HC Deb 16 August 1843 vol 71 cc849-64

On the motion that the Order of the Day, for resuming the debate on the Chelsea Pensioners Bill, be read,

Sir H. Hardinge

in answer to a question to a question from Mr. R. Yorke, said that he should not give way any more; for giving way yesterday only protracted the business, and he could not consent, as the hon. Gentleman wished, to any limitation of the bill as to time. It was supported by Members of all shades of opinion in the House and it was only opposed by a very small minority.

Mr. T. Duncombe

said, it was clear thet there was to be no modification of the bill—it was to be thrust down their throats—and he could not submit to the dictation of a tyrannical majority. What was the majority composed of. The underlings of the Government, who were allowed to have no opinion of their own. The majority, therefore, had no weight with him. It only proved that this bill was promoted by under-hand means, and he was determined to insist on further concessions. As yet all the concessions had been made by the minority, which had permitted the Government to increase the army by the amount of 10,000 men. If this were so popular and good a bill, why not limit it to three years? The further, however, he went into the bill, the more he objected to it. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State had been solemnly pledged to proceed with the Prison Discipline Bill, and that bill the right hon. Gentleman had abandoned, because there was no time to pass it. That was for him an additional argument why this bill should be also abandoned. He contended that the Prison Bill was far more necessary than this bill. To the one the Government was pledged, but they were not pledged to pass this bill, except to the hungry officers who were making application to be employed under it. Crime was rapidly increasing in this country. This had been noticed by Mr. Justice Cresswell, who did not recommend the arming of these 10,000 men as a remedy, but to instruct and educate the people. In this Session the House had done nothing to that end. He had received this morning several letters, referring to this bill, from pensioners and others, begging him to persevere in the opposition to this measure. The pensioner declared he thought the Government had no right to his services; and he declared he would rather lose his pension than turn out against his countrpmen. He thought that was likely to be very generally the case, and that calling out the yeomanry would even cause less dissatisfaction than calling out the pensioners. They were employed with other workmen, and it would be most disastrous to call on them to act against their fellows. The employment of the regular army would be more acceptable. The poor pensioners would be marked men were they to be called out, and would afterwards lead a dreadful life. It was said that employing these men would cause the throats of the people to be cut in a scientific manner, and a bullet to be driven through them by the hands of artists; but he did not believe that such would be the case. The bill, he contended, would add amazingly to the patronage of the Crown. No concessions, he repeated, whatever had been made by the Ministers, and finding no sufficient reason to support this bill, he should move that the Order of the Day be read a second time this day three months.

Mr. Philip Howard

contended, that the bill was wholly divested of anything unconstitutional in its character, if such a charge could have been substantiated he should have opposed to the measure a steady resistance. The law, as it now stood, enabled the Executive to call out at one time the whole force of those receiving the Queen's pension, whereas, the present bill enabled the Government to summon, when and where it might be deemed most expedient, the elective portion of the retired veterans in aid of the civil power, it went simply to remove legal technicalities. The comparative pay and advantages held out to the British soldier as contrasted to that of foreign service and other nations, had been the subject of much discussion; and it would appear from what was stated by the late general Foy, that the pay of the English soldier was much the same as in the days of Will, the 3rd, whilst the relative value of money taken into account, the balance was little if anything in his favour; but on the other hand, the allowance to the soldier who had completed his period of service, was, he believed, beyond comparison liberal, and he could not see why the country should not profit by the exertions of those who were mainly maintained at its own charge, and who would be ready to serve with alacrity under the Queen's banner. It had been stated that they, the pensioners, might prove inefficient, but he thought that the somewhat disorderly and irregular course of conduct which many had, whilst off duty, pursued, arose from the notion that their services were again not likely to be required; let them feel themselves trusted, acting not as civilians but as soldiers, and all their former "espiel de corps" would return; they would rally with pride under the British flag. In conclusion, he would but add, that he heartily concurred in what had been so well said on a former night by his hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Protheroe) as to the supposed inroad into the constitution which it was thought that the bill attempted.

