PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS.

HC Deb 07 February 1842 vol 60 cc105-20

Mr. Wallace

rose, to move 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. The hon. Member said, that before the year 1833, it had been usual to state to the House the opinions expressed by the petitioners, and this was a practice which had been permitted to prevail under the Speaker-ship of Mr. Manners Sutton. He did not mean to say, that great inconvenience had not arisen from Members pushing this privilege beyond the bounds of prudence, while he did mean to say, that the refusal to allow Members to speak at all upon the presentation of petitions was unjust to their constituents, and led to an improper suppression of public opinion in that House. It appeared to him to be a selfish course, instead of a proper discharge of a public duty. There were, no doubt, many persons in the House who wished that their time should not be occupied at all by the presentations of petitions, but who wished that they should merely be laid on the Table of the House, or who were ready, at most, to allow a few words of them, with the prayer, to be read. Now that was not the way in which the people ex- pected their petitions would be treated. They did not wish to see them lying in hundreds upon the Table, and crammed into a bag, while not the slightest attention had been paid to their contents. He did not intend to complain in any way of the conduct of their chief Clerk, who duly discharged the duty imposed upon him, but it was of the usage of the House of which he complained, and complained most loudly. He had already said, that there was a time when the course of practice had been different, but the last Parliament—to which he felt that it was no honour to have belonged a poor do nothing reckless thing, on which he was sorry to have wasted his time and his health, it appeared had introduced this new rule. He did not mean to advocate any waste of the time of the House; on the contrary, he wished to discharge his duties as far as he was concerned, with justice to his constituents; but he did not wish to be muzzled, although such had been his condition since the 7th of February, 1839. He had declared at the commencement of each preceding Session that he would call the attention of the House to that subject, but he had such respect for the majority of the House, that he had refrained from pressing it upon them, although he felt that the perseverance in the practice which he complained of was unconstitutional. The Parliament which had in this respect taken away the liberties of the people was designated a Whig Parliament; the present was designated a Tory Parliament. The vote of that night would show which had most respect for the liberty of the subject—for that right of petitioning, which he held to be one of the highest privileges of the people. He was quite aware how important it was that the public business should commence as early as possible, and he was as anxious that that object should be secured as either the present Ministers of the Crown or their predecessors in office could possibly be. But he was still more anxious that the rights and privileges of the people should not be infringed upon, and he said that those privileges had been destroyed in a manner which was perfectly unjustifiable. If the present Government proceeded as the last Government had done in June and July, they would have five or six bills introduced every night, or as many as sixty or seventy per month. He was not there to support any Ministry, and he was prepared to show the truth of what he had said, and that the conduct of the late Government had been such that it was impossible to transact any business, except that of the Government. It was true that petitions might be printed with the votes; but that privilege was not accorded at all times, and, only when the House chose to allow it. He had had a petition entrusted to him to present from Kelso, in Roxburghshire, which was one of the best possible description, both as regarded its principle and its composition. It prayed that the laws which were passed by that House should be printed as cheaply as the votes which were circulated to Members of that House. He moved that the petition should be printed with the votes, and it was so printed, and his name was appended to it, but such was the condition of the business of the House that the session terminated, and he never had an opportunity of bringing forward the petition. That petition was indeed nominally presented and was printed, but he held that no petition was properly presented until the hon. Member who laid it before the House had an opportunity of making a statement upon its contents. The moment a Member got up, however, and attempted to say anything about a petition, he was interrupted by others, who prevented his proceeding. The clerk, perhaps, then might be desired to read the petition at the Table, but what was the consequence: if it came from many of the towns in Scotland, the clerk was unable to pronounce the name of it, so that the object of the presentation of the petition failed altogether. The same observation was also applied to many places in Ireland and Wales. What he desired was, that in future there should be a general rule adopted, that all those who presented petitions should be at liberty to state, generally, their contents, the prayers of those petitions, and the objects or wishes of the petitioners. That should be strictly the right of the Members of the House, whether a collision of opinion or a discussion took place, as he did not hesitate in saying that the present mode of dealing with the rights of the people was unjust towards them and inconvenient to the House. The hon. Member said that it had just been suggested to him, that the proper mode of proceeding would be to move that the resolution of the 7th February, 1839, be rescinded, and he, there- fore, begged to move that that resolution be read, with that object.

