Mr. Sharman Crawforà
opposed the Bill; but declared he had no desire to show disrespect to the promoters of it. 966 The rights of the poor should be scrupulously watched. Those rights were originally granted by the lords of the soil, who were called benefactors, and better entitled to that name he feared, than they were at present. He objected to the leading principle of the Bill, because he denied that those who were at present in occupation should be allowed to determine the rights of future generations. There was one clause by which it was enacted, that a public meeting should be convened to determine whether an Act of Inclosure should be applied for or not, which was to be determined in the affirmative on a requisition being signed by persons representing in the aggregate two-thirds of the value in the commons proposed to be inclosed. But there were no means to determine what the value was. This was to be determined afterwards, if necessary, by a scrutiny before the Commissioners. In the mean time, however, the Chairman might rule the question by his own arbitrary authority, against which those who dissented would have to appeal to the Commissioners. But, suppose the meeting were to disagree to the proposal for the inclosure, it was then provided that a paper might be handed about from house to house, and so the required number of signatures be obtained privately, after they had not been obtained at the public meeting. He asked what was the use of having a public meeting at all if the business could be accomplished afterwards, in spite, perhaps, of the views of the public meeting. There were several other clauses of the Bill, the effect of which would be that, whilst it was in appearance left to the commoners to decide whether the Enclosure should take place or not, the power was in fact ultimately vested entirely in the Commissioners. Then as to the class of persons who had a right to vote at these meetings. Here, again, a great injustice was done to the poor. On referring to the twelfth clause, he found that no person was to have a right to interfere in these proceedings when he paid more than two-thirds actual value rent, or where he had only a tenancy at will, or a lease of less than fourteen years; but if he had such an interest then he was to have a joint right of interference with the roan under whom he held. But he would ask why, because a man held at a rack-rent, should be not have a voice in these proceedings in which he certainly still was 967 interested? He thought this provision, like the rest of the bill, most unjust to the poorer classes. With respect to the working of the bill, should it ever be carried into effect, it was proposed to appoint the Tithe Commissioners to perform this duty, but it gave at the same time the power of appointing Assistant Commissioners, who might have a retinue of clerks. Of course these persons would expect to be paid, and the House might look to having an application made to it for remuneration; or if not, they would pay themselves in some other way less desirable for the public. It seemed to him very much as if it was the object to perpetuate the offices of these Commissioners, after their present duties were terminated; and it would be the object of the Commissioners in all cases to force on Enclosure Acts in order to perpetuate their duties. There was another point to which he objected. He did not see anything in the bill to prevent a person from acting as Commissioner in one of these cases who was himself directly interested in the result; and this was what he thought should never be allowed. The next point upon which he had to observe was, that it was proposed to advance the money for the expense of carrying this act into operation out of the Consolidated Fund. He objected strongly to this proposition, because he thought that those who were to be benefited by the contemplated proceedings should pay the necessary expenses, and not the nation at large. It seemed indeed to be the object of the bill to avoid the expense which was at present incurred in applying for Enclosure Bills in Parliament, But this very expensiveness of the present process was what he for one was not disposed to object to, because he considered that it acted as a wholesome check upon such proceedings—which were proceedings in their nature infringing on the interests of the poor. He would have no objection to the Enclosure of Commons, if it were done upon proper principles, by which the interests of the poor should be permanently benefited, Those Enclosures should be made, not for the individual advantage of wealthy landowners, but should be carried on under some authority appointed by the State, who should act as trustee for the interests of the poor. It appeared to him that one of the most important objects which the House should hold in view at the present time towards the alleviation 968 of the distresses of the working classes and their elevation in the social scale, would be to supply them with small portions of land, to assist in their sustenance. As an instance of the advantages which would result from such a system, he would refer to a passage in the report of the Allotment Commissioners, where it was stated that a crop, value 5l, might be raised by spade labour upon an allotment of one-eighth of an acre of land. So important did he consider this fact, that he was firmly of opinion, that whatever means might be taken to give employment to the working classes, whether the Corn-laws were repealed or not, it would still be found necessary to give small allotments of land to the poor in various districts. Mr. Childers, in the report he referred to, gave instances of the quantity of marsh land which had been reclaimed in some places by the labour of the poor. He believed that if these Commons were given to the rich landlords they would be converted into grass lands; and what advantage, he would ask, would this be to the poor? There were already complaints abroad of the class legislation which was carried on all in favour of the interests of the rich, to the detriment of those of the poor; he hoped the House would not give additional occasion for such complaints by passing this bill. If this House did an act by which they would be enclosing for their own advantage all the common lands of this country, the people would have a strong and just ground for offence; but if, on the contrary, they shewed a respect for the rights and interests of the poor, it would have a great effect in producing a kinder feeling between the aristocracy and their humbler fellow-contrymen. With these opinions he should move, as an amendment, that this bill be read a second time this day six months.
