HC Deb 29 March 1844 vol 73 cc1647-60

Upon the Motion that the Order of the Day for the House to go into a Committee of Supply be read,

Mr. Ewart

said, it was with sincere reluctance that he rose to bring forward, on the question of going into a Committee of Supply, the important subject of which he had given notice; he, however, felt justified in doing so, because the matter had not received on a former occasion, that due attention which its importance ought to ensure from Her Majesty's Government. The House had now for some hours been occupied in discussing the hours of employment of the operatives of the country. He now proposed to bring under consideration the means of employment afforded to those operatives. The Motion which he was about to submit to the House embraced three divisions; first, the Import Duties imposed upon raw materials of manufactures; the second division has reference to the Duties upon articles of subsistence; and the last to the Duties on those articles in which the smuggling trade was concerned. In a manufacturing country like this nothing was more important than the supply of what was called "the raw material," in order that the machinery of the mills and factories should be kept employed, and the most important was the supply of the raw materials upon which the cotton and woollen trades of the country depended. The importation of the article of raw cotton was loaded with a duty of 2s. 11d. per cwt., a duty which was most oppressive to the manufacturers of this country. It had almost now become a trite axiom of political economy that the raw material ought not to be taxed, and that principle had been adopted by the right hon. Baronet opposite in his tariff, but only in reference to some petty articles such as drugs, dyes, and other similar articles, which were only subsidiary or ancillary to manufactories. The real way to have begun would have been to have taken off the duties on the raw materials of the cotton and woollen trade. If the right hon. Baronet had begun with the centre, instead of touching the circumference of trade, he would have effected one of the greatest possible benefits and improvements to the commerce and manufactures of this country. Every day there was an increased demand for manufactures, and every day the oppressiveness of the duty on raw cotton became more severely felt. Again, it was rendered more oppressive in consequence of the competition with foreign nations to which this country was exposed. France had done away with the duty on raw cotton, America had the raw material grown within herself, and the German Commercial Union had no duty whatever upon the raw material of the cotton manufactures. He begged to refer to the statements made by the President of the United States, and by the Secretary of the Treasury, in their late addresses to Congress on this subject. The President, in his message of December, 1843, said, "The German Zollverein will admit our cotton free of duty," and the Secretary of the Treasury stated, "the basis of a commercial convention had just been agreed upon with the Zollverein, which, if sanctioned, admits our cotton free of all duty." Therefore, as this immense confederation of Commercial Germany admitted cotton free, could this country long stand the competition, if she did not adopt a similar course? He felt justified in calling upon the House to follow an example so worthy of imitation. He was satisfied that if the duty were taken off, Liverpool would become the market or emporium of raw cotton for all the world. On a former occasion he had alluded to the Duties on sheep's wool; that duty formed the second section of his present Motion. At present an Import Duty of ½d. per lb. was levied on all sheep's wool which was of less value than ls. per lb. and a duty of 1d. per lb. on all sheep's wool, the value of which exceeded 1s. per lb. Both these duties were, he maintained, extremely oppressive, and the more so because the latter wools, being derived from Germany, had to pay an export duty on leaving the Prussian dominions of ¾d. per 1b. This afforded an additional reason why the Import Duty on this country should be taken off. With respect to the duty on the cheaper wools, it was every day becoming more and more inconvenient to commerce. Upon this article, like the last, France, America, and Germany, had no duties, and it was most unfair to the manufacturers of the country that they should be placed in competition with them with the impost of those Duties. It had, he believed, been understood as arranged when the export Duties had been taken off British wool, the Import Duties on foreign wool should be taken off too; and good faith, as well as good policy, required that this arrangement should be carried into effect. The next division of the subject of which he wished to treat was the policy of lowering the duties on tea, sugar, and coffee. The altered habits of the people of the country, whether arising from Temperance Societies, or whatever cause, called upon Parliament to adopt some steps which would give