§ Captain Pechell,on the part of the fishermen of the coast of Sussex, did not object to the tariff as regarded fish, but to any mode of importing it in contravention to the treaty of 1839, concluded by the late Government with the French authorities. He, therefore, called on the right hon. Baronet for protection of English fishing-boats within the line of demarcation laid down by that treaty. The right hon. Baronet had contended that the reduction of the price of timber would benefit the fishermen, but it would be better to reduce the price of their loaf, because the reduction in the duty on timber would not touch them. There was no comparison in point of treatment by the Governments of the respective countries—between the English and the French Governments—the latter being so much better treated than the former. All he wanted for the fishermen was fair play and justice; and that he called on the right hon. Gentleman to give them in his tariff.
§ Mr. Gladstoneobserved, that the time had not arrived for dealing with the subject; and he suggested that as there were three classes of fish not charged with duty it would be best to dispatch them first.
§ Sir R. Peelsaid, it was intended to exempt them when part of a cargo under 5l.
Major Beresfordhoped that the right hon. Baronet would re-consider the tariff, in so far as related to the proposed duty on lobsters, which, if persevered in, would have the effect of destroying that trade altogether, and of depriving London of this article of food. The supply of lobsters for the London market was at present derived from Norway, and the fish was so delicate that it was with great difficulty brought alive to this country in the well-boats employed for that purpose, and so many cargoes were spoiled in the transit as to render the trade a very speculative one. There was no duty at present levied on lobsters, and he considered it unfair to impose one. Besides, according to the present method of managing the trade, the lobsters, on their arrival off the English coasts, were transhipped into other boats, in order to keep them better alive, and thus as the cargo of the well- 724 boat was generally divided between two other boats the duty levied would be 15l. per ship-load instead of 5l. He trusted that the Government would relax in this item of the tariff.
§ Mr. Alderman Humpherycontended, that as hitherto had been the case, lobsters ought to be subjected to no duty whatever. He would move an amendment to the effect that they shall be admitted free.
Mr. Chapmansaid, this fishery was productive of a considerable supply of very hardy seamen, and should not be made a subject of taxation.
§ Captain Pechellsaid, that an act of George the 1st allowed the importation of lobsters in any vessels; and by the 10th and 11th William the3rd,no lobster was allowed to be put on shore which was less than eight inches long. Both these must be repealed, if this duty was levied. In five days in the month of June, 1838, there were no less than 132,000 lobsters brought to London.
§ Sir R. Peelsaid: If it be known that there were 130,000 lobsters brought into London in a particular time, the difficulty is not so great as stated by the hon. and gallant Member. They must have gone through the process of counting. Our object for imposing this duty is, because it is said that if you look at the prohibition on fish, it will be found not to extend to those which are articles of luxury. It is urged against the law with respect to fish, that turbots and lobsters are excepted. We think it right not to except fish which is consumed by the upper classes. The duty is now laid on turbot for the first time, which surely ought to be. I doubt the policy of admitting any particular fish free.
§ Mr. Laboucherethought it was expedient to leave the law as it was. He believed the duty on lobsters would inflict an injury on persons in the trade—enhance the price, and without doing good of any kind. The main supply of lobsters was from Norway, where British fishermen are not allowed to fish themselves, but they bought from the Norway fishermen, by which means only the supply was obtained. This traffic afforded encouragement to a hardy race of seamen; he did not see whom the proposed duty would benefit, and he hoped the Government would consider it.
§ Mr. Gladstonesaid, that his right hon. 725 Friend had already stated the main positive reason for the duty, namely, the special exemption of fish which were the food of the rich. He wished to state several points. Undoubtedly, if a strong case could be shown that the duty would interfere with the trade, it ought to be considered. With respect to numbering lobsters, a few hundred were often brought by the mail-boats from Hull, and a duty per head was necessary to meet that case. There would be no particular inconvenience, for it was not necessary for the ship which brought the lobsters from Norway to come up to the Custom House that she might discharge her cargo in the outer waters. The want of a fish market might equally cause them to be spoiled by delay. With respect to the amount of the duty, it would be only 5 per cent, on the value. 100l. was the wholesale price from the factor to the seller, and any enhancement to the consumer in London was not likely. At present vessels in that trade were restricted from carrying passengers to Norway, which prohibition it was intended to do away; and that privilege would be of far more consequence in the way of gain, than 5l. in the way of loss. There would be no material inconvenience, provided the duty was levied in the manner proposed.