§ Colonel Sibthorp
in seconding and supporting the amendment of the hon. Member for Rochdale, begged to disclaim anything discourteous to the noble Lord who had introduced this bill. He had, however, told the noble Lord in private, when he mentioned his intention of bringing in such a measure, that he should give it his firm but humble opposition. With respect to the hon. Member who had moved the amendment, he believed he could say of him that there was not in the United Kingdom a landlord who was more generous to his tenants, more beloved by them 969 in return, and who had a greater regard for the interests of the poor than that hon. Gentleman. Now, with respect to this bill; it was laid on the table on Saturday, when it contained 140 clauses; it had now, however swollen to 149 clauses, why or wherefore he did not pretend to know. He denounced the bill as most arbitrary in its principle, and likely to be most expensive in its carrying into effect. The expense was such that no one, not even the noble Lord himself could pretend to say how it would end. The noble Lord had thought to throw in a little sugar to sweeten the bitterness of the rest of the enactment, by proposing that the Tithe Commissioners should undertake the duties under this measure. But surely the noble Lord must be aware that the Tithe Commission would expire in four years; and, if he was not misinformed—he had been told it, indeed, to-day—that a greal deal which the Commission should have done by this time was not done. But it should be borne in mind, also, that there was the power of appointing numerous assistants and secretaries, which would all incur expense. He saw that money was to be borrowed from the Consolidated Fund. He did not know what the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say to this. He should be happy to hear that the Consolidated Fund was in a sufficiently prosperous state to make those advances. But he was afraid they would have to be repaid out of the taxes to be levied on the country. They were to be repaid out of the Poor Rates. He thought the property of the landowners was already sufficiently burthened without having an undefined amount of money drawn from their pockets under the provisions of this Enclosure Bill. He objected to the powers proposed to be given to the lords of the manor. He, as a lord of the manor, might profit by them, but he would scorn to accept a bonus upon such terms. The noble Lord had stated that there were 1,358,419 acres of land in England, and 501,815 acres in Wales, of unenclosed land; but he had not stated how many of those acres could be properly cultivated. He had looked at the records of the House, and he found, that from 1801 to 1835, no less than 1,919 Enclosure Bills had passed the House, and when he looked at the number of Enclosure Bills which had been passed during the last eight years, he found that no less than 2,015 970 Enclosure Bills had passed the House since the commencement of the century. Then, why should they now call upon them to make further enclosures at the public expense? Another objection which he entertained to the Bill was, that it encroached on the right of the poor, who had no power of defending themselves. The Bill gave the aristocracy an unfair power, and he was surprised that Gentlemen opposite sanctioned the 140 clauses which composed the Bill. There was another point which he wished to advert to. He had always understood that the noble Lord, the First Commissioner of Woods and Forests had shown a great desire to widen the streets of the metropolis for the benefit of the poor. He would put it to the noble Lord, therefore, how, with any consistency, he could give his consent to a measure which would deprive the people of a great deal of the air, exercise, and recreation which they at present enjoyed. He did not like to see obstructions of this kind thrown in the way of the rational enjoyments of the poor. The noble Lord said, that the Bill would give employment to the poor, as it would cause lands which were now uncultivated to be brought under cultivation, but it at the same time interfered with the rights of the poor. He objected to the Bill in toto. He objected to the manner in which it was hurried through the House—to the expenses which it would entail—and to the oppression of the poor, which would be the consequence of it. On these grounds he opposed the Bill, and would support the amendment of the hon. Member for Rochdale. If it passed the second reading, he should feel bound to divide the House on each of the 149 clauses of the Bill.