them these articles, almost of existence, at a lower rate. The duties of which he complained did not fall heavily on the wealthier classes; but, on the contrary, the poor were the chief sufferers. There was, however, one way in which the whole commercial interest would be great sufferers, and it was this:—the Chinese would not continue long to take our manufactures, if they were, in all time to come, obliged to pay for them in silver or gold. If we did not take their goods more freely in exchange, we could not long continue to preserve a commercial intercourse with them. He felt very strongly the evils of the existing system, and he was the more impelled to raise up his voice against it, seeing the extent to which it interfered with the corn-forts of the poorer classes; for they were the chief sufferers from the adulteration of tea, sugar, and coffee, and that fact the Chancellor of the Exchequer knew as well as he did. He knew that, in urging these considerations, he was addressing himself to an unwilling House; but, though hon. Members did not attend to those subjects, the people did, and they had a right to call upon their Representatives to alter the laws. The other evening, when addressing the House on this subject, he referred to articles the high duties on which had a tendency to encourage smuggling. He would ask hon. Members, did any man in the country think that the continuance of such duties could be favourable to the morality of the people? He brought these topics before the House actuated by none ether than a conscientious feeling that it was his duty so to do; and if hon. Members opposite came down there to while away an hour in private conversation, they might do so if they pleased; he should treat their interruptions with the most entire indifference. He then proceeded to observe, that while England was slumbering, other nations were doing all in their power to reduce their Import Duties. The Report even of the Excise Commissioners showed that, however late, we ought to follow that example. It was well known that when Mr. Pitt was Minister he greatly increased the actual amount of the revenue by diminishing the Import Duties; for increased consumption more than made up the difference. With respect to silks, there could not be a doubt that the Duty on their Import ought to be reduced to 10 or 15 per cent., and if that had been the rate of duty for some time past, the late frauds in the Customs department would never have been committed. Had the duties been low, no temptation to commit fraud would have existed. The hon. Member then went on to notice the conversation which at this time was going forward at the other side of the House, and to say he did not know whether it was intended by that manifestation of indifference to insult a Member who had felt it to be his duty to bring a Motion like the present under the consideration of Parliament. [Lord Stanley: "Not in the least."] The manner of the noble Lord was considered by hon. Members near him to indicate a feeling of which it was thought he had a right to complain. [On the Motion of Mr. Hume the House was counted, but there being upwards of forty Members present, the hon. Member (Mr. Ewart) continued.]—He thought the most politic course would be to adopt a general scheme, not to reduce seriatim, not to make alterations one by one, but rather to adopt a comprehensive system whereby the gain on one article would be made to compensate for the loss upon another. In conclusion, he would tell the House that the object of his Motion was to extend employment for the people, to cheapen the articles which they consumed, and to remove the temptations to smuggling. He felt that in making this Motion he was not so much addressing the House as he was addressing the public, through the press; and, though Members opposite might interrupt him, yet he did hope that he should nevertheless be supported in a manner such as the occasion merited. The hon. Member concluded by moving as an Amendment, that— It is indispensable to the maintenance and extension of the trade of this country that those duties he repealed which press on the raw materials of manufacture, especially the raw materials of the woollen and cotton trade. That it is expedient also that those duties be greatly reduced which press on articles of interchange in return for our manufactures; especially such articles of interchange as, at the same time, concern the subsistence of the people; being (besides corn, which is the subject of superior and separate consideration) such articles as tea, sugar, coffee, bacon, butter, and cheese. That it is expedient that those duties also be greatly reduced which, by their amount, encourage smuggling; being at once injurious to the revenue and dangerous to the morality of the country; such as the duties on tobacco, silk goods, and foreign spirits. That whatever temporary deficiency of revenue be caused by such reduction, ought, until the revenue regain its former amount, to be sustained by the property, and not by the trade and labour of the country.