§ Viscount Howicksaid, that when a new duty was imposed, some good ground should be shown for it. What was it in this case? Certainly not revenue. Was it protection? That was certainly not wanted. From his own knowledge of the trade in his neighbourhood, he could state that it was not wanted. The only complaint made there was of the diminution of the number of lobsters. Was it wise, then, to risk hurting trade for some nominal uniformity in the tariff. The hon. and gallant Member for Harwich had shown that the duty could not be imposed without injury to the trade, and it had not been shown, by the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman, that it would not interfere with it. He thought it was inconsistent with common sense to introduce a change which would be productive of no advantage and might be injurious.
§ Mr. Humerecommended that the duty on fish should be removed altogether. He mentioned several of the amounts which had been levied, which were very trifling, and he thought that if that particular sum was wanted, it might be obtained by 726 the reduction of one of the Commissioners of Customs.
§ Mr. Wakleythought, that the right hon. Gentleman, the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, had failed in his justification of the duty. He said, that lobsters were used only by the higher classes, but he could assure him that the proportion consumed by the lower classes was infinitely greater. He thought the statement of the hon. and gallant Member for Harwich quite convincing.
§ Sir R. Peelsaid, that he would close at once with the hon. Gentleman. If what the hon. Gentleman said was correct, that lobsters were much consumed by the middling and lower classes, he admitted that the main reason for the introduction of the article into the tariff was removed. He thought, moreover, that the gallant Officer the hon. Member for Harwich, had shown strong grounds for saying, that the proposed duty was too high; he would, however, reserve the consideration, whether there ought to be an absolute exemption; but the subject should undergo consideration. As to the reduction of a Commissioner of Customs, if that reduction was proper, of course it ought to be made without reference to the reduction of the duty on fish. It should stand on its own grounds. They could not altogether abolish the duties on fish; but seeing the general sense of the House, he was sure it was of more importance to make progress with the tariff than to retain the duty on lobsters.
§ Mr. Gladstonesuggested that the most convenient course would be to let the duty stand as it did at present, and make the alteration in the report.
The vote agreed to.
§ Mr. Gladstonesaid, that the words describing the next class of article, "fish imported from foreign places in other than fishing vessels" had been used in order to prevent fraud; and although they would limit the importation considerably, he believed it would be impossible to attain the object desired without them; but further inquiry should be made.
§ Alderman Humpherycomplained of the alteration in the tariff since its original proposal, whereby various descriptions of fish were required to be brought into our ports in other than fishing vessels; and especially in regard to turbot, which he said would be spoiled by the transportation from one vessel to another.
§ Mr. Gladstonesaid, that he could quiet the mind of the worthy Alderman on the subject of turbot, about which he felt so natural an anxiety. It was not intended to make any change as to the mode of importation of turbot; and the object of the hon. Member would at once be answered by placing turbot immediately after lobsters in the tariff'.
§ Dr. Bowringbegged to press upon the Government the recommendation of the Import Duties' Committee, that whenever duties were unproductive, as was the case with those on fish, they should be removed.
§ Viscount Howicksaid, that if they wanted to remove restrictions they ought to allow the fish to be brought in any vessels. He knew that the French boats came off the coast of the north of England, and bought herrings of our fishermen; he was glad of that for the sake of our own fishermen; but why should we imitate the absurd blunder of France by imposing restrictions which could not be enforced?
§ Sir R. Peelsaid, that the reason for making that alteration in the tariff was not deference to his hon. and gallant Friend; but after constant collisions had taken place between the French and English fishing vessels, after a very considerable loss of life, the noble Lord the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs concluded a convention with France, by which it was agreed that a certain space of about three miles from low watermark should be the exclusive fishing ground of each country. Then if they permitted foreign fish to be brought into our ports in vessels adapted for the purposes of fishing, they would do away with the advantage of that convention, for it would be impossible then to exclude the French fishing vessels from your limits, as they might always avail themselves of the pretence that they were on the way to the ports of London or Dover with fish. That argument, however, did not apply to the case of turbot, because the permission to bring that in always existed. With respect to the tariff, it was a great improvement on the existing law; it went as far as the House could expect; they found salmon prohibited; they proposed to introduce it at a duty of 10s. per cwt.; soles were prohibited; now they proposed to introduce them at 5s. per cwt. They removed prohibitions altogether.
§ Mr. Aglionbyobjected to imposing any duty on turbot, which was before exempted; for turbot, when there was a glut in the market, was a fish consumed by the poor; and however few went out with him, he should divide the House upon it. Why, he asked, did the hon. Baronet refuse to an hon. Member on that side of the House, with regard to turbot, what he had yielded to one on the other side of the House with regard to lobsters?