§ Mr. Curteis
would support the second reading of the Bill; but he thought the noble Lord showed too much tenderness for the rights of lords of manors. He wished the noble Lord had taken the opportunity, in preparing his Bill, of abolishing manorial rights, which were in general beneficial only to attornies and agents—giving compensation to the lords of manors. He was anxious, while on his legs, to correct a misapprehension as to what had fallen from him on a previous evening in regard to the wages of labour in Sussex. He had been understood to say, that the wages of the agricultural labourer in that county were not less than 12s. a week. 971 What he had said was, that in his own neighbourhood the wages usually paid was 12s., and in no case less than 10s. a week. In West Sussex he had heard that wages were lower, but he himself had no knowledge whether it were so or not.
§ Mr. Darby
said, the main objection to the Bill appeared to be, that it would operate injuriously to the poor; but he doubted whether at the present day common rights were, generally speaking, advantageous to the poor. He believed, that the most wretched portion of the rural population were those who lived on the edges of commons. In many cases the employment for labourers on the enclosed commons would tend to relieve the parishes of the surplus poor. He should support the second reading of the Bill.
thought the Bill good, as far as it went—but it stopped short at the most important point, viz.: the interests of the poor. He should vote for the principle of the measure, which he understood to be to refer to the discretion of a body of Commissioners, who had no personal interest in the matter, the apportioning of the rights of all parties in cases where commons were to be enclosed under Enclosure Bills. This was far better than leaving those matters to private legislation, where the rights of the poor were too frequently neglected—so far the Bill was important. The means of providing for the surplus population of the country was a question which had engaged some attention; but, in his opinion, if all the lands capable of remunerating labour were brought into cultivation, and if all the sources of manufacturing and commercial industry were unshackled, there would be no surplus population whatever. The common and waste lands in this country amounted, according to Mr. Porter, to 8,000,000 acres, of which more than 4,000,000 were capable of being brought into cultivation, and made a source of profitable employment. Many persons looked to emigration as the only means of removing the distresses of the country, and of providing for the surplus population. His opinion was, that the labouring population should not be driven from their own country until every source of employment at home had been exhausted. He thought, therefore, that the enclosure and cultivation of waste lands was a question of more importance 972 than many which occupied the attention of that House. He should vote for the second reading of the Bill, in the hope that it would be materially improved in Committee. He concurred in very much that had fallen from the hon. Member for Rochdale as to the disadvantage that too often resulted to the poor from private Enclosure Bills. In former times every cottage almost had some common rights, from which the poor occupants derived much benefit—the privilege of feeding a cow, a pig, or a goose on the common was a great benefit to them,—and it was unfortunate, when the system of enclosing commons first commenced, that a portion of the land was not set apart for the benefit of every cottager who enjoyed common rights, and his successors; but the course adopted had been to compensate the owner of the cottage to which the common rights belonged, forgetting the claims of the occupier by whom they were enjoyed. He believed that if a portion of the enclosed lands had been allotted to every cottager enjoying common rights when the enclosure took place, the agricultural labourer would have been in a far better condition than he was at this time. He should be glad to see some arrangement such as he had suggested provided for in the present Bill; and if no other hon. Member should make a Motion to that effect, he would himself move the insertion of a Clause in regard to the allotment of land. It must be recollected that this was not a question affecting the welfare of the agriculturul labourer only—the manufacturing labourer was equally interested. The greatest amount of waste lands, in the counties of Yorkshire and Lancashire especially, was to be found in the neighbourhood of the large manufacturing towns; and it would be conferring a great boon on the manufacturing labourer and to the whole country, if, in enclosing those lands, allotments were made for the benefit of that class of the community. He thought the Bill went too far in proposing to enclose all common lands. He should wish that in Committee, all common lands now unenclosed in the vicinity of great towns should be excluded from the operation of the Bill. It was true that the noble Lord (Lord Worsley) had provided that a discretion should be exercised by the Commissioners, and that in such cases as he alluded to they might consult the wishes of the inhabitants; but he did not think that was 973 a sufficient security. He was sure the Bill would meet with considerable opposition in Committee if the rights of the poor were neglected in reference to the points he had adverted to.
