§ Mr. Wodehouse
inquired if it was the intention of Government to introduce any measure for revising the system of banking in Scotland and Ireland in this or the ensuing Session?
§ Sir R. Peel
said, that when Parliament had affirmed the measure with respect to England, the Government would apply themselves to the subject, and put themselves in friendly communication regarding the currency both of Scotland and Ireland with the proper parties. The question of the banking and currency of those two countries would undergo the fullest consideration of the Government, and they would endeavour to bring in a measure 59 which should meet with the approbation of the two countries. He could not enter, however, into details, or fix a specific period.
§ Mr. Raikes Currie
said, that allusion had been made in the course of the debate to a very remarkable Memorial which had been presented to the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, and which was signed by a considerable majority of the private bankers of the city of London. He (Mr. R. Currie) had the misfortune to differ from the views of that Memorial. It was signed by the firm to which he had the honour to belong. His partners, for whom he entertained the greatest regard and respect, differed from him, and agreed with the majority of the London Bankers. In compliance with what they knew of his views, they had offered to abstain from signing the Memorial; but as he thought that the only intelligible principle in such matters was, that the minority should be ruled by the majority, he begged they would sign it, reserving to himself the right of expressing his individual opinion on any future occasion. This was a purely personal matter, but it was necessary to guard himself against the charge of inconsistency. He was bound to say, that the Memorial had received the signatures of a body of men who would always be entitled to most respectful attention; and on this occasion, having expressed their opinions on a subject on which they had much experience and practical knowledge, he had no doubt their Memorial had received from the right hon. Baronet the fullest consideration; but though it was true that those were the opinions of a majority of the private bankers of London, still there were many, not only bankers, but commercial men, who differed from those opinions, and agreed with him. When he alluded to the names of Mr. Loyd, Mr. Grote, and Mr. Norman, he might almost say, "errare malo cum Platone quam cum istis vera sentire." Those who signed that Memorial, as far as he could collect their sentiments from the speeches and votes of the hon. Member for London (Mr. Masterman), and the hon. Member for Westmoreland (Mr. Thompson), their exponents in that House, declared that they agreed in the principle and object of the measure. Now, this he did not understand. If they agreed in the principle and object of this measure, then the wishes of the memorialists seemed to him 60 inconsistent and unintelligible. What was the object of the Bill? He took it to be single, definite, precise—namely, to secure under all the circumstances to which legislation could apply, a perfect and complete convertibility of your paper currency. But the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Hawes) assumed, for the purpose of his argument, that the promoters of this Measure had quite a different object in view. He supposed that it was intended as a panacea against commercial viscissitudes and great oscillation of prices. Now, he (Mr. R. Currie) would maintain that the measure was proposed with no such view; but its supporters could not argue the question completely, without showing its incidental effects on prices, and in promoting comparative steadiness, as contradistinguished from that defective system which often exaggerated and intensified those fluctuations, which are, however, necessarily inherent in a great commercial community. He repeated, that the primary, definite object of the Bill, was to secure the practical convertibility of paper into gold. Now, if there were any men who thought that this was a chimerical or an improper object, it was much fairer that they should say so, because he could not understand how those who really understood and approved the object of the Measure, could consistently take the course they were pursuing. There was another point which the real and true assertors of a metallic standard held, and which the memorialists, he presumed, professed to hold in common with them, and it was this: the assertors of a metallic standard, in all its integrity and truth, held that the normal state of things, and in the abstract the sound state of things, was a purely metallic currency, but they departed from this, and adopted a mixed system of paper money upon two considerations—from considerations of economy and convenience; by economy, he meant, of course, the release of that portion of metal which was represented by paper; and by convenience he simply meant, what he might almost call physical convenience, security against robbery and loss, and the facility of carrying on all commercial transactions by a paper currency. They now, then, arrived at something which would afford a test of men's opinions. And he entreated the attention of the House to this, because this was the real practical point. Did the memorialists, or did his hon. Friend (Mr. 61 Masterman), who represented their opinions, expect from our mixed system, from a convertible paper money, did he expect advantages other than those two advantages of economy and convenience? He