§ Sir R. Peelsaid, that he did not yield to the hon. Member for Harwich until several Gentlemen on the other side of the House had said, that his hon. Friend had made out a strong case. Under the old existing tariff, turbot was duty free; and he recollected the invidious distinctions that used to be drawn between the fish of the rich and the fish of the poor, on that very ground—and if he had retained the duty on herrings as he did, and had continued the exemption of turbot, was it not probable that the hon. Gentleman opposite would have been one of the first to tell him that he was exempting the rich, whilst he was taxing the poor. The hon. Member might say, that turbot was an article of general consumption amongst the poor as well as the rich; but he thought that the hon. Member was rather singular in that view. His belief was, that if he had continued the duty on herrings without removing the exemption of turbot, advantage would have been taken of that to show that the tariff was unfair, and he would leave the House to determine whether a moderate duly of 5s. ought or ought not to be imposed upon this, which was an article of luxury, and which formerly had been exempted from all duty because it was an article of luxury.
§ Mr. Wardsaid, that as there was an endless variety of articles in the tariff it would be impossible to discuss them all separately. He thought it better to take the tariff as a whole, and as a whole he supported it.
§ Mr. Humehoped that they would all proceed amicably—but he trusted at the same time that the right hon. Baronet would consider whether the duty ought not to be taken off fish altogether.
On the resolution respecting fish imported from foreign places in other than fishing vessels being read,
§ Mr. Gladstonesaid, that it was proposed to omit, for the present, the amount of duty to be imposed on the importation 729 of "stock-fish," as set down in the articles enumerated in the resolution now before the committee, as it was thought to be too high.
§ Mr. C. Bullerwished to know why a distinction was, made between the duty imposed on salmon and that imposed with respect to other fish. While soles, sturgeon, and turbot, a dearer fish than salmon, were subject to a duty of 5s. the cwt., it was proposed to levy a duty of 10s. the cwt. on salmon.
§ Sir R. Peelsaid, that the reason for the distinction was, that large capitals bad been invested in the salmon fishery upon the faith of the existing prohibition, which, in his opinion, afforded ample justification for the exception made.
§ Mr. C. Bullerexpressed himself satisfied with the explanation of the right hon. Baronet.
§ Mr. M. Gibsonsaid, that large capitals had also been invested in the sole fishery, and he could not see, that any material difference existed between the salmon and other fisheries. He complained that the right hon. Baronet had withdrawn protection from the poor fishermen while he had maintained it in the case of the rice owners of salmon fisheries, who were enabled to interest powerful advocates on their behalf.
§ Sir R. PeelIf there is any article to which I look with satisfaction, it is the article of salmon. If the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied I will endeavour to satisfy him. Leases for salmon fisheries are entered into for a longer series of years, and they are formed, never contemplating any change of duty. There is no one article in the whole tariff upon which I have received so many remonstrances against the lowness of duty. With regard to soles I have not received one. There are a great many corporate bodies in Scotland, charities, and private individuals, who are interested in and almost dependent upon these fisheries. There are many persons, too, whose interests have been bought out, and are paid according to the value of the salmon in the English market. It is for these reasons that I apply a different principle to salmon than other fish. And if there is any article which shows that the Government had not been influenced merely by the representations of great and influential interests, and have disregarded smaller and less important interests, it is the article of salmon.
§ Mr. Gladstonesaid, with regard to the observations made by the hon. Gentleman opposite as to the protection having been taken from the poor people in respect to soles, and the protection given to the rich in respect of salmon, he begged leave to say that, so far from that being the fact, the average price of salmon throughout the year made the duty much lower than upon soles.
§ Mr. Wakleythought, that the fact of salmon being at so high a price in their markets throughout the year was worthy of their consideration. He believed, that salmon was at no part of the year less than 5d. per lb. The argument which had been made use of by the right hon. Baronet was equally applicable to the farmers with respect to his proposed duties upon cattle.
§ Alderman Humpherybelieved, that salmon could have been purchased at a much lower rate during part of the season than the hon. Member for Finsbury supposed. He thought that this duty upon foreign salmon was one of the greatest boons which had been given then by the right hon. Baronet. The hon. Member for Manchester endeavoured to show that the poor were worse treated with regard to the duty upon soles, but it should be recollected that the fishermen who fished for soles did not pay any rent. This was not the case with respect to salmon, for with respect to the salmon fishery in Lough Foyle, in Ireland, there was an annual rent of 6,0OOl. paid for it, although he believed it was worth 12,000l. There was no such charge made for soles.