§ Mr. Aglionby
was favourable to the Bill, as tending to effect a saving both in time and money, over the old system of procuring Enclosure Bills. The rights of the poor would receive every consideration under the Bill. He had taken the greatest pains in going over the Bill, and there was not a Clause in it which did not give more protection to the poor than was generally given in the old Enclosure Bills.
thanked the noble Lord for the trouble which he had taken in introducing his Bill. He was decidedly in favour of the principle of the measure, which would have his most ardent support. He only hoped that the noble Lord did not intend to refer it to a Select Committee up stairs, as in that case much time would be lost in its progress.
observed, that there was not quite so large a quantity of waste lands in the country as had been imagined by the hon. Gentleman. From a return which had been laid upon the Table last year it appeared that there were only 1,000,000 acres. [Mr. Cowper.—That is only the return for some part of the country.] At all events, it extends to all the parishes in which the Tithe Commutation Act had been carried into operation. And, certainly, there could hardly be such a vast disparity between that estimate and the truth as between 1,000,000 and 8,000,000, as had been estimated by the hon. Gentleman. It had been estimated by the hon. Member for Somersetshire 15,000,000; so great was the variation of opinion on this subject. Now, the return enumerated upwards of 700 parishes, in which there were not 100 acres of common or waste lands. He deprecated the passing of a measure that should facilitate the enclosure of such small quantities of land as were not worth the expense of enclosure, but would yet be of great benefit to the poor as at present enjoyed. For he thought many much underrated the importance to the poor man of opportunity for feeding some small animals. He regretted that the Committee up stairs were not to have referred to them the subject of the several Enclosure Acts, instead of the particular measure before the House. The expense of procuring particular Acts 974 might perhaps be beneficially reduced as to common or waste lands. As to common field lands, the particular Acts were not required. For under Lord Ellenborough's Act (6th and 7th William IV.), three-fourths of the occupiers of the common field lands might appoint Commissioners for enclosure; and he knew of parishes in his own county in which the measure had been carried into operation. He might advert to the Moor at Staines as one of a class of commons which afforded many valuable advantages to the poor man, which he should regret deeply to see diminished or deteriorated. With respect to other than common field land, if Private Acts were facilitated, particular cases could be thus provided for with that attentive consideration which was secured by the proposition of a Private Act. As to common field lands, what would be the effect of the present measure? Would it abolish Lord Ellenborough's Act? This point was worthy of consideration. He doubted the utility of the Bill, and he should vote against the second reading.
§ Mr. Hume
said, the principle of enclosure had been carried much too far already. Instead of affording "facilities" for enclosing lands, they ought to throw every impediment in the way of those grasping proprietors who wished to take every plot of ground away from the poor for the purpose of applying them to private purposes. It should be considered, that open spaces were required for the health of the population. At present the poor were driven into dusty roads whenever they wanted a mouthful of fresh air. Grasping landlords stopped up all the walks through the fields and meadows, and not an acre of playground was left for the children of a country village. The consequence was, that they were reducing their population from a bold and hardy peasantry to a stunted, weak, and effeminate race of men. The effect of this sort of measures had never been to increase the labour of the poor—enclosures had never afforded any compensating advantages for the many disadvantages they involved, and for these reasons he should most undoubtedly give his negative to this attempt to extend their principle.
§ Sir R. Peel
agreed with some of the observations of the hon. Member who had just sat down, but came to a different conclusion. He thought it but due to the pains which the noble Lord had taken 975 with this Bill, that the House should give him the opportunity of submitting the details to further consideration, and therefore he should give his vote for the Second Reading. In the first place, he thought there were many descriptions of land, the inclosure of which was facilitated by this bill, which it would be for the general interest of the community should be inclosed. There was a good deal of land held by landed proprietors, in respect of which there was a common right of pasture, and he believed it would be of great public advantage to permit the inclosure of that land, and to give to each proprietor his own separate allotment. But when they came to the question of enclosing commons in the neighbourhood of towns, with respect to which the poor inhabitants of those towns were interested, he, for one, should look with very great jealousy at a bill which gave too summary a power