Mr. Hume

who seconded the Motion, complained that his hon. Friend, when he brought forward a Motion calculated to relieve that distress, was met with nothing but interruptions, and Members did not think it worth their while to attend in sufficient numbers to make what is called a House. Such was now the distressed and demoralized condition of the people, that the Legislature found it necessary to take charge of the children of the poor; for the English people had sunk into a condition so savage that they could not be intrusted with the care of their own offspring. Such were the effects produced by bad Legislation, and by the practical working of monopolies, class interests combined with other causes to extract nothing but evil from the proceedings of the House of Commons. It was most lamentable that the Government would not be prevailed upon to look into the origin of the present distress. What his hon. Friend had said of the prevalence of discontent, was perfeetly true; but he need not resort to the authority of his hon. Friend, the Magistrates could bear witness to it, and the reeking corn-stacks throughout the country, were evidence of it. He found in a newspaper of that morning the following remarks:— Since the observations of Sir J. Graham and Lord Henniker in the House of Commons on Friday last, relative to the spread of incen- diarism in Suffolk, we have received accounts of some very alarming fires in this county (Suffolk). On Saturday night we witnessed an awful conflagration at Capel, which was visible from Ipswich; and in the previous evening a fire occurred at Hitcham. A fact which we have just learned in connexion with the last-mentioned fire, goes some way to explain the cause of these lamentable events, and fully sustains the views so well laid before the Grand Jury by the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions, in the Shire-hall, in this town, a few days ago. At this moment no less than forty labourers are without employment in the parish of Hitcham, where work is difficult to be obtained, and numbers are unable to procure it: wages generally tend downward; so that we find two powerful causes of discontent in operation among our rural population,—low wages and want of employment. It is idle to conceal the fact too, that these are greatly augmented by the severity of the Poor Law, which indeed is built on the theory that the labourers should be forced to obtain work, which work, it is improperly assumed, can be obtained by every honest and able-bodied man. It was true that that law was constructed on the idea that every labourer should provide himself with work, yet Legislation prevented him getting work, or getting food. Nevertheless his hon. Friend on that the second occasion on which he had brought forward the subject of diminishing the burthens which pressed upon industry, was not listened to by the House of Commons. The House had heard many tales of distress: were they aware how much of that distress arose from causes which his hon. Friend, by his propositions sought to remove? He must say, he felt it was disgraceful to a reformed House of Commons not to listen to the practical suggestions of his hon. Friend. In a few minutes the House would go into a Committee of Supply, where they would be called on to vote away hundreds of thousands of pounds, and on these occasions there were seldom present more than forty or fifty Members of that House, which ought to be the guardian of the public purse. That was discreditable to the House of Commons. He was sorry to say, that the electors did not seem to him to have the wisdom or the knowledge to prevent this kind of legislation. He must repeat, that in the present state of the country, he thought it was not creditable to the House not to have listened to his hon. Friend. The House of Commons, he fully believed, had the power of removing the evils with which the country was afflicted—the mi- sery, the fires, and the destitution which was going on owing to a course of bad Legislation.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, that the hon. Gentleman who seconded the motion, had indulged in an attack upon the House of Commons generally, rather than addressed himself to the subject before them. To that charge he as a Member of the House, felt that he was not justly subject, and he should not reply to it further than to say that if the hon. Gentleman who made this Motion had been interrupted in the course of his proceedings on this question, those interruptions had taken place rather from the opinion entertained by the House, and especially by those hon. Gentlemen who sat on the same side of it with the hon. Gentleman, that the mode the hon. Member had adopted with respect to the question, was rather calculated to bring forward his individual opinion than to secure the concurrence of a majority of the House. The hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) must recollect, that, if the hon. Gentleman had been interrupted, the interruption on two several occasions had proceeded from hon. Gentlemen on the hon. Member's own side of the House; for, on the former occasion the hon. Member for Cheltenham, and on this, the hon. Gentleman himself, had moved that the House be counted, so little did the hon. Member think it for the advantage of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ewart's) views that he should proceed in addressing the House. Now, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had great confidence in the judgment of the hon. Member for Montrose on such occasions; the hon. Member had had much experience. He thought that the hon. Member's judgment with respect to the Motion, was to be gathered far more from his Motion for putting a stop to the speech of his