker, J.
Gill, T.	Pendarves, E. W. W.
Gordon, Lord F.	Philips, G. R.
Gore, hon. R.	Phillpotts, J.
Granger, T. C.	Pigot, rt. hon. D.
Grattan, H.	Pinney, W.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G	Plumridge Capt.
Grosvenor, Lord R.	Ponsonby, hon. C. F. A. C.
Guest, Sir J.
Hall, Sir B.	Ponsonby, hon. J. G,

Powell, C.	Towneley, J.
Power, J.	Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Protheroe, E.	Tufnell, H.
Pulsford, R.	Turner, E.
Ramsbottom, J.	Vane, Lord H.
Rawdon, Col.	Villiers, hon. C.
Rennie, G.	Villiers, F.
Ricardo, J. L.	Vivian, hon. Major
Russell, Lord J.	Vivian, J. H.
Russell, Lord E.	Vivian, hon. Capt.
Rutherfurd, A.	Wakley, T.
Scholefield, J.	Walker, R.
Scott, R.	Wall, C. B.
Scrope, G. P.	Wallace, R.
Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.	Ward, H. G.
Sibthorp, Col.	Wason, R.
Smith, B.	Wawn, J. T.
Smith, J. A.	Westenra, hon. H. R.
Sombre, D. O. D.	White, L.
Somers, J. P.	White, S.
Somerville, Sir W. M.	Williams, W.
Stanley, hon. W. O.	Wilshere, W.
Stansfield, W. R. C.	Winnington, Sir T. E.
Stanton, W. H.	Wodehouse, E.
Staunton, Sir G. T.	Wood, B.
Stewart, P. M.	Wood, G. W.
Stuart, Lord J.	Worsley, Lord
Stuart, W. V.	Wortley, hon. J. S.
Strickland, Sir G.	Wrightson, W. B.
Strutt, E.	Yorke, H. R.
Tancred, H. W.
Thornely, T.	TELLERS.
Tollemache, hon. F.J.	Duncombe, T.
Tollemache, J.	Hawes, B.

List of the NOES
Acland, T. D.	Botfield, B.
A'Court, Capt.	Bradshaw, J.
Ackers, J.	Broadley, H.
Acton, Col.	Broadwood, H.
Adare, Visct.	Brooke, Sir A. B.
Adderley, C. B.	Brownrigg, J. S.
Alford, Visct.	Bruce, Lord E.
Allix.J. P.	Bruce, C. L. C.
Antrobus, E.	Bruen, Col.
Archdall, M.	Buck, L. W.
Arkwright, G.	Buckley, E.
Ashley, Lord	Buller, Sir J. Y.
Ashley, hon. H.	Burdett, Sir F.
Astell, W.	Burrell, Sir C. M.
Bagot, hon. W.	Campbell A.
Bailey, J.	Chapman, A.
Bailey, J. jun.	Chelsea, Visct.
Baillie, Col.	Chetwode, Sir J.
Baillie, H. J.	Clerk, Sir G.
Baird, W.	Clive, hon. R. H.
Balfour, J. M.	Cochrane, A.
Baring, hon. W. B.	Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.
Barrington, Visct.	Collett, W. R.
Baskerville, T. B. M.	Coote, Sir C. H.
Beckett, W.	Corry, rt. hon. H.
Bell.M.	Courtenay, Visct.
Bentinck, Lord G.	Cripps, W.
Beresford, Major	Darner, hon. Col.
Bernard, Visct.	Darby, G.
Blackburne. J. I.	Dawnay, hon. W. H.
Boldero, H. G,	Dodd, G.

Douglas, Sir H.	Knatchbull, right hon. Sir E.
Douglas, Sir C. E.
Douglas, J. D. S.	Knight, H. G.
Drummond, H. H.	Knight, F. W.
Dugdale, W. S.	Law, hon. C. E.
Duncombe, hon. A.	Lawson, A.
Egerton, W. T.	Leicester, Earl of
Egerton, Sir P.	Liddell, hon. H. T.
Eliot, Lord	Lincoln, Earl of
Escott, B.	Lindsay, H. H.
Estcourt, T. G. B.	Lockhart, W.
Farnham, E. B.	Lowther, J. H.
Fellowes, E.	Lowther, hon. Col.
Feilden, W.	Lyall, G.
Filmer, Sir E.	Lygon, hon. General
Fitzroy, Capt.	Mackenzie, T.
Fitzroy, hon. H.	Mackenzie, W. F.
Follett, Sir W.W.	Mackinnon, W. A.
Forbes, W.	McGeachy, F. A.
Forester, hon. G. C. W.	Manners, Lord C. S.
Fuller, A. E.	Martyn, C. C.
Gaskell, J. Milnes	Marton, G.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.	Master, T. W. C.
Gordon, hon. Capt.	Masterman, J.
Gore, M.	Meynell, Capt.
Gore, W. R. O.	Miles, P. W. S.
Goring, C.	Milnes, R. M.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H.	Mordaunt, Sir J.
Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.	Morgan, O.
Granby, Marquess of	Mundy, E. M.
Grant, Sir A. C.	Murray, C. R. S.
Greenall, P.	Neeld, J.
Greene, T.	Neville, R.
Grimsditch, T.	Newry, Visct.
Grimston, Visct.	Nicholl, rt. hon. J.
Grogan, E.	Norreys, Lord
Hale, It. B.	Northland, Visct.
Halford, H.	O'Brien, A. S.
Hamilton, C. J. B.	Ossulston, Lord
Hamilton, W. J.	Owen, Sir J.
Harcourt, G. G.	Packe, C. W.
Hardinge,rt.hn.SirH.	Patten, J. W.
Hawkes, T.	Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.
Hayes, Sir E.	Peel, J.
Heathcote, Sir W.	Pemberton, T.
Heneage, G. H. W.	Pigot, Sir R.
Henley, J. W.	Planta, rt. hon. J.
Hepburn, Sir T. B.	Plumptre, J. P.
Herbert, hon. S.	Polhill, F.
Hillsborough, Earl of	Pollington, Visct.
Hinde, J. H.	Pollock, Sir F.
Hodgson, F.	Powell, Col.
Hodgson, R.	Praed, W. T.
Hogg, J. W.	Price, R.
Houldsworth, T.	Pringle, A.
Holmes, hn. W. A'Ct.	Rashleigh, W.
Hope, hon. C.	Reade, W. M.
Hornby, J.	Reid, Sir J. R.
Ingestre, Visct.	Repton, G. W. J.
Irving, J.	Richards, R.
James, Sir W. C.	Rose, rt. hn. Sir G.
Jermyn, Earl	Round, C. G.
Jocelyn, Visct.	Russell, J. D. W.
Johnson, W. G.	Ryder, hon. G. D.
Johnstone, Sir J.	Sanderson, R.
Johnstone, H.	Sandon, Visct.
Jones, Capt.	Scarlett, hon. R. C.

Sheppard, T.	Trotter, J.
Shirley, E. P.	Vere, Sir C. B.
Smith, A.	Verner, Col.
Somerset, Lord G.	Vernon, G. H.
Somerton, Visct.	Walsh, Sir J. B.
Sotheron, T. H. S.	Wilbraham, hon. R.B.
Stanley, Lord	Williams, T. P.
Stuart, H.	Wood, Col.
Sturt, H. C.	Wood, Col. T.
Sutton, hon. H. M.	Wyndham, Col. C.
Taylor, J. A.	Wynn, Sir W. W.
Tennent, J. E.	Young, J.
Trench, Sir F. W.	tellers.
Trevor, hon. G. R.	Fremantle, Sir T.
Trollope, Sir J.	Baring, H.