Lord J. Russellthought that it would be a great advantage to the working classes if salmon could be had at a cheaper rate. He considered this was a fair proposition, considering the many interests that were involved. Resolution agreed to.
Upon the consideration of the duty of 5s. per cwt. upon sturgeon.
§ Captain Pechellsaid, he saw stock-fish mentioned in the list of articles. Now he never could find out any such fish as stock-fish. Where did it come from? Did it come from Tamboff? Proposition agreed to.
On the question that the duty on apples raw the bushel be 6d.
§ Mr. Parkerobjected to this as an uncalled for increase of the duties, and as I opposed to the general spirit of the tariff.
§ Sir Edward Knatchbullsaid, previous to the year 1838, the duty on raw apples had been 4s. a bushel. Towards the close of the Session of that year, a clause was introduced into the Customs' Act reducing the duty, without any previous notice to the public, from 4s. a bushel to five per cent, ad valorem. The alteration of duty was not discovered until the bill had passed the House of Commons and gone up to the Lords. A. strong opposition was then raised to it, and the bill it self was only allowed to pass upon a distinct assurance from Lord Melbourne that a measure should be introduced in the succeeding Session to remove the objections of those who were opposed to so great, and, as they thought, so injurious a reduction of the duty. It was under these circumstances that the new rate of duty of 6d. a bushel was proposed.
§ Mr. F. Baringdoubted whether Lord Melbourne had given such an assurance as the right hon. Baronet had referred to. At all events, he thought the existing rate of duty, of 5 per cent, ad valorem, was far preferable to the proposed rate of 6d. a bushel.
§ Mr. Aglionbyhad understood that the principle upon which the revision of the tariff proceeded was that of amelioration. If that were so, how did it happen that upon this article of apples there was to be a positive increase of duty? Was this accidental, or did the right it hon. Baronet {Sir Robert Peel) intend that the duty should be raised?
§ Mr. F. Baringrepeated his opinion that 5 per cent, ad valorem, as in the case of cherries and grapes, would be the fairer mode of taking the duty.
§ Mr. Gladstoneobserved, that there was no parallel between apples and the other fruits named by the right hon. Gentleman. Grapes and cherries were admitted at a lower rate of duty, because they were of a more perishable nature. He admitted that the duty of 6d. a bushel upon raw apples would be very heavy, if measured solely with reference to the inferior kinds of that fruit; but he contended, that as applied generally to all descriptions of apples, ranging as they did in price, from 1s. 6d. to 25s. a bushel, the proposed duty would be a moderate and a fair one. He begged to remind the House that the existing duty of 5 per cent, ad valorem, imposed under the circumstances described by his right hon. Friend, could not be regarded as a 732 fixed duty. When the opposition was raised to that greatly reduced duty in the House of Lords, Lord Melbourne (as reported in Hansard) gave a distinct and positive pledge, that if the Customs Act (in which the alteration was proposed) were then allowed to pass, a bill should be introduced early in the next Session to meet the objections raised to the reduction. Upon that assurance from Lord Melbourne the bill was allowed to pass, but nothing had since been done to carry the assurance into effect. The present Government felt, therefore, that the duty of 5 per cent, could not be regarded as a fixed one, and that in proposing an alteration in the tariff, they were to look rather to what the old duty had been, than to that which had been levied since 1838.
§ Mr. Wakleysaid, the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman did not satisfy him as to the proposed change in the law. Since the change they had the experience of years with regard to the operation of the law, and a committee of inquiry as to its results. [" No" from the Treasury Bench. Yes. And how strange it was that all the objections came from Kent! Devonshire grew apples, and Herefordshire; they were silent. It was only Kent that complained. He did hope that the Government would throw the right hon. Baronet (Sir E. Knatchbull) overboard on this occasion; for had he not been a Member of the Government, there would not have been this change. Apples were the fruit of the poor of the country; and what were they about to do? They were going to raise the duty from about 1d. per bushel to 6d.—from 51. to 20l. per cent. It was a mistake to say, that the duty only applied to apples of the highest quality. If Kent could not compete with the foreigner in the growth of apples, we were better without Kent. He hoped the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government would take the subject into his consideration.