Resolution of February 8, 1839, read as follows:

"The Order of the Day being read, for resuming the adjourned Debate upon the Question proposed yesterday, 'That this House adhere to the established practice with respect to the presentation of Petitions as laid down by Mr. Speaker;'

"The House was moved, That the entry in the Journal of the House, of the Resolution of the House of the 6th day of February 1833, relative to the presentation of public petitions, might be read, and the same was read, as followeth;

'Resolved, That when the contents of a petition have been opened, and the prayer stated by the Member who may have the charge of such petition, Mr. Speaker to desire such Member to bring the same to the Table, and do then direct the Clerk to read it, with-out allowing any other Member to speak, or putting any question upon such petition, before the same shall have been read, unless it should appear to Mr. Speaker, or to any Meinber, that the matter of such petition was in breach of the privilege of the House, or that, according to the rules and orders of the House, such petition ought not to be received, in which cases the Question, 'That the petition be brought up,' be put, and agreed to, before such petition be brought up.'

" The House was also moved, That the entry in the votes of the House of yesterday, relative to the presentation of public petitions, might be read; and the same was read, as followeth;

'Mr. Ward, the Member for Sheffield, having in the course of opening to the House a petition from his constituents respecting the Corn-laws, stated that it was his intention not to confine himself solely to the allegations and prayer of the petition, but to enter generally into the subject, was interrupted by Mr. Speaker, who stated that such proceeding on the part of the hon. Member would be contrary to the rule which he considered had received the sanction of the House, 'that no Member, upon the presentation of a petition, should be allowed to enter generally into any subject,' and requested that he might receive the instructions of the House, whether this rule should be maintained.

'Whereupon a discussion took place, and a Motion was made, and the question proposed,

'That this House adhere to the established practice with respect to the presentation of petitions, as laid down by Mr. Speaker.'

Whereupon, Mr. Speaker was requested to state what he considered to be the rule and practice of the House upon the presentation of petitions.

'Mr. Speaker

accordingly stated, That any Member offering any petition to the House, states the place whence it comes, the number of signatures affixed, and also the material contents of the petition; and is entitled, if he requires it, to have it read at the Table.

'That all petitions complaining of personal grievance, and requiring present redress, are entertained and discussed when presented.

'That all petitions which are presented relating to a subject which the Member wishes to bring under the consideration of the House, are printed with the votes, the Member giving notice, when he presents his petition, of the day on which he will make his Motion.

'That all petitions which relate to any subject with respect to which a notice of Motion has been given, or with respect to which any Bill is in progress through the House, are referred to the Committee on Public Petitions, where they are classified, and are, according to the judgment of the Committee, printed in whole or in part.

Debate adjourned till to-morrow.' And the Question being again proposed: —The House resumed the said adjourned Debate: And the Question being put, That this House adhere to the established practice with respect to the presentation of petitions, as laid down by Mr. Speaker:' The House divided; The Yeas to the old Lobby; The Noes to the new Lobby; Tellers for the Yeas, Mr, Attorney-General, Sir George Grey –183 Tellers for the Noes, Mr. Ward, Mr. Villiers—43 So it was resolved in the Affirmative.

Mr. Wallace

believed now that the most convenient way would be to move, "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."

The Speaker

put the question—" That the order now read by the clerk be rescinded,"

Mr. Wallace

said that this was not his motion.

The Speaker

said, the question which he understood to be put to the House was, that the House would revert to the practice which formerly prevailed of discussing petitions at the time of their presentation. On the 8th of February, 1839, the Speaker was called on to state the practice of the House. The House then came to a resolution to adhere to the practice as stated by the Speaker, and it was absolutely necessary before any new practice was established that that resolu- tion should be rescinded. The question, therefore, he had to put was, that the resolution just read by the clerk at the Table be rescinded.