Mr. Bright

was astonished that the hon. Member for Carlisle should support the bill. The majority of the electors of that city had petitioned for free-trade and Corn-law abolition, and the hon. Member was giving his sanction to a measure which was only necessary, because the prayer of the petition was not complied with. He reprobated strongly an assemblage of landed gentlemen imposing the bill on the manufacturing districts at the end of the session. Had it been proposed earlier it could have been opposed by the Members for the mauufacturing districts. It appeared that all the sympathies of the Ministers were for coercion, and hence when any measure like the Prison Discipline Bill, advantageous to the people, was opposed, they gave it up at once. He thought that the opinions of military men, like the gallant Officer (Colonel Sibthorp) who seemed to have great weight with the Ministers, ought not to influence them. He had a pensioner in his own employment who would be obliged to give up his place and to operate against his townsmen. That man when he enlisted never dreamed of any such thing. If he refused to come out he would lose his pension, and he would have no comfortable provision for his old age, such as the hon. Member for Carlisle had alluded to. If he did not refuse he would be certain to lose his present lucrative employment, and he would have nothing but his pension to live on. This bill was a gross act of injustice to that man, and to all pensioners in a similar situation. On that ground he should continue to oppose the bill. The man might be called out to act as a soldier in his own parish against those with whom he now associates. He was sure that man would not act under such circumstances; he might be called on to act against his own son, and it was a libel on human nature to suppose that he would act. He cautioned the Government, therefore, not to rely on the Pensioners. He said nothing against the fidelity of these men to guard the liberties of the nation, but circumstances had occumstances had occurred which made him doubt whether doings would go on altogether so smoothly as was expected. In Lancashire last year it was rumoured that a regiment of the regular army had grounded their arms. He did not assert that such was the fact, but others did assert it. He had never heard it denied, and he did not believe that the right hon. Baronet would deny it. [Sir Henry Hardinge: I deny it positively now.] He congratulated hon. Members on the circumstance as they had no arguments to support their cause. It must be satisfactory to them to have something else to fall back on, and have something to depend on besides reason and argument. It would, perhaps, be said that they (the Opposition) were unreasonable in taking up the time of the House. But if there were time to to bring such a bill forward, there must be time to pass measures to relieve the people, and carry into effect the principles which the Ministers had called the principles of common sense. If the Ministers were to propose measures to relieve the people, the Benches would be crowded. The military system was extending in a most extraordinary and frightful manner; and in Carmarthen they were about to build barracks, where, a few years ago, a soldier was never seen. They were building barracks, too, in various parts of Lancashire. He wished to know where this system was to stop. He and his friends had not appealed to the mob, but to the middle classes; and their exertions, he believed, were as conducive to the safety of the Crown, as to the relief of the people. The people of the manufacturing districts would not support one of those institutions and laws which were voted with great satisfaction in that House. He would appeal to the right hon. Baronet, the Paymaster of the Forces, whether the labourers were not paid now, in Kent in proportion to their families. [Sir E. Knatchbull denied it.] He had heard it from excellent authority, and he believed that a state of things did exist. It was not his particular interest to oppose the bill, but believing that the country was hastening on to a most feaful crisis, he thought he should not do his duty not to give it all the opposition in his power.

Sir H. Hardinge

said, that the insinuations of the hon. Gentleman were of a most reprehensible character. He did not wish to be otherwise than courteous to every Member of the House, but he was bound to give the most positive and flat contradiction to the statement of the hon. Gentleman, that they had last year distrusted the fidelity of the army, or had strong reason to distrust it. He had never heard more indefensible language in that House. He confessed he felt very indignant at the insinuation of the hon Gentleman, that the army was not to be depended on. He could assure the hon. Gentleman he had never heard of such an occurrence as the one he alluded to, nor did he believe it to be true. He was willing to concede to every person the utmost latitude in debate, but the hon. Gentleman should abstain from making insinuations of this kind unless he was prepared to substantiate them in the House. He should like to know the hon. Gentleman's authority for making this statement, for if it proceeded from any respectable source, he should investigate the subject. The observations of the hon. Gentleman tended to excite dissatisfaction in the army. He believed there was not an instance, since they had a standing army, in which the army did not show they could be depended on. It was one of the most painful duties the army had to perform when they were called to aid the civil power in repressing tumults, but he believed the British army were proverbial for the humane and forbearing manner with which they performed those duties. He had been called on to perform such duties himself, and he could testify to the patience of the soldiers while they were themselves assailed with stones and other kinds of missiles. But when property was invaded, he thought that all persons were bound to aid the civil authorities. The hon. Gentleman complained of arms being put into the hands of the pensioners to be used against those with whom they were on familiar terms. But was not that the case when special constables were sworn in, as was the case last year in the manufacturing districts? With regard to the observations of the hon. Gentleman, relative to the pensioner he alluded to, he might now be called on to serve in garrison or in veteran regiments, and it was not the object of the present bill to call them out for general purposes at all. In every part of the world there was a class of persons the best fitted for preserving the peace employed for that purpose, as occasion arose—and who could be fitter in this country than the pensioners, whose previous habits of discipline prepared them for the duty? There was no constitutional objection to the bill, and if it were allowed to go into committee he was willing to discuss it clause by clause. He only rose to assure the House that there was no foundation for the statement of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bright