§ Sir R. Peelsaid, it was his misfortune to have given this subject as much consideration as any other in the tariff. He had received many deputations, and the most earnest representations against the operation of the present law. He felt that apples constituted one of the luxuries of the poor, and he had, therefore, been very unwilling to impose a higher duty; but when the circumstances under which the present duty had been imposed had been 733 brought under his consideration, he considered that he was fulfilling an engagement of the late Government with respect to the regulations of the existing tariff in the proposed duty. Formerly a duty of 4s. a bushel had been levied on apples; and very late in the Session of 1838 the duty bad been reduced to 5l. per cent. The reduction had been opposed, and Lord Melbourne had promised, if the bill as it then stood were allowed to pass and not be thrown over, he would introduce a remedial measure early in the next Session of Parliament with regard to apples. Then, in 1839, Lord Melbourne said, that he never meant to enter into such an engagement as was recorded to have been made by him in 1838, and as had gone forth to the apple-growing counties. The farmer had, therefore, acted under a strong impression that such a bill would be introduced, and the parties, moreover, declared, that they had not put such a construction on Lord Melbourne's statement as he did, and that if they had so understood it, the bill never would have been suffered to pass. He (Sir R. Peel) thought, that it was very desirable, whatever might be their political differences, that every Government should adhere as far as possible to the engagements of preceding Governments, and on that impression he had acted.
§ Mr. Huttdid not think it a proper way of arguing this question to inquire whether Lord Melbourne had or had not said what was attributed to him. The committee in 1839 had gone patiently into the subject, and had collected a great deal of evidence, and he could not believe that any one could look at that evidence, and then say, that the duty ought to be augmented. From personal inquiries at the Customhouse, he was satisfied that the system of a 5 per cent, duty had worked perfectly satisfactorily. He did not agree with the Vice-President of the Board of Trade in thinking that they ought to consider this duty with reference to the higher qualities of apples; it ought rather to be considered as affecting the medium qualities. He hoped the Government would reconsider the subject.
§ Mr. Plumptresupported the duty proposed in the tariff, which he considered necessary for the protection of the fruit grower.
Lord J. Russellsaid, he was very sorry there should have been so ranch, miscon- 734 ception as to what had been said by Lord Melbourne. The question to which that noble Lord referred was that of perishable fruit generally, and what he said was, that any points upon which objections had been raised should be reconsidered; but he could not conceive that Lord Melbourne could have meant that the old duty should be restored. It was utterly inconceivable that it should be supposed that, however a bill might have passed through Parliament, and however duties might have been imposed without attention, a Prime Minister could have meant to pledge himself to more than that the question should be reconsidered. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for East Kent said, that the question ought to be considered as an open one. It was so considered in 1839. The question was considered by a committee, and evidence was taken upon it, and it was left to Parliament to consider what was the result of that evidence. If it showed that the alteration made had been ruinous to the interests concerned, the next increase might be made as should be necessary; but if it were found that the change had been greatly advantageous to the consumer and the people generally, and had been productive of no such ruinous consequences, he could not conceive upon what ground any Government could be bound to impose too high a duty, and to destroy a useful trade in an article of extensive consumption. The Government had adopted a duty of 5 per cent, ad valorem for cherries and other perishable fruits, and why not adopt the same for apples? The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Kent said, that in good years there was a sufficient supply of apples grown in England. Surely, then, upon that ground there was no such impending ruin as the hon. Gentleman who last spoke had referred to. It appeared to him that-5 per cent, ad valorem was a better duty than that proposed by the Government, which would raise it at least three times its present amount.
§ Mr. Escottwas of opinion, that this was a question affecting other counties besides Kent, and that the duty ought not to be increased on an article like apples, which constituted a luxury and comfort to the poor.
§ Mr. Hume:If the right hon. Baronet felt bound to carry out Lord Melbourne's pledge of 1839, how much more was he bound to carry out that noble Lord's pro- 735 position for a fixed duty of 8s. on corn. He thought that the present duty on apples had worked well, and so well that no increase should be made.
§ Mr. Wakleysaid, the committee had been granted by Lord Melbourne's Government, and the question had been fully considered. He should move that a duty of 5 per cent, should be levied on apples, instead of 6d. a bushel.