Sir R. H. Inglis

said, as it was well known that he had been much in the habit of taking part in all matters relating to the petitions presented to that House, he should make no apology for rising on the present occasion. He could not but think that the success of the motion of the hon. Member for Greenock would result in the absorption of the time of the House. Did not the hon. Member know that the number of petitions presented during the last Session of Parliament amounted to no less than 16,801, and that that number, according to the full extent of the principle advanced by the hon. Member for Greenock, would necessarily involve not only 16,801 speeches, but 16,801 replies? Supposing the hon. Member for Greenock had spoken as he would manifestly have wished upon the petition from Kelso, would he contend that the hon. Member for the county would not have a right to reply? and then would it be denied that there must be, if the principle were acted upon, a complete destruction of all the legislative functions of the House? Did the hon. Member for Greenock consider that if his motion were adopted, the whole Session would be consumed in the reading of petitions, and that, after all he desired to do, even in the case of the Kelso petition, the result would be, that that petition would be ordered to be laid upon the Table? True it was that some benefits might accrue to the petitioners by calling the attention of the House to the state and condition of the trade in which they were engaged, but he would ask, would not this be better done by a specific motion on the part of the hon. Member? He appealed not only to the right hon. Gentleman in the chair, but to other hon. Members of less authority in that House, whether the result of all petitions however introduced, must not be that they be ordered to lie on the Table? He had stated that last year the number of petitions was 16,801; the year before it amounted to 18,000. Could it be doubted, that, even if each petition occupied only one minute the House could do nothing else but receive petitions? There must be some common sense exercised on the subject. He had looked over the petitions which, under the existing regulations of the House, had been printed, and he had found that their average length was half a folio closely printed. Now, he entreated the House just to consider the time which would be occupied in reading such a petition, and if the hon. Member presenting it spoke for two minutes—and he might ask would the hon. Member for Greenock consent to be limited to two minutes, if the rule proposed were carried into effect. He did not deny that there was a great deal of reason in some of the positions of the hon. Member for Greenock, but if the hon. Member's views were carried out, it would be physically impossible for the House to do anything else but receive petitions, and then he begged to ask what was to become of the private bills? The hon. Member had expressed no sympathy for the sixty or seventy public bills introduced at a late period of the last Session by his friends, the late Administration; he could not, therefore, be expected to exhibit any sympathy for the measures which late in the Parliamentary year, her Majesty's present advisers might think it necessary to bring forward; still he begged to ask the hon. Member to have some sympathy for the private bills. In fact, there would be no time for legislation, public or private, if the motion of the hon. Gentleman were carried, and if every Member chose to insist upon his rights under it. He thought that the general understanding was, that when any petition was presented of such importance as to justify its publication, so as to appear with the votes, and on the pledge of the hon. Member presenting such petition specifically to call the attention of the House to its contents, the House seldom hesitated to agree to that course; still it appeared from a return which had been moved for by his hon. Friend, the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Greene), that a large portion of the petitions so printed were not followed up by any motion of the hon. Members who had presented them and given notice. In short, the experiment had been tried, and its success did not justify its being carried further. On these grounds, he must oppose the motion which the hon. Member for Greenock had submitted to the House.