explained that it was believed in Manchester that a regiment was disaffected and had refused to act, but he did not say that this had occurred in the manufacturing districts. He had heard it as a rumour, though he did not assert that it took place in the manufacturiug districts, and no doubt the statement of the right hon. Baronet was correct, and would give great satisfaction.

Mr. G. W. Wood

had never heard and such report as that alluded to. If such an occurrence had taken place, he believed he should have heard of it, The conduct of the soldiery in Lancashire was deserving of all praise.

Captain Polhill

declared that it was most injudicious of the hon. Member for Durham to make such an assertion with-out being able to authenticate it.

Mr. Hume

was sorry that this discussion should have taken an angry turn. He was sorry, too, that what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Durham should be taken up as it had been. He had heard in the Isle of Wight that a regiment had mutinied, and the report had originated, as he ascertained, in a drunken squabble. That squabble gave rise to the report, which was believed all over the country. He was sorry to find there was no disposition on the other side to give them credit for opposing the bill. But the opposition was all the consequence of bringing in the bill at this late period; and he had been, after the first division, ready to assent to the bill had the Government modified it. If the Government had limited this bill as it had limited others bills, the opposition to it would have been at an end. He thought, that the Government ought to have been the first to propose these modifications. If there were obstinacy and unreasonableness the existed on the part of the Government. It was because the Government had brought forward no measures to relieve the wants and distress of the people that he opposed the grant of this power, which was that to render a force available was not so now. They were by this bill giving power to coerce the pensioners, and compelling them to serve after they had retired and been pensioned; or to give up their pensions. The bill was, in fact, one of pain and penalties for every pensioner who did not obey. He wished, at least, that the service of the pensioners should be voluntary. The bill was worse than the Six Acts, which were all limited. It was worse than any of the acts passed in the worst times of Castlereagh. He wished this bill to be like the Mutiny, an annual bill. The causes of the distress and discontent were the want of work and excessive taxation, and any measure which like this went to increase the expenditure, and increase taxation, while the deficiency in the revenue for the year ending January 8, 1843, was upwards of 4,000,000l. was most injudicious. No increase of expenditure ought now to take place; and such an increase might endanger the credit of the country. The present Government were borrowing from the savings' banks to make up that deficiency, though they had vehemently condemned such a proceeding in the Whigs. As they were now borrowing, it was clear they were not in a condition to increase the expenditure. Under these financial difficulties, the House was not warranted in carrying forward this bill. To employ more men would require more money, and against that the House would set its face. At present the Government had a greater force at its disposal than ever before; and while the distress of the people was unexampled, so was the force of the Government. Besides the police in all the towns of the empire, there were 50,000 soldiers in the the United Kingdom. Even the marines were employed in Wales and Ireland, and the bill was to give the Government 10,000 more men, in order to enable the Government to send more troops to Ireland. Taking yeomanry, police, and army altogether, there was about 190,000 armed men to preserve the peace, and yet they were called on to augment the force. He entreated her Majesty's Government not to pass this bill as a permanent measure. Every man who gave his assent to this bill was adding to the taxation, and increasing the difficulties of the country. He supported the amendment of the hon. Member for Finsbury. He and his friends would use the means they had in their power to stop the bill, as long as it assume the shape of a permanent measure.