believed that it was here that that fallacy arose which he suspected to be more or less vaguely lurking in men's minds, and which had such influence in the formation of their judgments upon this question. They seemed to have some idea of gaining by means of a convertible paper currency, some advantages of commercial credit, some facility in the way of discounts, some relief from the pressure of taxation. These might be very admirable objects to aim at, and might possibly have been attained by former systems of an inconvertible paper currency; but the moment they aimed at those points, in addition to those other advantages of economy and convenience which he had already mentioned, in a convertible currency, experience proved that they endangered a perfect convertibility of bank notes, which they all agreed in saying was the great object of this Measure. To those who agreed with the principles he had stated, the rule, laid down in the Bill for the administration of the currency, came recommended with all the closeness of a strict logical sequence. If you considered a metallic currency to be the nor mal and sound state of things, and if you admitted a mixed paper currency for the sake of economy and convenience alone, then it followed that the more completely and closely in all other respects you assimilated a perfect convertible currency to a metallic currency, the more completely you attained your object. What was a more important characteristic of any currency than its fluctuations? Now by this Measure it was proposed to make the fluctuations of the paper currency correspond with the fluctuations of the metallic currency. What he charged the memorialists with was the inconsistency of admitting all our premises, and shrinking from all our conclusions. That was a course he could not understand. What did the memorialists ask the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) to do? They asked him to insert in the Bill, a Clause which should vest in the Government, in conjunction with the Bank, a discretionary power to interfere, in case of some supposed emergency, to enlarge the issue of paper. But the whole principle of the Measure, as far as he understood it, and that which the 62 Bill professed to establish by a legal sanction, was the principle of non-interference. By this Measure, it was declared that this convertible currency should be removed altogether from the discretion of any man, or any body of men, or any Bank or Government. That was the very key-stone of the Measure. They admired the geometrical principle of the arch, they commended its completeness and simplicity, and then they suggested as an improvement—to leave out the key-stone. He (Mr. Currie) was somewhat surprised at the observations which the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Gisborne) had made in reference to a Gentleman whom he had rightly termed the ablest promulgator of this Measure. The hon. Gentleman said, the other night, that Mr. Jones Loyd was a friend to free-trade in everything else, but its opponent as regarded his own monopoly. This was unmeaning and unjust, for the only monopoly the private bankers enjoyed, namely, the privilege of acceptance as against joint stock banks, was destroyed by the Bill. If a private London banker gave his opinion in favour of this measure, he had at least a right to claim credit for giving an impartial judgment. The memorialists had been far too wise to complain of the mode in which their situation was altered. They were well convinced, whatever their politics might be, that the time for monopolies was past. He wished now to address a few remarks to some observations which had fallen from the hon. Member for London (Mr. Masterman). He had argued that when the balance of trade was against us, either owing to the importation of foreign corn, or the prevalence of a disposition to invest in the foreign funds, that when people went to the Bank for supplies, the Bank, in order to meet that demand, would sell securities, and by so doing would produce such a tightness of money, and such general alarm, that it would, in all probability, be attended with the most fatal consequences. He thought that this was much overstated, but allowing that some anxiety would be caused, this was just the argument he would use in favour of the present Measure; because, if caution were engendered, and if timely alarm were taken, that would necessarily bring back the gold to this country, and protect us from those extreme dangers and oscillations of prices, which we were subject to under the present system. Another 63 ad captandum argument was supplied by those who spoke as if the present measure was one which exclusively favoured large capitalists. Now, one of the strongest points in favour of it was, that it did nothing of the sort. He (Mr. Raikes Currie) could speak from the experience of some years, and he would say, that on the other hand, that under the system which they were now about to abandon, the large capitalists often possessed a great advantage over the small one, and had undue power; he could foresee better than others when those violent changes were coming, and then the Bank of England (who, by their own bad management had perhaps raised the storm) opened an haven of refuge to the large capitalist, which was closed to the small trader. Thus it was a matter of history, that when the circulation ought to have been diminished, notes were issued, that is to say, money was coined, to assist influential parties. He (Mr. Currie) had supported the measure in all