Mr. Roebuck

said, that, the sole argument advanced by the hon. Baronet who had just resumed his seat against the present motion, was the absorption of the time of the House. Now, he would suggest to the hon. Baronet, a course that he might now pursue under the present regulation, if he were desirous of occupy- ing the time of the House. Whenever a petition was proposed to be laid on the Table, he might divide the House on the question that it "do lie" on the Table. He might feel an objection to the petition, and to exhibit that objection he might demand a division for the purpose of recording his opinion. But the hon. Baronet had said further, that any hon. Member in presenting a petition had a right to call upon the clerk to read it at the Table. But was this ever done? It was not; and as the hon. Baronet had suggested that it would be physically impossible to get through the discussion of all the petitions presented in the course of a Session, even though each speech did not exceed two minutes' duration, so it would be equally impossible for all petitions to be read which were brought to the Table. He might feel an objection to the petition, and to exhibit that objection he might demand a division for the purpose of recording his opinion. But the hon. Baronet had said further, that any hon. Member in presenting a petition had a right to call upon the clerk to read it at the Table. What did this show? That hon. Gentlemen were actuated by a proper feeling of consideration for the House: and why should the hon. Baronet argue, that the feeling of the House would not be equally consulted and obeyed in every other case. He asked whether the course which was proposed was not much more likely to produce the object which the House ought to have in view—namely, the right understanding by the House of the prayer of the petitioners than the system now in existence? Every hon. Member did not feel himself competent to make a speech, and did not go down to the House prepared to make a set oration; but every one who had a petition to present could state the opinions of his constituents, plainly, and clearly, from the petition, and it would be much better that he should state the contents of the petition as he found it, than merely, as was now the custom, lay it on the Table. While the present system continued, the people did not petition, would not petition, and he would add, could not petition. The hon. Baronet had said, that as many as eighteen thousand petitions had been presented in the course of one Session; but how many of these pertained to the same subjects? How many referred to church extension — how many to Corn-laws? Did the hon. Baronet suppose, that if an hon. Member had twenty petitions upon the subject of church extension, he would make a speech for every one, or that a speech would be made for every petition which was presented? But if the hon. Member was impressed with the peculiar idea of the petition, he ought to come for-forward and state it. It was said, that he might state the substance of the petition, but that would not answer the purpose. The substance of the petition merely stated the grievance complained of, but did not state why—did not state the reasons of that complaint. Three minutes would often be sufficient for that purpose, but the present practice put a stopper upon persons trying to make the petitions of the people heard. He would go further, he would say, that no question could be thoroughly discussed either by the House or the country, but upon the old established principle. He would appeal to the hon. Member for Oxford for his assistance. That hon. Member was a Conservative—now the principle of Conservatism, as he understood it, was an acting upon the precedents of former times, and abiding by the usages of our ancestors. Since the Reform Bill a new practice had been introduced in regard to the petitions of the people, a practice somewhat smacking of the times in which we lived, and yet the hon. Member for Oxford had suffered it to pass unnoticed. He was now arguing, upon Conservative principles, for a return to the wholesome practice of our ancestors, and he trusted that, for consistency's sake, the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford would vote with him. The wants of the people could never be made known to the House while the present practice was persisted in. The newspapers could not make them known to the House—the House knew nothing of newspapers. He was there, as the representative of his constituents, to state their grievances to the House. It was said he might make a motion. To this he would reply, that he might not have an opportunity, he might not be able to speak; although perfectly able to state the feelings of his constituents to the House, he might not have the courage to make a set oration. He would make use of the argumentum ad hominem to the hon. Member for Oxford, and claim his vote for this motion upon Conservative grounds, as a return to the practice of our forefathers.

Mr. Brotherton

thought it necessary to give his reason for voting as he intended. He had as great a regard for the right of petition as any hon. Member could have, and would be the last to say anything to abridge it, but he was sure the present motion would not answer the end which was sought to be attained. He had seen this House, before be was a Member of it, when the proposed plan was in full operation; and he could state that at that time it turned out a perfect failure. The petitions were neither noticed by the newspapers, nor heard by the Members of the House. The time of the House was constantly occupied by a few loquacious Members, who could speak for hours at a stretch, and while they got all their petitions disposed of, no one else had an opportunity of addressing the Speaker. He declared that he had attended that House, since he had become one of its Members, as many as ten days in succession with a petition, seeking an opportunity of presenting it, and when he was successful, he had always abstained frutn occupying the attention of the House longer than was necessary, because, seeing other hon. Members with petitions in their hands, a sense of propriety and justice had prompted him to make way for them as early as possible. He considered that it would be quite impossible that the public business could be carried on if every Member was allowed to make a speech upon every petition. With respect to the observations that had been made as to the disorderly manner in which petitions were generally presented, he must be allowed to say that he considered the manner in which petitions had been presented latterly, was most orderly. Every Member had an opportunity of stating what were the contents of the petition which he had to present, and he thought that that was quite sufficient; but as to supposing that every Member was to state his own opinions on these petitions, he considered it quite absurd. He was of opinion that the people had a right to have their petitions heard and attended to, but he did not think, that that could be effected by allowing hon. Members to make long speeches upon their presentation. If the present rule could be relaxed without impeding public business, he should not object, provided that it could be shown that the principle of the rule could be adhered to. At presents if a Member thought a petition of importance, he could give notice of a motion on the subject, and bring the matter under the notice of the House in a formal way.