Mr. Williams

said that motives were erroneously attributed to hon. Members on that side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of War had stated, that he would not concede, because of their offensive opposition. What idea would that give the people of the House of Commons? The Government brought in a measure which was rude and imperfect; and when an investigation was proposed, the Government would not allow it, and complained of the opposition as offensive. It would be better that the Ministers should make the laws themselves, and then they would have the whole responsiblity, instead of throwing it on the Parliament. He complained that laws were passed without the knowledge of the House, some of them perpetrating jobs of a shameful character. The oligarchy had equally usurped the rights of the Crown and the people; and he and those about him wished to restore both, which would give relief to the people and honour to the Crown. The bill was to establish a permanent standing army for that oligarchy, which was totally unconstitutional. He warned the Government, that at the period of the French revolution of 1830, the Government could not get a single regiment to support it. They saw the King of France, who attempted to overthrow the French Constitution, obliged to flee from his country, and another person was placed on the Throne. Since then the French soldiery had fired on their countrymen when in a state of insurrection; and he mentioned that, to show that the soldiers could act differently under different circumstances, leaving to others to judge what were the circumstances of this country. He was deeply interested in the preservation of peace and property, but he did not believe that a standing army was the best means of securing them. He said that circumstances might arise, and they had arisen in other countries, which would make the security given by an army far less certain than that which rested on the affections of the whole people. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the debate be now adjourned, it being four o'clock.

Mr. T. Duncombe

recommended the adjournment, and suggested to the right hon. Baronet whether he could not limit the bill. The whole of the time might have been saved had that been assented to. All concessions from the other side were treated with something like contempt. The Ministers appeared to be determined to carry this bill by a tyranical majority. They had already lost much time, and would lose much more; and it was proper that the country should know why the House would not be prorogued at the time specified.

The House divided on the question that the debate be adjourned: Ayes, 9; Noes, 81; Majority, 72.

List of the AYES.
Bright, J. Scholefield, J.
*Clements, Visct. Wawn, J. T.
Cobden, R. Williams, W.
Collett, J. TELLERS.
Pechell, Capt. Duncombe, T.
Plumridge, Capt. Hume, J.
List of the NOES.
A'Court, Capt. Bodkin, W. H.
Allix, J. P. Boldero, H. G.
Baring, hon. W. B. Broadley, H.
Bentinck, Lord G. Bruce, Lord E.
Blackburne, J. I. Buller, Sir J. Y.
* Lord Clements did not vote on the second division.
Burrell, Sir C. M. Lyall, G.
Christie, W. D. Masterman, J.
Clerk, Sir G. Meynell, Capt.
Corry, rt. hon. H. Newdegate, C. N.
Cripps, W. Nicholl, rt. hon. J.
Darby, G. Norreys, Sir D. J.
Denison, E. B. O'Brien, A. S.
Dick, Q. Oswald, A.
Dickinson, F. H. Palmer, G.
Douglas, Sir H. Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Douglas, Sir C. E. Peel, J.
Duncombe, hon. A. Polhill, F.
Duncombe, hon. O. Pollington, Visct.
Escott, B. Ponsonby, hn. C. F. C.
Estcourt, T. G. B. Pringle, A.
Flower, Sir J. Rashleigh, W.
Forman, T. S. Rendlesham, Lord
Forster, M. Round, J.
Fuller, A. E. Scott, hon. F.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E. Sibthorp, Col.
Gordon, hon. Capt. Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.
Gore, M. Somerset, Lord G.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J. Stanley, Lord
Greene, T. Sutton, hon. H. M.
Hamilton, G. A. Tennent, J. E.
Hampden, R. Trench, Sir F. W.
Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H. Trotter, J.
Hawes, B. Wood, B.
Henley, J. W. Wood, Col.
Hope, hon. C. Wood, G. W.
Hornby, J. Wortley, hon. J. S.
Howard, P. H. Yorke, H. R.
Jones, Capt. Young, J.
Kemble, H.
Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E TELLERS.
Lincoln, Earl Fremantle, Sir T.
Lowther, J. H. Gaskell, J. Milnes

The House again divided: Ayes, 82; Noes, 8; Majority, 74.

The Speaker then left the Chair; House in commitee on the Bill.

On the first clause,—"Her Majesty may enrol out Pensioners,"

Mr. Hawes

suggested that they should insert words "to limit the bill to five years."

Sir H. Hardinge

said, that be could not admit the proposal of the hon. Gentleman. He had never brought forward a bill which so little merited the opposition the bill had encountered, and he would not agree to the proposition.

Mr. R. Yorke

did not regard the bill as so unconstitutional as some of his friends; but he hoped the Government would accede to the proposal of the hon. Member for Lambeth.

Mr. Williams

said, they were put in a peculiar position when the right hon. Gentleman laid down the principle that because a bill was opposed offensively, it was not to be made a reasonable measure.