its stages, and he should continue to support it. Its principle had been affirmed by an overwhelming majority, and when it was carried, as it would be in all its integrity, he thought the right hon. Gentleman who had proposed it, might look back with well-earned satisfaction to his connexion as a public man, with the great changes of the monetary system of this country. By his Bill of 1819, he restored the standard, he had maintained that standard against all assailants, against great obloquy, misrepresentation and abuse. The country, perhaps, scarcely appreciated its obligations to the right hon. Gentleman in this particular, because by his position and abilities, and the powerful arguments he could at all times command, he had so effectually scattered to the winds the "little shilling" gentlemen, and had so completely abated and dissolved the whole body of currency doctors, that men were apt to forget their former force and influence. He (Mr. Raikes Currie) perfectly remembered, that when, in the year 1830, he was speaking on public affairs with the late Member for London (Mr. Grote), that Gentleman declaring, that that which he believed to be the besetting danger of this country, was the attempt, by a depreciation of the currency, to rob the public creditor. He (Mr. Raikes Currie) mentioned this in order to show what was at that period the strength of that party. But a remarkable change had since come over men's minds; 64 and almost all were now, at least in profession, anxious to maintain that standard. The hon. Member for Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) did seem, indeed, to be a little infected by the atmosphere of Birmingham, but he stood almost alone. Some years ago, it was far otherwise: then there was monetary "wickedness in high places;" even the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, when looking at this question through the mists of Cumberland, took rather a hazy view of the subject. It must be a great satisfaction to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government, to have purged the vision, and convinced the candid mind of his right hon. Colleague. The right hon. Gentleman had restored the standard, and maintained it against all assailants, and now by this Bill he would secure to the country a safe administration of that currency which he had so restored and so maintained. He (Mr. Raikes Currie) should give to the Measure his humble, but most earnest support, believing that it was based upon the soundest principles, modified in their application to existing circumstances by great practical sagacity.
§ Mr. Gisborne
, who rose for the purpose of explanation, stated that the principal part of his observations relative to Mr. Loyd was, that that gentleman was one of those free traders whe said, "Free trade in everything except that in which I deal." He (Mr. Gisborne) had used the word "monopoly:" he acknowledged it was unnecessary, and he regretted that he had used it. But the substance of what he said was, that Mr. Loyd placed himself before the world as a free-trader in everything else, but in credit, which he believed was the article in which that Gentleman dealt.
§ Mr. Newdegate
said, that since some misunderstandings of his opinions on the advantages of a convertible Currency appeared to exist among hon. Members, he was anxious to explain that he did not ob-object to the principle of convertibility, of which he approved, but he objected to the manner in which it was now to be applied to the circumstances of this country—a country burthened with a debt of 800,000,000l., chiefly contracted under a paper currency. The Measure was a refutation of its own principle. If perfect convertibility was practicable, why was 14,000,000l. to be issued on securities? Why should the keystone 65 of the arch, talked of by the hon. Member for Northampton, require that mortar? The chief difficulty against applying the principle of absolute convertibility arose from our very high Currency standard. The pound contained so much of the precious metal, that it was difficult to maintain convertibility on our present metallic basis; and the proposal of 14,000,000l. paper issues showed this. He (Mr. Newdegate), in the course he had taken on this question, had been impelled by a strong sense of duty, when every private consideration would have persuaded him to hold his peace. But he had, for some time, watched the monetary system in this country, and he thought it necessary to have a paper superstructure resting on a metallic basis. The Measure before them bore him out in saying, that they never could ensure perfect convertibility with so high a standard. The difference then, between him and the supporters of the Bill was, that they proposed to limit the amount of securities by too stringent a rule, and to a sum, he thought, far too small for the necessities of legitimate commerce. The proposal before the House would involve the retention by the Bank of an amount of bullion equal to the present stock, being double the average of past years. How this was to be obtained he knew not, unless by the same means that had already produced it—great depression of prices. Prices had fallen very much in the last three years, and the depression caused a great amount of bullion to come into the Bank's coffers. As we have got our present bullion, this Measure proposes we should keep it, by depression of prices; and if exchanges diminish our bullion, and I expect they will—so again must we make up the difference by depression of prices, as we have done before.