Mr. O'Connell

thought, that the petitions of the people were treated in that House with a levity which was unbecoming. He admitted, that the late practice in the presentation of petitions was an inconvenient one, when five or six speeches were made on the presentation of each petition. No doubt this might be considered as trespassing too much on the time of the House. His hon. Friend, however, had clearly shown, that the present practice was attended with great inconvenience. He thought that a middle course should be adopted, because he could not but think that the practice at present adopted was insulting to the people at large. The House ought to refer the question to a committee, which would doubtless devise some means of giving a more substantial hearing to the petitions of the people, so that no one should have a right to complain, as at present, of the mockery and insult of throwing bundles of petitions together on the Table. He hoped, therefore, that the House would rescind its resolution, and follow it up by some plan which would neither trespass upon the public time nor give the people reason to complain.

Sir Robert Peel

said if any insult were offered to the people through the present mode of presenting petitions of the people—if there were a mockery of ceremony, to use the words of the hon. Gentleman, by throwing bundles of petitions on the Table—that was the fault of the Members who so presented them, because the rules of the House imposed no such necessity. He would refer to the rules which had been adopted by the majority of the last Parliament. The rules said, that any Member presenting a petition must state the place whence it came, so that the hon. Members who were able to pronounce the names of Irish and Scotch places, had liberty to pronounce them properly, which was their duty, not that of the clerk. The Member presenting a petition was bound also to state the number of signatures and the material contents of the petition. If the petition complained of personal grievance, and required immediate redress, it might be entertained and discussed when presented. If a petition involved a subject of a special nature, it might be ordered to be printed with the votes; when presented, it was the duty of the Member presenting it to give notice of the day when he would bring it under the consideration of the House. This system afforded Members every opportunity of calling the attention of the House to petitions. If the Member did not think it expedient to call the attention of the House to the special subject of a petition, the responsibility rested with him. The discussion of petitions on their presentation was not a part of the ancient proceedings in Parliament. He recollected when he first came into Parliament the practice did not exist, and it was comparatively of recent date. He recollected that Mr. Abercrombie had stated from the chair that, in adopting the resolution, they were only resorting to the old practice. Therefore they were only so far conservative in returning to the practice of half a century ago. Now, if they were to return to the late system, there would be no limit to the presentation of petitions. It was true that in the abstract every petition should be read by the clerk, and attended to by the House; but it was clear that if the clerk was to read every petition, their whole time would be absorbed; and if Members would listen carefully, all he could say was, that this would be different from their usual course. But the real question was, did the present mode diminish the confidence of the people? Since the rules adopted the number of petitions had increased. During the last two Sessions their average number was 17,000 each Session. Certainly they would not infer, from the increase of petitions, that the petitioners were dissatisfied with the present mode of proceeding. He believed there was no alternative between adhering to the rule and the complete relaxation of it. If they left the matter to the discretion of every Member, they would in most cases have a debate on the presentation of a petition. The Member presenting it would be anxious to state fully his opinion on the subject-matter of it; this would provoke a reply and a rejoinder, and much time must inevitably be taken up. When the practice of debating petitions existed twelve or thirteen years ago, they had hardly any time left them for debate. In consequence of this the House, at the suggestion of Mr. Manners Sutton, agreed to the resolution of Feb. 6, 1833, which had already been read to the House. He thought that with respect to public feeling on the subject, it would be found that the "general impression" was, that the time of the House was already sufficiently consumed in debating. He did not believe that the great mass of the petitions to that House required that more of the time of the House should be devoted to debate, and less to practical purposes. He recollected that the practice of discussing petitions night after night led to the most objectionable postponement of legislation. He thought that they should look to the practical effect of the present system. As far as the Ministers of the Crown were concerned, he did not think that it could make much difference to them as to which system was adopted, beyond their having necessarily the desire to proceed to legislation. The House must, after all, strike a balance between the advantages and disadvantages of the two systems, and they should recollect that their time was the property of the people, and ought to be carefully devoted for the public benefit.