Sir H. Hardinge

denied that he had ever placed his refusal to modify the bill on the grounds mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

Sir R. Peel

said, the reason why the bill should be permanent was, that it was not a coercive measure on the people, but a restrictive measure on the power of the Government. It was a muster Roll only of ten thousand men, and they might not be called out at all. It was only in a case of emergency that the services of ten thousand of the pensioners who were most fitted for service were placed at the command of the Government. They already had the power to call out all the pensioners, and they would use it. The measure, too, was one of economy—it would cost less than one battalion. In case of disturbance, he was sure, that the whole of the Gentlemen opposite would support the Government. If the Government called out the volunteers and yeomanry in a case of emergency the Opposition would approve of the expense. He repeated, that it was to consult economy that this bill was brought in. He felt entitled to call on the opposition not to abuse the privileges which belonged to a minority to countervail the sense of a majority of the House, The Gentlemen opposite were of the popular party, and it was for their interest to maintain the privileges and power of the House of Commons. If the majority maintained their own opinions, that majority was only maintaining what it considered reasonable.

Mr. Hume

thought, that the right hon. Baronet had showed, good reasons why the measure should not be of a permanent character. They had already provided for enrolling the pensioners, and that, therefore, was not wanted. He objected to putting arms into the hand of 10,000 men, and adding them to the standing army, as a permanent measure.

Sir R. Peel

The Mutiny Act was an annual act, and these men would be subject to that. There was, therefore, that check which the hon. Member desired. An estimate too, for the expenses of this force would be required annually, and there would, therefore, be a double check both by withholding the estimate, and refusing to make these men subject to the Mutiny Act. Ministers only objected to make an estimate that year, because they could not tell what the expenses would be. It was because these checks would be annually applied that he objected to making the bill temporary. The bill was a restriction on the power of the Crown, not on the people, and, therefore, he wished it to be permanent.

Mr. Hawes

admitted, that the bill was a good bill, and he only proposed his alteration to save time. By wasting the time of the House, the Libel Bill, and other measures of great importance, were put in peril. The bill would not come less under revision annually by limiting it to five years.

Mr. T. Duncombe

said, the Poor-law was limited for five years, and yet the salaries were voted every year. He wished this bill to be placed on the same footing. The hon. Member denied that the opposition to the bill was factious.

Sir R. Peel

said, his impression was, that if the measure was liable to abuse, a much more effectual check would be found in its exposure to the annual control of Parliament, on the production of the estimates, than by framing the act with a view to its duration only for a specified and limited period. He thought, therefore, that it would be better to make the power of calling out this force permanent.

Mr. Christie

appealed to Gentlemen on his side to abate somewhat of their animosity in opposition to the bill in order to expedite the approach of the House to other important business which was coming on. He thought it would not be unfair to move, that the Chairman should report progress, in order that the Libel and Defamation Bill might be proceeded with.

Mr. Hume

said, if the duration of the bill were limited to five years, and the number of men to 10,000, he should relinquish all further opposition to it, and and he hoped his hon. Friend would at once consent to the bill passing in that stage.

Mr. Macauley

Although he did not apprehend the danger which some hon. Gentlemen predicted, thought a measure of this nature, and of so much importance, should, in the first instance, be tried for a limited period, and he considered that five years would be a proper interval, and an acquiescence in that suggestion would bring this somewhat unhappy discussion to an amicable and peaceful termination.

Mr. Bernal

thought, that the limitation to five years was a very desirable arrangement. The discussion had assumed a greater degree of importance out of doors than naturally belonged to it. Some persons inferred from it, that the bill was of a more severe and oppressive nature than it really was, while others concluded that there was some undefined and covert danger, against which it was intended to guard. He thought the Government would act wisely in allaying all those alarms, by consenting to the proposed limitation.

Sir R. Inglis

thought, that to make this concession, after having originally proposed to make the bill permanent, would be, on the part of the Government, not only an acknowledgment of having been originally wrong, but would be an unsuitable return to make for the general support which they had received on that side of the House; and although peace within and peace without the House was a very good thing, still he thought peace oug h not to be purchased at the expense of consistency.

Sir J. Graham

said, his hon. Friend did not seem to be aware of the extent of support which the Government had received from the opposite side, as well as their own side of the House. The noble Lord, the Member for Tiverton, who had been for many years Secretary-at-War, and who was one of the highest authorities as to the expediency of employing this force, had given to the Government an honorable, frank, and decided support, and they had received similar aid from others on the same side. Any limitation of time was quite superfluous respecting this measure. Opportunities would offer for its discussion upon the moving of the Mutiny Act every year, and a change could, if necessary, be introduced in that bill, excluding this force from its operation. In addition to that check, another would present itself in the annual vote for the necessary expenses of the force. He denied that the measure was one of coercion, and what he apprehended was, that if its duration were limited, that character would be attached to it which the bill did not properly bear. He therefore thought, on the whole, it was more advisable that the bill should be retained in its present shape.