Sir W. James
was desirous of mentioning a few facts which had crossed his mind. The industrious classes of the community experienced great difficulty in obtaining gold to carry on their business. [The hon. Baronet was proceeding to show by references to the official, and declared value of exports, that merchants and manufacturers of the present time exported more than double the amount of goods for the same money sums formerly received by them, when the interruption became so persevering that he suddenly resumed his seat, with an observation that, though he had intended to say much more, he considered that it was perfectly useless to 66 address Gentlemen who were determined not to listen to him.]
§ House in Committee.
§ On Clause five,
§ Sir W. Clay
wished to know the meaning to be attached to the words "Her Majesty in Council." If its meaning was to give an unreserved power of determining the issue of Bank of England notes to the country, he should oppose the terms in the Clause, and take the sense of the Committee upon them.
§ Sir R. Peel
Sir, when Parliament determines that, only a certain amount, of notes shall be issued on securities, the increase of that amount will be an important fact, of which the public ought to have due notice. The words in the Clause direct that the Bank shall notify to Her Majesty in Council the circumstances under which alone an increase may take place. These circumstances are an extinction, from some cause or other, of some portion of that amount of paper issues, which other banks than the Bank of England will be allowed to enjoy. The Bank of England having 9,000,000l. of notes in the banking department, more than sufficient to supply the metropolis, if, for instance, 100,000l. of country notes be withdrawn, in that case the Bank will very properly supply the void from the banking department without disturbing the arrangement as to the 14,900,000l. issuable on securities. But if the whole amount of the country circulation, 9,000,000l., be withdrawn, in that event the Bill permits the Bank to supply the void, but requires the addition of bullion in the case, I suppose, to the extent of 3,000,000l. With every respect for the Bank of England, I do think that it is desirable, having reference to the past, to take security that no fresh issues should be made without the intervention of the Council. If the Bank professes to issue notes on two-thirds of those notes withdrawn, the Council, I have no doubt, would not hesitate to act ministerially, and give the requisite permission. The power conferred by this Clause is an additional check on issues without apparent securities; and its only object is a precautionary one—to see that the principle of the Bill is carried out and acted on. I cannot apprehend any inconvenience from the process, as it is not intended to create any additional influence for the Executive Government.
§ Sir W. Clay
objected to the power. He objected to the control of the Government over the circulation on political grounds, as it gave them a power which was too great to be confided to any hands. He therefore moved that the words "Her Majesty in Council be empowered to grant permission" be omitted.
§ Sir R. Peel
could not perceive the possibility of abuse. The hon. Member must have been driven very bard for an argument when he supposed that any partiality could exist on the part of the Queen in Council for any particular locality in regard to the issue of notes on securities.
§ Sir R. Peel
said, that assuming the circulation of the country banks to be 9,000,000l. and that of the Bank of England 21,000,000l., and that the country circulation of 9,000,000l. was suddenly withdrawn, the case would stand thus:—They permitted the Bank of England to issue 14,000,000l. of the 21,000,000l. upon securities, and assumed that an issue upon bullion of one-third, or 7,000,000l. would ensure the whole convertibility of the 21,000,000l. Supposing, then, the 9,000,000l. to be voluntarily withdrawn by the country banks and supplied by the Bank of England, they admitted at once that 7,000,000l. would not be sufficient to support the convertibility of 30,000,000l., and would apply the same principle to the additional 9,000,000l., which they had applied to the 21,000,000l., namely, that 3,000,000l. be issued upon bullion, and 6,000,000l. upon securities. If the estimate of the total circulation of notes throughout the country should be 30,000,000l., then there must be a stock of 10,000,000l. of bullion in order to support that circulation, upon the same principle that a stock of 7,000,000l. bullion was asumed to be sufficient to support a circulation of 21,000,000l.