Mr. Wakley

observed, that the increase in the number of petitions was no proof of the confidence of the people in that House; that increase could be more readily accounted for from the bad conduct of the House, and from the dissatisfaction which existed in the public mind as to their proceedings. The petitions had increased in consequence of that House acting in a way opposed to the public will, and to the best interests of the community. If the people had been satisfied, their petitions would not have been so numerous. With respect to an observation of the right hon. Baronet, he felt bound to say that he differed entirely from him, as he was convinced that no persons had such an interest in preventing discussion on the presentation of petitions as the Ministers of the Crown, and this was, above all, the case with the last Administration. The right hon. Gentleman also said that they should look to the practical effect of the present system. He was willing to do so, and he contended that it was altogether a mockery. He had seen thirty petitions presented by an hon. Member that evening, certainly all on the same subject, but the whole time occupied in their presentation did not exceed half a minute. Now when they took into consideration the trouble and expense that was attendant on getting up public meetings for the purpose of petitioning that House, and when they recollected that the results of these thirty public meetings had been disposed of in less than half a minute, he would ask whether the proceeding was not altogether farcical, and reflected on the character of the House? There was an excellent mode of diminishing the number of petitions which he could suggest to the House, namely, shortening the duration of Parliament. Unfortunately, at present, they had a lease of their seats for seven years, and the persons who had sent them to that House were compelled to petition, and pray them to alter their proceedings; and it would appear, that when the public came with their complaints, they were to be treated with neglect; and notwithstanding this, that assembly was called the House of the people. Now, what was the conduct of the other House with respect to petitions! The other House was an hereditary assembly, while that body pretended to represent the people. In the other House there was no check as to the mode of presenting petitions, but the fullest discussion was allowed, while in that House they were gagged and stopped if they endeavoured to make an observation on the prayer of the people. The right hon. Baronet said, that if a Member wished it, he could make a motion on any particular grievance, but he would ask whether it were not notorious, that a Member might place his notice of motion for week after week, or month after month, in the votes, without having an opportunity afforded him of bringing it forward? He recollected a remarkable case of the difference of the treatment of petitions between that and the other House. In one instance his hon. Friend, the Member for Westminster, presented a petition complaining of a great grievance, and he was obliged to confine himself merely to the statement of its prayer, and was not allowed to make any comment. On the same night a copy of that petition was presented by Lord Brougham to the other House, and the speech of the latter occupied three columns of the morning journals. If he was consulted, he would entreat the people to present their petitions to the other House, for in the House of Commons, their grievances were not listened to.

Sir Walter James

would only take notice of one remark which had just fallen from the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Wakley). He had, indeed, stated several things in which he could not concur. He could agree with the hon. Member opposite, that that House ought to represent the people, and that they ought to study the wishes and interests of the people; it was their business to look after the people's interests, and the question now was, whether they were to conduct their affairs in a business-like way, or to delay their affairs in a tedious and vexatious way?

Sir V. Blake

supported the motion of the hon. Member for Greenock. The ancient right of the people, relative to the presenting of petitions, had been curtailed in that House, and he thought there should be every reasonable licence for discussing them, on their presentation.