hon. Friend than from the philippic which he had since pronounced on the House, and with which he had occupied his speech, not being able to say any thing in favour of the Motion. He must repeat, that he thought the hon. Gentleman must have made this Motion rather with a view of expounding his own principles with respect to taxation than with any expectation of obtaining the concurrence of the House to his propositions, or producing any practical result; for, of course, no man on the one side of the House or the other, whether a Member of the Go- vernment or the Opposition, could doubt the general principles laid down by the hon. Gentleman—that all taxes were evils in themselves; that taxes on raw materials were disadvantageous to manufactures; that it was not desirable to tax raw materials; and that it was not desirable to impose taxes to a greater amount than could be readily collected. These principles every hon. Member would be prepared to admit; but there were nevertheless grave and serious objections to placing upon the Journals a proposition of this kind. What was the hon. Gentleman's first proposition? "That it is indispensable to the maintenance and extension of the trade of this country that those duties be repealed which press upon the raw materials of manufacture, especially the raw materials of the woollen and cotton trade." This was the general proposition of the hon. Gentleman; but had the hon. Gentleman, he wished to ask, considered how far the principle he there laid down tallied with the papers on the Table respecting the cotton and woollen trade? those papers showed this—that, notwithstanding the duties which related to those trades still subject as they were to that pressure as the hon. Gentleman described it, they were not so much affected by them as to afford any pretence for saying that it was indispensable that such duties should be removed From the returns on the Table, it appeared that in 1842 there were imported 4,200,000 cwt. of cotton wool. In 1843 there were 5,200,000 cwt. imported; making Fan increase of 1,000,000 cwt. in one year, under the pressure of that duty, which the hon. Gentleman said it was indispensable for the maintenance and extension of the trade should be removed. Again, what was the value of the exports of cotton goods? In 1842 the value of the cotton exports was 21,740,000l.; in 1843, it was 23,440,000l.; being an increase of 1,700,000l. in the year. Therefore the records on the Table showed that as regarded the cotton trade at the present moment the taxes levied on the raw material, so far from impeding importation or shackling the extension of the trade, had not even checked the increase of it. With respect to the woollen trade, the imports at present were 4,000,000lb. weight of wool, and the value of the exported manufactured articles amounted to 1,600,000l. How then could the House with these facts before them, say that it was "indispensable to the maintenance and extension of these trades," that the duties on the raw materials should be repealed. To affirm such a proposition would involve the House in an absurdity which he did not think the hon. Gentleman contemplated, and which had infinitely better be avoided. But it would be an additional objection to affirming these propositions that they committed the House to an expression of opinions which would go forth to the country, and which the country would expect the House to act upon. The hon. Gentleman he thought, scarcely knew how far his plan went; his propositions would affect an amount of revenue very little short of 30,000,000l. sterling. Under these circumstances to affirm these propositions, would be neither more nor less than to throw the interests mentioned into the greatest confusion; they would be at a loss to know how to act; and the House and the country would lose all the advantages at present arising from a belief that public credit was in a flourishing condition. When he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) said he did not mean to say one word at present on those taxes to which the hon. Gentleman referred, the House he hoped, would take notice that he also wished to state that the time would come when the Government would state what they thought it to be their duty to do on the subject, and if he were then to go into the question of which of these taxes ought to be repealed and which maintained, he should not be doing his duty to the country; but the hon. Gentleman, after having effected this large reduction of revenue by the changes he proposed, wished to make up the deficiency by a Property-tax. The hon. Gentleman, if he mistook not, had voted in opposition to the proposal of a Property Tax by his right hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel); but he was now become a convert, and like all converts, not content with effecting his views with all convenient speed, he proposed to repeal no less than 30,000,000l. of taxes. [Mr. Ewart: No; only to affect.] At any rate the hon. Gentleman's propositions would affect 30,000,000l. sterling of taxes, and the hon. Gentleman proposed to make up the deficiency, whatever it was, by a Property Tax. Now he thought he was consulting the feelings of both sides of the House in not going further into the sub- ject. He was not opposed to any beneficial expression of general principles; but his objections to the hon. Gentleman's propositions were that it would be useless to send forth for the people to meditate upon these propositions, which, however good in themselves, must be impracticable, and tend to throw into confusion the trade of the country without answering any of those good ends, which he believed the hon. Gentleman sincerely aimed at. He therefore should support the original Motion.