Mr. Ward

said, that all the objections on that side of the House would be got over if the Government gave them a fair trial of the measure, and enabled them to see how it worked. As to the Mutiny Act, that was no check, for it was applicable to the whole army, and you could not disband the army in order to get rid of the pensioners. Let the Government consider the odium that would attach to the measure if this controversy were prolonged, as prolonged it would be, if they refused to meet a fair proposition in a similar spirit.

Mr. Ross

said, that when the three years were proposed, he heard one of the Members of the Government say, in a conversational tone, across the House, that they would concede the five years if certain opposition on the other side were abandoned. From the beginning, he had voted for the bill, because he felt that it did not deserve the character it had received as a measure of coercion; although, undoubtedly, in one sense, it placed more power in the hands of the Government than they at present possessed, by rendering it easier for them to call out these pensioners to be used as a military force. He thought, however, the Government would do well if they consented to the proposition now made.

Mr. Cripps

said, that even if the intimation mentioned had been given by a Member of the Government, the difficulties of concession had been since very much increased by the aspersions cast upon the bill, and upon the motives of its supporters by hon. Gentlemen opposite. How, he asked, could the Government give way, after the manner in which this bill had been stigmatized? Were hon. Gentlemen to say, having thus stigmatized the bill, that the Government had been forced by them to a duration of five years? If he believed the bill to be an unconstitutional one, he would not support it for five minutes. In the first instance, in his opinion, it was a matter of perfect indifference whether the bill were to last one, two, or five years. But then he said, after the manner in which the bill had been stigmatized, it would be utterly impossible for any men who had a regard for their character to vote for the proposition.

Mr. C. Buller

put it to his hon. Friend, who he knew to be a man of sense, because—he was a lawyer. He put it to him whether, in his cooler moments, he would stand by the view which he had just now taken. His hon. Friend said, he did not care a rush whether the bill were to last for one or five years. [Mr. Hume: And yet he voted against its lasting for two years.] But why was the hon. Gentleman now to vote against five years? Because he had been treated very ill. His hon. Friend said, he had been called names. It had been said, that those opposite had been called a "subservient majority." Well, supposing they had, "hard words broke no bones." The hon. Gentleman did not look a bit the worse for it. His only reason for addressing the House on the present occasion was, that he had taken no part in their discussions. He came down, therefore, in a better temper than those who had been so long engaged in this matter, and he was, perhaps, the better qualified to address them. The only vote he had given had been with the Government, for he thought the bill had been unfairly run down, and an unjust stigma had been cast upon it. His hon. Friends must excuse him, but he really thought that all the absurdity had been on his side of the House. But then he must confess that at present he thought the Government was quite as absurd in persisting in their opposition, when they looked to the amount of public business yet to be done, and when, too, it was to be considered that most of those present had come down for a discussion upon a bill which was worth more than this and all the other bills together that they had before them.

Mr. Escott

supported the bill, because he regarded it as an improvement on the common law of England, and he preferred that it should be permanent rather than temporary.

Colonel Fox

had supported the bill, but he was sorry the Government would not now give way, and he should have no objection to supplicate it to do so.

The committee divided on the question that the words "for a period not exceeding five years" be inserted:—Ayes 33; Noes 76: Majority 43.