Mr. Wallace

replied. In the years 1833, 1834, and 1835, when they debated on petitions as much as they thought proper, much more business had been got through than ever since. As to the remark of the right hon. Baronet, that the people felt there was sufficient debating, he quite agreed that debating the same point from day to day by adjournments, was much to be deprecated. If Members could not, when a question was brought in, sit there till next day, if it were necessary to bring it to a conclusion, as their forefathers had done, they ought to stay away from that House altogether. In the course of the coming discussion on the Corn-law, he had no doubt that the leaders, as they were called, on both sides of the House, had regularly arranged the debate, and that it was all settled that one should speak after the other; and the consequence would be, that next week would be occupied from Monday to Friday. As for the statement, that the more important petitions were printed for the information of the public, the House must remember that they were usually not printed till they were four weeks old, and if they were then presented to the fourth estate—the reporters in the gallery—they would not look at them. No; the public must have their news fresh; they must have their political food given them day by day, or not at all; they must have it hot and hot, or not at all. As to the objection of the hon. Baronet, the Member for Oxford, as to the time that would be occupied, he must say, that if an hon. Member could not say all that was neces- sary about a petition, in two minutes, he he should think his brains were not worth very much.

The House divided on the question, that the resolution be rescinded:—Ayes 50; Noes 237; Majority 187.

List of the AYES.
Armstrong, Sir A.	Muntz, G. F.
Bernal, R.	O'Connell, Dan.
Blackstone, W B. S.	O'Connell, M.
Blake, Sir V.	O'Connell M. J.
Bowring, Dr.	O'Connell, J.
Chapman, W.	Ogle, S. C. H.
Cobden, R.	Pechell, Capt.
Collins, W.	Pinney, W.
Crawford, W. S.	Plumridge, Capt.
D'Israeli, B.	Powell, C.
Duncombe, T.	Rennie, G.
Esmonde, Sir T.	Ricardo, J. L.
Ewart, W.	Roche, Sir D.
Ferguson, Col.	Strickland, Sir G.
Fielden, J.	Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Hall, Sir B.	Villiers, hon. C P.
Harford, S.	Vivian, hon. Capt.
Harris, J. Q.	Wakley, T.
Hatton, Capt. V.	Wason, R.
Heathcoat, J.	Watson, W. H.
Hill, Lord M.	Wawn, J. T.
Hindley, C.	Williams, W.
Johnson, Gen.	Yorke, H. R.
Leader, J. T.
Mitcalfe, H.	TELLERS.
Morris, D.	Wallace, R.
Mostyn, hon. E. L.	Roebuck,
List of the NOES.
Acland, Sir T.D.	Bramston, T. W.
A'Court, Capt.	Broadley, H.
Ackers, J.	Broadwood, H.
Acton, Col.	Brodie, W. B.
Adderley, C.B.	Brotherton, J.
Allix, J.P.	Browne, hon. W.
Antrobus, E.	Brownrigg, J. S.
Bailey, J. jun.	Bruce, Lord E.
Baillie, Col.	Bruce, C. L. C.
Baillie, H.J.	Bryan, G.
Baird, W.	Buck, L. W.
Balfour, J.M.	Buckley, E.
Baring,hon.W.B.	Buller, E.
Baring, H.B.	Buller, Sir J. Y.
Baring,rt.hon.F.T.	Busfield, W.
Barnard, E.G.	Campbell, Sir H.
Baskerville, T.B.M.	Campbell, A.
Beckett, W.	Carnegie, hon. Capt.
Bell, M.	Cartwright, W. R.
Benett, J.	Chelsea, Viscount
Beresford, Capt.	Chetwode, Sir J.
Beresford, Major	Cholmondely, hon. H.
Blakemore, R.	Christmas, W.
Bodkin, W.H.	Christopher, R. A.
Boldero, H.G.	Clayton, Sir W. R.
Borthwick, P.	Clerk, Sir G.
Botfield, B.	Clive, hon. R. H.
Bowes, J.	Cochrane, A.
Bradshaw, J.	Colborne, hn. W.N. R,