§ Amendment withdrawn. Original question again put.
§ Sir W. Clay
asked where the gold was to come from which was to be the basis of the one-third of these issues from the Bank of England? If from the existing 68 circulation, there must, of course, be a diminution to that extent of the whole circulation. From the country issues? That could not be, according to the statement that the country bankers kept no gold as the basis of their issues—a statement, indeed, contradicted by the hon. Member for Truro, for they need not keep more gold than was required for purposes of convenience, seeing that Bank of England notes were a legal tender. Was this gold, then, to come from the banking department of the Bank? Why, the Bank, like all other banking concerns, only kept money enough for current purposes. Was it to come from the issue department of the Bank? That would be but taking out of one hand to put into another. The effect of the requiring, then, one-third of these Bank issues to be on gold must be to cause pro tanto a diminution of the currency. It was agreed the circulation was not now in excess. If it should be hereafter so, the present measure was designed to cure it. Where was the principle gathered that a paper currency should be on one-third gold and the other two thirds securities? It was a purely arbitrary rule, derived neither from principle nor experience. The only rule to go by was the amount of drain from abroad, as the measure of bullion we required for the basis of our circulation. Under a sound system there could be no such drains as 7,000,000l. or 10,000,000l. The real security was not the amount of bullion. With these convictions, and feeling that a defalcation in the circulation to the extent of 3,000,000l., the amount alluded to by the right hon. Baronet, would cause great derangement, he must persevere in his objections. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Amendment of which he had given notice, viz., in Clause 5, lines 38 and 39, to move the omission of the following words:—"The proportion of."
§ Sir R. Peel
I do not understand how the hon. Gentleman can contend that this Clause is inconsistent with the principle of the Bill. I wish to keep up the full amount of the currency, to exclude every 5l. note, provided it is not convertible. There will be no diminution of the circulation. The hon. Gentleman may depend upon it that there is nothing calculated to give greater security to trade, and to diminish speculation generally, than for the public to be sure 69 that, if there should be a demand for corn, that there will be no risk of the currency being disturbed by any diminution of the bullion in the Bank. Notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman has studied the question, I really believe, from the nature of some of the expressions which he has let fall, that he is not entirely master of the subject.
§ Mr. Gisborne
asked in what possible way was this country to obtain gold except by offering more manufactures in exchange for it than other countries? That would be the effect of the hon. Baronet's measure, viz., to lower the prices of manufactures. It was his great objection to that measure that it tended to lower prices. That Clause placed circulation in a very different state to that which it was then in. It would have the effect of curtailing the currency. He really thought that that measure of two-thirds was not based upon the principle of the right hon. Baronet, viz., that he did not wish to curtail the currency.
§ Sir R. Peel
Will the hon. Gentleman give me an answer to the following? It will be in the power of the Bank of England to supply the whole circulation, and at the same time part with five millions of its gold; but the Bank has fifteen millions; now ten millions will be sufficient to work with; if the Bank parted with five millions would it not still have six millions to insure the convertibility of its paper?
§ Mr. Gisborne
The right hon. Baronet had asked him a question, which he could answer by asking one also of the right hon. Baronet. The right hon. Baronet had referred to the highest amount; why might he not refer to the time when there were only 2,000,000l. in the Bank?
§ Mr. C. Wood
said, that the additional case of emergency which the hon. Gentleman spoke of had no reference whatever to the Clause of the Bill which they were then discussing. He thought it would be much better to postpone the discussion of it then, until they came to the Clause which had reference thereto. The question was simply this, when country bankers might withdraw their circulation, should the Bank supply the deficiency by its notes? The emergency contemplated by the hon. Gentleman was amply provided for. It was important to look at the present state of the Bank to judge of the effect of this measure. As to its future state there might be a difference of opinion, but 70 he thought that this Bill would in future prevent the Bank from getting into those difficulties which bad management had sometimes brought upon it. But, looking at its present state, if the whole of the country circulation were exchanged for a Bank of England circulation, and two-thirds of that fresh circulation were issued on securities, there would still be in the Bank a reservoir of bullion to the amount of 2,000,000l., so that what this Bill proposed could be accomplished without in any way contracting the circulation.