Dr. Bowring

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had confessed there was something not quite defensible in those duties on raw materials, and he thought, therefore, that something was obtained for that (the Oppostion) side of the House. His hon. Friend and many hon. Members near him thought that, on a question of this importance it was not becoming that so few Members should be present, and the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) had moved the counting of the House, not in order to get rid of the Motion, as the hon. Gentleman had assumed, but to show the country how little the subject was being attended to at the moment he called upon the Speaker to count the House. He thought that this ought to be known to the country: it was a case of very frequent occurrence; and he thought it would be found from the divisions on such subjects that the great majority who voted had not heard the debates. If, instead of interfering between the Master and the Labourer, the House would show the same anxiety to remove the restrictions and duties which pressed upon industry, he thought they would do a much greater service to the popular interests. He knew of no grievance more intolerable than this of the duties which pressed upon labour. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that 30,000,000l. of taxes would be affected by the Motion of his hon. Friend. Was it not distressing to think that these taxes were levied on the working classes, a very small proportion being in fact borne by the opulent, the bulk falling on those who worked from the rising to the setting of the sun to enable them to maintain their families? He thought that his hon. Friend, and any hon. Member who reiterated the necessity of altering our fiscal legislation deserved well of the House and the country. His hon. Friend wished to reduce those duties which en- couraged smuggling. The fact was, the Government in their controversy with the smuggler, were again and again defeated. He did their work better for the people. But not only under the existing rules of taxation were the Government defeated, but an enormous mass of depravity and misery was created. For his part, he thought his hon. Friend had established every point he had brought forward; his arguments were irresistible. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted they were irresistible; and he must say, that considering the importance of the subject, and the moderate way in which his hon. Friend advocated his views, he thought it discreditable that he got so mall and unwilling an audience.

Mr. F. T. Baring

had voted a good many years ago for a Motion of his late noble Friend (Lord Sydenham) to a somewhat similar effect as this Motion of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman, however, could hardly expect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would vote with him as the Motion now stood. In his (Mr. Baring's) opinion, the Motion did not go far enough. The hon. Gentleman had not taken the comprehensive view of the subject which had been taken by Lord Sydenham. If they were prepared, and thought it advisable under the present state of their finances, to change their system of taxation altogether, let them do so, and take off those taxes which pressed most on the productive industry of the country. They ought to look at other subjects besides those contained in the Resolution moved by the hon. Member. Look at their Excise Duties—duties which pressed heavily on the productive industry of the country. There was the Soap Tax, which was a tax on cleanliness and on the comforts of the people; there was the tax on paper, which used to be called a tax on the raw material of knowledge; there was the tax on glass, and other taxes connected with the Excise, which, if it were possible for them to take a general review of their taxation, ought not to be omitted from consideration. There was the tax on windows, and the tax on insurance,—as it used to be called, a tax upon prudence—all these taxes ought to be taken off if they were prepared to make a great alteration in their system of taxation. They ought not, like His hon. Friend, to confine themselves to some one branch of taxation. It had been stated that the taxes mentioned were taxes which fell on the poor. If his hon. Friend could find any tax which did not ultimately fall on the poor he should be very glad to know what it was. It was a remark of Mr. Cobbett's, that "if they wanted to get millions they must tax the millions." Let them lay on what tax they pleased, it must fall on the poor, if any man could find a tax which did not so fall on the poor, in his opinion he would have found the philosopher's stone in taxation. He had never read or heard of, or been able to put his finger on, any tax which would not affect the poor. When the hon. Member came forward to propose reductions in certain duties, anti to impose others in their stead, he ought to state the loss that would be occasioned by the change, and the sum that would have to be raised to counterbalance that loss. The proposed reductions involved a question of about 30,000,000l. but his hon. Friend did not state to the House what loss his Resolutions might involve. Take the loss at half this amount. His hon. Friend calculated that the Government would be able to get rid of the coast-guard by these reductions; still, however, the duty on tobacco, if reduced to Is., would be a duty of 250 per cent. on the cost of he article; and could they suppose that, with this duty imposed,they could do without their Coast-guard? His hon. Friend's proposal would induce the necessity of imposing taxes to the amount of 16 or 17 per cent. on property; and did any hon. Member suppose that, capital would remain in this country and be taxed at the rate of 17 per cent? He was sorry, for these reasons, tha the could not vote for the Resolutions.