as to these inclosures. In the first place, he thought it was a great public object to have near towns (he was not speaking of great towns like Glasgow or Manchester, but towns of 3,000 or 4,000 inhabitants) an open space accessible to all. He thought it would be very unwise to apply the rigid principles of political economy, and to say that by inclosing these spaces, a greater quantity of vegetable produce could be procured. He thought you had a perfect right to set considerations of health, of innocent recreation, of moral improvement, against the mere considerations of pecuniary gain; and if you were to prove that by the inclosure of the land for a certain period of time, there would be a demand for labour, and ultimately and apparently an increase of produce, these facts would not be considered by him as conclusive; he would consider the other question, whether or no you were interfering with the healthful amusements and recreations of the people. He could conceive many cases in which, unless there were precautions taken—unless you gave the poor the means of protecting their interests, you ran the risk of doing great injury, and of having all these spaces, not merely near towns, but near villages, totally lost to the public. Take the case of a public common accessible to all the inhabitants, and where the right of soil is in the corporation. It may be a great public object that it should continue uninclosed, not only for the sake of those who have a right of common, but for the 976 sake of the poorer classes of the community, who have an open space which, because it is uninclosed, they can go upon without committing a trespass. The very circumstance of its being uninclosed, although it destroys the right of property, gives a right of enjoyment of the free air, which you diminish if you give the right of inclosure. The land belongs to the corporation, but every person who rents a house has a right to turn something or other on the land. Suppose it be thought proper in the corporation to inclose it; they exercise a considerable power over each householder; they persuade them not to be pertinacious in their opposition; an appeal is made to the Commissioners; the corporation is benefited; but he should like to know what were the poor to do? He was speaking of men who had no right but that of the privilege of access. As to the actual right, the House must be cautious how they dealt lightly with these rights. It might be a question of feeling. Hon. Members had their feelings, and the poorer class of the community had feelings on this subject. The right of common connected them with the soil; the right of turning a goose on a common made a man feel interested in the tenure of the land. It might be more beneficial to a tenant that he should accept 2l. or 3l.; but recollect that you were not dealing with the rights of the individual, but with that of his successors. Therefore, the more you could multiply this feeling on the part of the poor, the more you strengthened the foundations of landed property. Recollect that what was done was irrevocable. These towns might increase; and that was an additional reason why they should not permit too hasty an interference with those uninclosed lands. There was only one other part of the Bill on which he wished to make a remark—viz., that which gave a power of exchange. That was very beneficial in certain cases, but it appeared to be perfectly unlimited, [Lord Worsley: Equitable exchange.] To the present possessor it might be equitable, but there ought to be most minute inquiries whether or no it was for the benefit of his posterity that the exchange should take place. A power to convey 2,000 or 3,000 acres by the mere act of the owner was a very high power indeed, and he hoped the noble Lord would apply some restriction to the power of exchange.
§ Lord Worsley
would wish shortly to ex- 977 plain some of the points which had been referred to by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House. Some observations had been made with respect to the rights of the poor to commons in the neighbourhood of towns. Now, the measure before the House provided that all care should be taken that the people should not be unnecessarily deprived of any of their rights of recreation. If hon. Members would look to the twentieth clause of the Bill, they would see that it provided that the Commissioners, upon the application of two-thirds of the interested parties, "shall proceed to inquire into the expediency of such inclosure, having regard as well to the health, comfort, and convenience of the inhabitants of any neighbouring cities, towns, villages, and populous places;" and then in the following clause it was provided that in case persons interested in the land, to the amount of one-fourth of its value, or persons to the number of one-tenth part of the male population of the parish, should give notice to the Commissioners of their intention to apply to Parliament to put a stop to the proposed inclosure, then the Commissioners should not proceed further with the inclosure, until six weeks after such notice, if Parliament be sitting; or until six weeks after it has met, if it be not assembled at the time. He would submit to the House that the question might be raised when the Bill went into Committee. Now with regard to the 48th clause, it would