List of the AYES.
Bannerman, A. Ewart, W.
Barclay, D. Fox, C. R.
Bernal, R. Hill, Lord M.
Bowring, Dr. Howard, hn. C. W. G.
Bright, J. Howard, P. H.
Buller, C. Hume, J.
Christie, W. D. Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B.
Cobden, R. Mangles, R. D.
Duncombe, T. Morris, D.
Norreys, Sir D. J. Wakley, T.
Pechell, Capt. Ward, H. G.
Plumridge, Capt. Wawn, J. T.
Ponsonby, hon. C. F. A. C. Williams, W.
Wood, G. W.
Roche, E. B. Wyse, T.
Ross, D. R.
Scholefield, J. TELLERS.
Smith, B. Hawes, B.
Smith, J. A. Wood, B.
List of the NOES.
A'Court, Capt. Inglis, Sir R. H.
Allix, J. P. Jones, Capt.
Antrobus, E. Kemble, H.
Baring, hon W. B. Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E
Bentinck, Lord G. Lincoln, Earl of
Bodkin, W. H. Lowther, J. H.
Boldero, H. G. Lyall, G.
Borthwick, P. McGeachy, F. A.
Broadley, H. Masterman, J.
Bruce, Lord E. Neville, R.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Newdegate, C. N.
Bunbury, T. Nicholl, rt. hon. J.
Burrell, Sir C. M. Northland, Visct.
Clerk, Sir G. O'Brien, A. S.
Corry, rt. hon. H. Oswald, A.
Cripps, W. Palmer, G.
Damer, hon. Col. Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.
Darby, G. Peel, J.
Denison, E. B. Pollington, Visct.
Dickinson, F. H. Pollock, Sir F.
Douglas, Sir C. E. Pringle, A.
Duncombe, hon. A. Rashleigh, W.
Duncombe, hon. O. Rendlesham, Lord
Escott, B. Round, J.
Estcourt, T. G. B. Sanderson, R.
Flower, Sir J. Scott, hon. F.
Forman, T. S. Sibthorp, Col.
Fuller, A. E. Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.
Gaskell, J. Milnes Somerset, Lord G.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E. Stanley, Lord
Gordon, hon. Capt. Sutton, hon. H. M.
Gore, M. Tomline, G.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Trench, Sir F. W.
Graham, rt. hn. Sir J. Wood, Col.
Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H. Wood, Col. T.
Henley, J. W. Young, J.
Hope, hon. C. TELLERS.
Hope, G. W. Fremantle, Sir T.
Hornby, J. Baring, H.

On the question being again put,

Mr. Hume

moved to insert the words "five years and six months."

Mr. Macaulay

had, he said, voted for the duration of the bill for five years; but, though it might appear inconsistent, he would not vote for a longer period, but against it.

The committee divided on the question that those words be inserted:—Ayes 14; Noes 82: Majority 68.

List of theAYES.
Bannerman, A. Cobden, R.
Bright, J. Ewart, W.
Morison, Gen. Williams, W.
Pechell, Capt. Wood, B.
Plumridge, Capt. Yorke, H. R.
Roche, E. B.
Scholefield, J. TELLERS.
Ward, H. G. Hume, J.
Wawn, J. T. Duncombe, T.
List of the NOES.
A'Court, Capt. Jones, Capt.
Allix, J. P. Kemble, H.
Antrobus, E. Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E
Barclay, D. Lincoln, Earl of
Bentinck, Lord G. Lowther, J. H.
Bodkin, W. H. Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B.
Boldero, H. G. McGeachy, F. A.
Borthwick, P. Mangles, R. D.
Broadley, H. Milnes, R. M.
Bruce, Lord E. Neville, R.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Newdegate, C. N.
Bunbury, T. Nicholl, rt. hn. J.
Burrell, Sir C. M. Northland, Visct.
Christie, W. D. O'Brien, A. S.
Clerk, Sir G. Palmer, G.
Corry, rt. hon. H. Palmerston, Visct.
Cripps, W. Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.
Damer, hon. Col. Peel, J.
Darby, G. Pollington, Visct.
Denison, E. B. Pollock, Sir F.
Dickinson, F. H. Pringle, A.
Douglas, Sir C. E. Rashleigh, W.
Duncombe, hon. A. Reid, Sir J. R.
Duncombe, hon. O. Rendlesham, Lord
Escott, B. Round, J.
Estcourt, T. G. B. Sanderson, R.
Flower, Sir J. Scott, hn. F.
Forman, T. S. Sibthorb, Col.
Fuller, A. E. Smith, J. A.
Gaskell, J. Milnes Smith, rt. hon. T. B. C.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E. Somerset, Lord G.
Gordon, hn. Capt. Stanley, Lord
Gore, M. Sutton, hn. H. M.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Tomline, G.
Graham, rt. hn. Sir J. Trench, Sir F. W.
Hardinge, rt. hon. Sir H. Verner, Col.
Henley, J. W. Wood, Col.
Hope, hon. C. Wood, Col. T.
Hope, G. W. Young, J.
Hornby, J.
Howard, hn. C. W. G. TELLERS.
Howard, P. H. Fremantle, Sir T.
Inglis, Sir R. H. Baring, H.

Bill passed through committee and ordered to be reported.

House resumed.

Forward to