Mr. Williams

said, the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had hardly thought it necessary to make any observations on the Motion, and had stated that his hon. Friend merely thought it necessary to bring it forward to exemplify his own opinion. Nothing but the greatest necessity could justify the imposition for one day of import duties on cotton and wool. The right hon. Gentleman had brought forward his statistics to show that there had been an increase in the trade in these articles. Happily for the right hon. Gentleman and for the country, a change for the better had taken place in the trade in these articles; otherwise what would have been the condition of the Exchequer and the state of the country? What had produced that change they perfectly well knew, namely, the excitement ever produced in commercial affairs by a vast increase in the paper circulation of the country. The right hon. Gentleman shook his head, but if he referred to the amount of the paper circulation of the Bank of England, he would find there had recently been an increase of 50 per cent. For the last eighteen months there had been little more in circulation than 22,000,000l.; but the last return which he had seen exceeded 33,000,000l. The increase in the importation of cotton advanced in precisely the same proportion as the increase in the circulation. When the question had been introduced last year by the hon. Member for Halifax, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that the duties on cotton and wool ought not to be maintained except on the ground of absolute necessity. The finances of the country were placed now in a condition to afford the reduction of these taxes, and they ought not to be continued one day. If the right hon. Gentleman calculated on the continuance of the present activity in commerce he would be disappointed. The warehousing system, rendered necessary by the imposition of these duties, entailed a cost of 25 per cent, more than the ordinary warehouseing, which, on the article of cotton, amounted to more than the amount of the duty itself. The duty on raw cotton was 7½ to 8 per cent. The dread of foreign competition, held forth in every form, had induced many votes to be given against the reduction of the hours of labour of factory children; and yet they continued the impolitic course of taxing the raw material imported for the purpose of manufacture—a course not pursued by any other country in the world. If they took off this tax they might safely entertain the proposition of the noble Lord the Member for Dorset-shire for reducing the hours of labour in factories. The produce of the tax on raw cotton for the four years from 1839 to 1843, inclusive, was 541,000l., on sheep's wool, 124,000l., making a total of 665,000l. together. As a financial question, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no ground for refusing to entertain the proposition of the hon. Member for Dumfries. If great reductions were made in these duties the revenue would not suffer. Next to these taxes on the raw material for manufacture, his hon. Friend pointed out the tax upon tea. How did that tax operate on the great body of the people? The tea consumed by the Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury bench did not pay one-fourth so much tax as the tea consumed by the poor. Did they call that justice? The tax on tea sold at 11d. a pound was 2s. 2d.; on tea sold at 4s. and 5s. a pound the same duty was imposed. Was this justice? The next article pointed out was sugar. Just the same tax was paid upon the finest refined sugar that was paid upon the coarsest brown sugar. The next article was coffee; and on this article the same duty was paid on the coarsest as on the best, making a difference in favour of the richer classes of 100 to 150 per cent. The next article was tobacco. Hon. Members taxed their own cigars 125 per cent., and the poor man's tobacco 800 per cent. He hoped that some pressure out of doors would force the Government to do what was right.