§ The committee divided on the question that the word bushel stand part of the schedule, the amendment proposed being that it be left out with a view of inserting the words "for every hundred pounds of value:"—Ayes 110; Noes 51:—Majority 59.
| List of the AYES. | |
| Acland, T. D. | Hamilton, W. J. |
| A'Court, Capt. | Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H. |
| Ackers, J. | Henley, J. W. |
| Acton, Col. | Hepburn, sir T. B. |
| Antrobus, E. | Herbert, hon. S. |
| Arbuthnott, hon. H. | Hervey, Lord A. |
| Astell, W. | Hillsborough, Earl of |
| Bailey, J. jun. ' | Hinde, J. H. |
| Baird, W. | Hodgson, R. |
| Bankes, G. | Holmes, hn. W A'Ct. |
| Baring, hon. W. B. | Hornby, J. |
| Baskerville, T. B. M. | Jackson, J. D. |
| Beckett, W. | Jermyn, Earl |
| Bernard, Visct. | Johnson, W. G. |
| Blackburne J. I. | Jones, Capt. |
| Bodkin, W. H. | Knatchbull, right hon. |
| Boldero, H. G. | sir E. |
| Botfield, B. | Knight, F. W. |
| Bramston, T. W. | Legh, G. C. |
| Bruce, Lord E. | Lincoln, Earl of |
| Campbell, Sir H. | Litton, E. |
| Clayton, R. R. | Lockhart, W. |
| Clive, hon. R. H. | Lowther, J. H. |
| Corry, rt. hon. H. | Lowther, hon. Col. |
| Courtenay, Lord | Mackenzie, W. F. |
| Dawnay, hon. W. H. | Mainwaring, T. |
| Denison, E. B. | Marsham, Visct. |
| Dickinson, F. H. | Martin, C. W. |
| Douglas, Sir C. E. | Masterman, J. |
| Douglas, J. D. S. | Meynell, Capt. |
| Egerton, Sir P. | Morgan, O. |
| Eliot, Lord | Morgan, C. |
| Estcourt, T. G. B. | Newry, Visct. |
| Fellowes, E. | Nicholl, rt. hon. J. |
| Filmer, Sir E. | Packe, C. W. |
| Flower, Sir J. | Palmer, G. |
| Ffolliott, J. | Peel, rt. hon. Sir R. |
| Fuller, A. E. | Plumptre, J. P. |
| Gaskell, J. Milnes | Pollock, Sir F. |
| Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E. | Praed, W. T. |
| Gordon, hon. Capt. | Pringle, A. |
| Gore, M. | Pusey, P. |
| Goring, C. | Rose, rt. hon. Sir G. |
| Goulburn, rt. hon. H. | Round, C. G. |
| Graham, rt. hon. sir J. | Round, J. |
| Grogan, E. | Rushbrooke, Col. |
| Ryder, hon. G. D. | Tyrell, Sir J. T. |
| Sandon, Visct. | Verner, Col. |
| Scott, hon. F. | Vivian, J. E. |
| Somerset, Lord G. | Whitmore, T. C. |
| Stanley, Lord | Winnington, sir T. E. |
| Stuart, H. | Wortley, hon. J. S. |
| Sutton, hon. H. M. | Wynn, Sir W. W. |
| Tennent, J. E. | Young, J. |
| Tollemache, J. | TELLERS. |
| Trollope, Sir J. | Sir G. Clerk |
| Trotter, J. | Sir T. Freemantle |
| List of the NOES. | |
| Aglionby, H. A. | Mangles, R. D. |
| Aldam, W. | Marsland, H. |
| Archbold, R. | Martin, J. |
| Baring, rt. hon. F. T. | Mitcalfe, H. |
| Berkeley, hon. C. | Morris, D. |
| Brodie, W. B. | Napier, Sir C. |
| Brotherton, J. | Ogle, S. C. H. |
| Browne, hon. W. | Parker, J. |
| Busfeild, W. | Pechell, Capt. |
| Childers, J. W. | Philips, G. R. |
| Christie, W. D. | Philips, M. |
| Clements, Visct. | Plumridge, Capt. |
| Cobden, R. | Russell, Lord J. |
| Craig, W. G. | Seymour, Lord |
| Duncan, G. | Stansfield, W. R. C. |
| Duncombe, T. | Stanton, W. H. |
| Dundas, Admiral | Strutt, E. |
| Escott, B. | Thornely, T. |
| Evans, W. | Turner, E. |
| Forster, M. | Villiers, hon. C. |
| Gibson, T. M. | Ward, H. G. |
| Gill, T. | Wawn, J. T. |
| Gordon, Lord F. | Wilde, Sir T. |
| Hume, J. | Wood, B. |
| Hutt, W. | TELLERS. |
| Langston, J. H. | Bowring, Dr. |
| Loch, J. | Wakley, T. |
§ Item agreed to.
§ The other items relating to fruit were also agreed to.
§ The House resumed, and the committee to sit again.