be seen on reference to it that the charge which had been made did not apply to it, for it gave a power of reserving portions of land for public purposes. The clause said,Be it enacted, that when the Commissioners or Assistant Commissioners acting in the matter of any inclosure, shall have determined such claims as hereinbefore directed, and in case any doubt or difficulties shall have arisen respecting the boundaries of the laud proposed to be enclosed shall have determined and set out such boundaries, they or he shall determine what part of the land proposed to be enclosed shall be set out and appropriated for such public purposes as hereinafter mentioned, or any of them; that is to say, for the formation of public roads and ways for supplying stone, gravel, or other materials for the repair of the several roads or ways to be made over such land, and of the other roads and ways within the parish in which such land shall be situate for the formation of such public drains, water-courses, or embankments, as may conduce to the health or advantage of such 978 parish or the neighbourhood; for a place of exercise and recreation for the inhabitants of the neighbourhood; for the formation or improvement of public ponds, wells, and watering places; and for a supply of fuel for the poor or other inhabitants of the parish; for land for any burying-ground, or enlarging any burying-ground.He knew that it was stated, that they ought not to interfere with open places in the neighbourhood of large towns; but he should say, in reference to that statement, that it would be a great service if a proper system of drainage were adopted in many places of that description. He had seen some of these spaces in the neighbourhood of large towns, where it would have been of the greatest importance to establish a good system of drainage, and beneficial to the health and comfort of the inhabitants of the towns situated near those open places and if a sufficient number of persons in a town opposed the inclosure of such a place—if one-tenth of the inhabitants refused to agree to it, they might find in many such cases that it would have been better for the health and comfort of the inhabitants if a better drainage were established. The 70th clause made further provision for public uses—it providedThat the valuer acting in the matter of any inclosure shall and may, in pursuance of the directions of, or in any manner inconsistent with the directions of the draft, award, set out, and allot such part of the lands to be inclosed as by such draft or award shall have been directed to be appropriated as a place of exercise and recreation for the inhabitants of the said parish and neighbourhood.He agreed perfectly with the right hon. Baronet, in the opinion he expressed with respect to the importance of taking care that the inhabitants of large towns were provided with proper places of recreation; for he thought that such means of amusement were calculated to keep persons out of the beer-shops and such places, he thought it would consequently be of great advantage to have public walks in the neighbourhood of populous places. He thought the Bill was one calculated to produce great benefit to the public, and he could assure the House that it had been framed with a due regard to the rights of the poor as well as of the more wealthy classes. He brought it forward on public grounds solely, and he looked on it as a measure which would give con- 979 siderable employment to the poor, and would be of great public advantage.
§ The House divided on the question, that the word 'now' stand part of the question:—Ayes 70; Noes 23: Majority 47.
|List of the AYES.|
|Acland, T. D.||James, W.|
|Aldam, W.||Jermyn, Earl|
|Bentinck, Lord G.||Johnstone Sir J.|
|Blackstone, W. S.||Langston, J. H.|
|Borthwick, P.||Lincoln, Earl of|
|Bowes, J.||M'Neil, D.|
|Busfield, W.||Manners, Lord J.|
|Cavendish, hn. G. H.||Marsham, Visct.|
|Cowper, hon. W. F.||Miles, P. W. S.|
|Cripps, W.||Miles, W.|
|Curteis, H. B.||Morrison, J.|
|Darby, G.||Neville, R.|
|Denison, J. E.||Newdigate, C. N.|
|Denison, E. B.||Palmerston, Visct.|
|Divett, E.||Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.|
|Douglas, Sir C. E.||Plumptre, J. P.|
|Ebrington, Visct.||Plumridge, Capt.|
|Eliot, Lord||Protheroe, E.|
|Evans, W.||Rushbrooke, Col.|
|Farnham, E. B.||Sandon, Visct.|
|Flower, Sir J.||Scott, hon. F.|
|Fuller, A. E.||Shaw, rt. hon. F.|
|Gaskell, J. Milnes||Stanley, Lord|
|Gisborne, T.||Sutton, hon. H. M.|
|Gladstone, rt. hn. W.E.||Thornely, T.|
|Goring, C.||Tollemache, J.|
|Goulburn, rt. hn. H.||Vivian, J. E.|
|Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.||Wakley, T.|
|Greenaway, C.||Warburton, H.|
|Greene, T.||Wawn, J. T.|
|Harcourt, G. G.||Whitmore, T. C.|
|Hay, Sir A. L.||Wortley, hon. J. S.|
|Henniker, Lord||Wrightson, W. B.|
|Hinde, J. H.|
|Hope, G. W.||TELLERS.|
|Howard, P. H.||Worsley, Lord|
|Humphery, Ald.||Aglionby, H. A.|
|List of the NOES.|
|Antrobus, E.||Mitchell, T. A.|
|Baskerville, T. B. M.||Morgan, O.|
|Berkeley, hon. H. F.||Morris, D.|
|Bright, J.||Pechell, Capt.|
|Broadley, H.||Richards, R.|
|Brotherton, J.||Scholefield, J.|
|Bruges, W. H. L.||Scott, R.|
|Butler, hon. C.||Sotheron, T. H. S.|
|Butler, P. S.||Stanton, W. H.|
|Duncan, G.||Wood, Col.|
|Hume, J.||Crawford, S.|
|Hussey, A.||Sibthorp, Col.|
§ Bill read a second time.