Collett, W. R.	Hodgson, R.
Compton, H. C.	Hogg, J.W.
Conolly, Col.	Houldsworth, T.
Corry, right hon. H.	Holmes, hn.W. A'Ct.
Cowper, hon. W. F.	Hope, hon. C.
Cresswell, B.	Hope,G.W.
Cripps, W.	hornby, J.
Crosse, T. B.	Howard, hn.C.W.G.
Dalrymple, Capt.	Hughes, W.B.
Darner, hon. Col.	James, Sir W.C.
Dawson, hon. T. V.	Jermyn, Earl
Denison, J. E.	Johnson, W.G.
Denison, E. B.	Johnstone,A.
Dickinson, F. H.	Johnstone, H.
Divett, E.	Knatchbull, right hon. Sir E.
Dodd, G.
Douglas, Sir C. E.	Knight, F.W.
Drummond, H. H.	Labouchere, rt. hn. H.
Duncan, G.	Lambton, H.
Duncombe, hon. O.	Larpent, Sir G.de.H.
Dundas, D.	Lawson, A.
Easthope, Sir J.	Legh, G. C.
Eaton, R. J.	Leicester, Earl of
Ebrington, Viscount	Lennox, Lord A.
Egerton, Sir P.	Liddell, hon. H.T.
Eliot, Lord	Lincoln, Earl of
Elphinstone, H.	Litton, E.
Emlyn, Viscount	Loch, J.
Escott, B.	Lockhart W.
Ferrand, W. B.	Lockhart, W.
Fitzroy, Capt.	Lowther, J.H.
Ffolliott, J.	Lygon, hon.Gen.
Forbes, W.	Macaulay, rt. hn. T.B.
Forman, T. S.	Mackenzie, T.
Fuller, A. E.	MacGeachy, T.
Gaskell, J. Milnes	Mahon, Viscount
Gill, T.	Mainwaring, T.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W.E.	Manners, Lord C.S.
Godson, R.	March, Earl of
Gordon, hon. Capt.	Marsham, Viscount
Gordon, Lord F.	Martyn, C.C.
Gore, W. O.	Maule, rt. hon. F.
Gore, Wm. O.	Mitchell, T.A.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H.	Morgan, O.
Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.	Munday, E.M.
Granger, T. C.	Murray, C.R.S.
Grant, Sir A. C.	Napier, Sir C.
Greenall, P.	Neeld, J.
Greene, T.	Neville, R.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.	Newry, Viscount
Grimsditch, T.	Nicholl, rt. Hon. J.
Grimston, Viscount	Northland, Viscount
Grogan, E.	O'Brien, W. Smith
Halford, H.	Paget, Lord A.
Hamilton, J.	Pakington, J.S.
Hamilton, W. J.	Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.
Hamilton, Lord C.	Peel, J.
Harcourt, G. G.	Philips, M.
Hardinge, rt. hn. SirH.	Pigot, Sir R.
Hardy, J.	Plumptre, J.P.
Hastie, A.	Pollock, Sir F.
Heathcote, Sir W.	Praed, W.T.
Henley, J.W.	Protheroe, E.
Herbert, hon. S.	Pusey, P.
Hill, Sir R.	Reshleigh, W.
Hodgson, F.	Reade, W.M.

Repton, G. W. J.	Temmemt, J.E.
Richards, R.	Thompson, Mr. Ald.
Rous, hon. Capt.	Tollemache, J.
Rushbrooke, Col.	Towneley, J.
Russell, Lord J.	Trollope, Sir J.
Sandon, Viscount	Trotter, J.
Scarlett, hon. R. C.	Tufnell, H.
Shaw, right hon. F.	Vere, Sir C.B.
Sheppard, T.	Verner, Col.
Shirley, E. P.	Vernon, G.H.
Sibthorp, Col.	Villiers, Viscount
Smith, rt. hn. R. V.	Vivian, hon. Major
Smythe, hon. G.	Waddington. H,S.
Smollett, A.	Walker, R.
Somerset, Lord G.	Wall, C.B.
Somerton, Viscount	Wood, Col. T.
Sotheron, T. H. S.	Wortley, hon. J.S.
Stanley, Lord	Wrightson, W.B.
Stansfield, W. R.	Wyndham, Col.
Strutt, E.	Young, J.
Stuart, H.	Young, Sir W.
Sturt, H. C.	TELLERS
Sutton, hon. H. M.	Fremantle, Sir T.
Taylor, T. E.	Inglis, Sir H.