Mr. S. Wortley
said, that the hon. Gentleman had supposed a time when the Bank would be called upon to supply the whole country circulation; but what he wanted to know was how the Bank could do so, acting upon the principle which it had deliberately laid down, with the approbation of Parliament — that one-third of their issues should be supported by bullion, and the other two-thirds by securities.
§ Mr. F. T. Baring
said, there could be no doubt that this part of the Bill must have a contracting influence. It was true that as matters stood at the Bank at present there was no necessity for availing itself of this Clause; but the change of the country circulation into the Bank circulation would cause an efflux of gold, which would render the Clause then available; and the consequence would be a contraction of the circulation to the amount of three millions. There was however, a check to this, in this respect, that the Bank of England had no interest in acquiring these fresh issues; but would on the contrary, lose by it. It should be remembered that they had not relieved the Bank from responsibility to the proprietors, whose influence had been more prejudicial in the management of the Bank than any other. With that check, which he considered amply sufficient, he thought they ought to leave every latitude in a measure which must be regarded as a great experiment; and one of which he would not risk the success by forcing upon the Government any positive reduction.
§ Mr. P. M. Stewart
could assure the House that this Amendment involved no violation of the principle of the Bill; for the country circulation was not based upon bullion, but upon Bank of England notes. It was very easy to talk of this plan over full coffers, but he was sure the right, hon. Baronet wished to make it 71 suitable for all weathers; and not, as he had heard it called, a mere summer ship, which would be blown to pieces by the first storm. That proposition of one-third bullion, and two-thirds securities, was founded on a mere ideal proportion very seldom acted upon.
Lord J. Russell
was unwilling to vote against the right hon. Baronet; for be considered this, on the whole an excellent measure, though a bold experiment, and not without risk. He could not agree with his hon. Friend who had put the question on the present state of the Bank; for they all knew that the harvest and a sudden demand for money would bring about that change in the circulation which had been proposed. If the country circulation, from any circumstances should be withdrawn, then six millions would be required on securities to supply the void. The right hon. Baronet said he did not wish to restrict the circulation; but what inducement was held out to the Bank to obtain bullion, upon which the three millions might be issued. He did not understand at all that that was made a condition by the Government; it certainly was not expressly provided.
§ Sir R. Peel
said, that many of these arguments might be applicable, if the Bill gave the Bank any power of itself to extinguish the country circulation and substitute its own; but by this Bill the country circulation might be continued or not, at the option of the country issuers. The argument was, that the country preferred country paper; but if that were so, ought they not then to be satisfied that there would be no such displacement of the country paper as was apprehended? The country issuers had a decided interest in its continuance, because in the first place it was a monopoly in their hands; and secondly, because it was a direct advantage to them to keep their securities in their own hands. It was improbable, therefore, that the Bank of England should have any opportunity of substituting its own paper for that of the country banks; but the noble Lord had asked what there was to induce the Bank of England to make that substitution; it was true the Bank would derive no profit from it; but the inducement would be, to guard itself against loss. For if the country circulation were withdrawn, and the Bank refused to supply the void, a great influx of gold would be the consequence, 72 and the Bank would have to bear the whole expense of that circulation. It was reasonable to suppose therefore that the Bank would apply to the Government in that case, in order to protect itself from loss. Whilst the confidence in the country banks continued, the danger anticipated could not arise, and it was only in case of a partial failure of that confidence that it was probable that Bank of England paper would be substituted. He hoped that the House would recollect the embarrassments which had been entailed on this country by the fluctuations in our monetary concerns—and he hoped that they would assist the Government in requiring, in order to support the issues of the Bank, a stock of gold, the expense of providing which should fall on the country at large. It was impossible for him to consent to the Amendment. He had resisted numerous applications to alter this Bill from the most influential quarters, and he had done so from a deep conviction that by adhering to the measure he would give greater security against future embarrassments than if he had adopted any of the alterations suggested to him, and he hoped that the House would support him in his determination.