Mr. P. Howard

had always said, that they must make up their minds between the continuance of this tax and the maintenance of the Property Tax. If the hours of labour in factories were restricted it would be still more necessary to secure an unrestricted importation of the raw material. He trusted that the Government would take the repeal of this tax into consideration. He could not, upon the whole, however, say that in the present state of the House his hon. Friend would exercise a sound discretion in dividing upon his amendment, because he thought that at that moment the House would present no criterion of public opinion. At the same time, he thanked his hon. Friend for bringing forward this Motion, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, as soon as the finances of the country would permit, repeal this tax.

The House divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question:—Ayes 88; Noes 24: Majority 64.

List of the AYES.
Allix, John Peter Broadley, H.
Arkwright, G. Bruce, Lord E.
Baring, hon. W. B. Buckley, E.
Baring, rt. hn. F. T. Buller, Sir J. Y.
Bentinck, Lord G. Clerk, Sir G.
Blackburne, J. I. Clive, Viscount
Boldero, H. G. Copeland, Mr. Ald.
Borthwick, P. Corry, right hon. H.
Botfield, B. Cripps, W.
Damer, hon. Col. McGeachy, F. A.
Darby, G. Mackenzie, T.
Denison, E. B. McNeil, D.
Dickinson, F. H. Mainwaring, T.
Douglas, Sir C. E. Manners, Lord J.
Dnffield, T. March, Earl of
Egerton, W. T. Martin, C. W.
Eliot, Lord Masterman, J.
Escott, B. Meynell, Capt.
Fitzmaurice, hon. W. Munday, E. M.
Flower, Sir J. Nicholl, rt. hn. J.
French, F. Norreys, Lord
Fuller, A. E. O'Ferrall, R. M.
Gaskell, J. Milnes Paget, Col.
Gladstone, rt.hn.W.E. Packington, J. S.
Goulburn. right hon. H. Patten, J. W.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J. Peel, right hon. Sir R.
Greene, T. Peel, J.
Gregory, W. H. Plumptre, J. P.
Grimsditch, T. Polhill, F.
Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H. Pringle, A.
Heathcote, Sir W. Rendlesham, Lord
Heneage, G.H. Walker Round, J.
Hodgson, R. Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.
Hogg, J. W. Somerset, Lord G.
Hope, hon. C. Stanley, Lord
Hope, G. W. Stuart, H.
Hornby, J. Sutton, hon. H. M.
Inglis, Sir R. H. Trench, Sir F. W.
Jermyn, Earl Wellesley, Lord C.
Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H. Wood, Col. T.
Kemble, H. Yorke, hon. E. T.
Knatchbull, rt.hn. Sir E. Young, J.
Law, hon. C. E.
Lawson, A. TELLERS.
Lincoln, Earl of Freemantle, Sir T.
Lygon, hon. Gen. Baring, H.
List of the NOES.
Bowring, Dr. Plumridge, Capt.
Bright, J. Scholefield, J.
Brotherton, J. Strickland, Sir G.
Duncan, G. Tancred, H. W.
Fielden, J. Trelawny, J. S.
Forster, M. Walker, R.
Gibson, T. M. Warburton, H.
Hutt, W, Ward, H. G.
Johnston, A. Williams, W.
Mitcalfe, H. Yorke, H. R.
Mitchell, T. A.
Morris, D. TELLERS.
Napier, Sir C. Ewart, W.
O'Connell, M. J. Hume, J.

Main question agreed to.