§ Mr. F. T. Baring
expressed his intention of voting with the right hon. Baronet. He had heard the arguments of his hon. Friend in support of the Amendment; they were calculated to give a very exaggerated notion of the effect of the measure; his hon. Friend had spoken as if he supposed that the whole of the country circulation would come into the Bank at once; whereas really the gradual effect of this measure was one of its best features.
§ The Committee divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—Ayes 83; Noes 38; Majority 45.
|List of the AYES.|
|Acland, Sir T. D.||Browne, hon. W.|
|Acland, T. D.||Bruges, W. H. L.|
|A'Court, Capt.||Buller, Sir J. Y.|
|Adderley, C. B.||Cavendish, hon. G. H.|
|Aglionby, H. A.||Clayton, R. R.|
|Aldam, W.||Clerk, Sir G.|
|Archbold, R.||Collett, J.|
|Baillie, Col.||Corry, rt. hn. H.|
|Baring, rt. hn. F. T.||Courtenay, Lord|
|Beckett, W.||Cripps, W.|
|Boldero, H. G.||Currie, R.|
|Bowles, Adm.||Denison, E. B.|
|Bowring, Dr.||Dickinson, F. H.|
|Brotherton, J.||Douglas, Sir C. E.|
|Egerton, Sir P.||Mundy, E. M.|
|Eliot, Lord||Nicholl, rt. hn. J.|
|Flower, Sir J.||Ogle, S. C. H.|
|Fox, S. L.||Palmerston, Visct.|
|Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T.||Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.|
|Gardner, J. D.||Peel, J.|
|Gaskell, J. Milnes||Philips, M.|
|Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.||Pringle, A.|
|Gladstone, Capt.||Rawdon, Col.|
|Gordon, hon. Capt.||Russell, Lord J.|
|Gore, W. O.||Sandon, Visct.|
|Goulburn, rt. hn. H.||Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.|
|Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.||Somerset, Lord G.|
|Hale, R. B.||Stanley, Lord|
|Harcourt, G. G.||Stanton, W. H.|
|Hervey, Lord A.||Strutt, E.|
|Howard, P. H.||Sutton, hn. H. M.|
|Jermyn, Earl||Thesiger, Sir F.|
|Jones, Capt.||Thornely, T.|
|Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.||Trench, Sir F. W.|
|Lincoln, Earl of||Vesey, hon. T.|
|Lockhart, W.||Waddington H. S.|
|Mackenzie, W. F.||Warburton, H.|
|Mackinnon, W. A.||Williams, W.|
|McNeill, D.||Wood, C.|
|Marshall, W.||Wortley, hon. J. S.|
|Milnes, R. M.||Young, J.|
|Morrison, J.||Lennox, Lord A.|
|List of the NOES.|
|Bailey, J. jun.||O'Brien, A. S.|
|Baring, T.||O'Connell, M. J.|
|Barnard, E. G.||Pechell, Capt.|
|Baskerville, T. B.||Plumptre, J. P.|
|Brocklehurst, J.||Plumridge, Capt.|
|Darby, G.||Pusey, P.|
|D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. T. C.||Seale, Sir J. H.|
|Etwall, R.||Sibthorp, Col.|
|Forman, T. S.||Stewart, P. M.|
|Fuller, A. E.||Thompson, Mr. Ald.|
|Henley, J. W.||Trollope, Sir J.|
|Hutt, W.||Turner, E.|
|Kemble, H.||Vivian, J. H.|
|Mangles, R. D.||Wallace, R.|
|Masterman, J.||Wawn, J. T.|
|Mildmay, H. St. J.||Wodehouse, C.|
|Miles, W.||Worsley, Lord|
|Mitchell, T. A.|
|Muntz, G. F.||Clay, Sir W.|
|Newdegate, C. N.||Gisborne, T.|
§ Clause agreed to.
§ The House resumed.