Commons Sitting of 22 April 1846

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT. For Linlithgow Burghs, v. William Baird, Esq., Chiltern Hundreds.
PUBLIC BILLS—2°. Legal Quays (London).
3°. and passed. Railway, &c. Deposits; Commons Inclosure.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Hawes, from a number of places in the County of Cornwall, for Better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By Captain Lindsay, from Clergy of the Rural Deanery of Wigan, against Union of Sr. Asaph and Bangor Dioceses.—By Mr. Waddington, from Guardians of the Poor of the Cosford Union, for Rating Owners in lieu of Occupiers of Small Tenements.—By Sir James Graham, from Richard Birkin, Lace Manufacturer of the Town of Nottingham.—By Mr. Acland, from Treborough, and by Mr. Sidney Herbert, from Durnford and Teffont Magna, for Repealor Alteration of the Lunatic Asylums and Pauper Lunatics Act.—By Sir William Somerville, from Members of the Drogheda Mechanics' Institution, and other Inhabitants of the Town of Drogheda and its Vicinity, for Encouragement of Mechanics' Institutes (Ireland).—By Mr. Blackburne, from Persons holding Offices connected with the Administration of the Laws for the Relief of the Poor in the Warrington Union, for a Superannuation Fund for Poor Law Officers.—By Dr. Bowring, from Arbroath, for Alteration of Prisons (Scotland) Act.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
House in Committee on further consideration of the Report of the Friendly Societies Bill,
On the Question that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill,
MR. DUSTCOMBEsaid, that the Bill at the present moment was much misunderstood. There was no doubt that a great number of friendly societies now in existennce would be greatly circumscribed and crippled in their operations if this clause were allowed to stand part of the Bill. He proposed that these societies should, under the new Act, have the power of transferring their shares. A deputation had waited upon him that morning, from a friendly society, stating a case in which they would be interfered with. A few days ago some members of a friendly society wished to emigrate to Russia. They had been subscribers to their society for a length of time, and of course their subscriptions were worth something to them. After the passing of this Bill, they would be unable to withdraw their money, or to transfer their shares to any other persons, whether they were or were not connected with the society, and of course their money would be left behind them in this country.
SIR J. GRAHAMsaid, that the hon. Gentleman was incorrect in stating that the tendency was to narrow and restrict the power of friendly societies. The object of the Bill was the reverse. The effect of the judgment of Mr. Justice Wightman, from which no appeal was made, was, no friendly society could be held to be lawful which was not ejusdem generis, with certain specific principles of association in the existing law; and the object of the present Bill was to enlarge and extend the powers of those societies, without directly contravening that judgment. With reference to the particular point made by the hon. Gentleman with regard to the transfer of the shares of these societies, he thought that the hon. Member was not correct in stating that the law at the present moment permitted the transfer of shares. The clause they were discussing did not operate so as to interfere with those societies registered before the passing of the Act; for all shares in such societies, if they were transferable, would remain so. With regard to the policy of making shares transferable, he objected to the principle; for he conceived that these associations were associations of mutual confidence and assurance. The law assumed, and rightly assumed, that the members of these societies were parties known to each other, and who trusted each other; and, as the case was put by the hon. Member, members of these societies would have the power of transferring shares to persons not known
854
to the society—to parties not trusted by them, and not acceptable to them, and who might not be agreeable associates for the other Members. He conceived that it was not right that new members should be admitted without any power of checking or controlling their admission on the part of the society in general. He wished to make these shares, not a matter of barter: he did not wish to create friendly society stags as well as stags of another nature; and whatever might be the law with respect to these societies, he was not prepared to introduce the principle of unlimited and unchecked transfer to strangers; for the law based these societies on the assumption that they were formed for the purpose of friendly and mutual assurance. He therefore proposed to strke out the words after the word "that," and to add the words "the investment of each member shall be employed for the sole benefit of the person investing, or for his children, or kin, and that no party shall give his investment for the relief, maintenance, or endowment of any other person or member whatever." That addition would make the investment the property of the parties subscribing, or their relatives.
MR. RUTHERFURDthought that it was just and fair that persons who subscribed funds to a society should have the power of transferring them. He thought it would be better to have the clause stop at the word "transfer," and to leave out the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman.
SIR J. GRAHAMsaid, he wished to be perfectly candid on this matter. He was perfectly willing to admit the right of persons to combine against their employers, for the purpose of getting higher wages; and under the existing combination laws, it was perfectly legal for them to do so. But he was afraid that the accumulation of those societies, which bore a high rate of interest, might be directed to the purpose of holding out under the strike with their employers for a long time. He was afraid that if they stopped at the word "transfer," without adding the words which he proposed to the end of the clause, facilities would be given to what, for the sake of brevity, he would call strike associations. He conceived the words he had proposed were quite necessary to prevent such an abuse.
MR. RUTHERFURDhad no objection to the caution manifested by the right hon. Baronet, but thought his object could be

855
better attained by a different course. He was of opinion, for instance, that the right hon. Baronet would more fully and easily secure his point, by limiting the accumulation of each share or individual to 20 l., or, at any rate, a low comparative sum. He did not argue that the Bill should prevent shares being transferred.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the hon. Member who had objected to the clause did not refer to the object and intention of the 4th Clause—namely, giving the power of investment to such societies, for the purpose of support to the members, in provisions, fire, &c., with or without the assistance of charitable donations. An accumulation of funds by these societies must arise, and such accumulations could not be allowed to take place without regulation upon ultimate disposal. The hon. Member also who had last addressed the House (Mr. Rutherfurd) was desirous that shares held in friendly societies should be made personal. As regarded the powers of withdrawing money invested by the holders, that was at present allowed, generally, by the rules of the societies themselves—he meant as to the investment of savings. If a limit were placed upon the amount accumulated, he thought the object sought might, perhaps, be attained.
MR. DUNCOMBEsaid, that nothing could be more distinctly removed from his intention, than that the shares of these societies should be transferred promiscuously to anybody. What he wished to see effected, was this, that power should be given by the Bill to allow any Member, if desirous of leaving a locality, to dispose of his shares to any other member of the society. Nothing, he was ready to allow, could be so pernicious to societies of this nature as to sanction any proceeding of a gambling or speculative character. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department had stated his object in opposing the proposed alteration, to be that of putting down strike associations; and although he said it was right that men should combine for the purpose of raising the rate of wages, yet he could not allow the funds of these societies to be used for such purposes. But the fact was, that many associations of the character for which the Bill was designed, used their funds for such purposes to this day. A society of woolsorters in Bradford in Yorkshire did so. He contended that this Bill was calculated to circumscribe, in a very material degree, the operation of the present
856
law with regard to friendly societies; at all events, it would very much limit the privileges of the members of such societies. With regard to the decision of Mr. Justice Wightman on the point alluded to, he might state that the hon. and learned Solicitor General had stated that that decision was entirely wrong, and that the decision could not be maintained if it were appealed against. The opinion of the Solicitor General was, that friendly societies, in whose rules there was a provision for the support of Members out on strike, had every right to be certified and enrolled, because, as he and Sir Charles Wetherell had stated in their written opinion, such a purpose was perfectly legal. The fact of these societies having applied for permission to be enrolled, showed that they wished to come under the operation of the law. He felt quite confident that if the clause proposed by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department was adopted, it would impose very grievous and unnecessary disadvantages on many a deserving member of the community, as well as his family.
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that there were two questions involved in this discussion which ought to be kept entirely distinct: the first question was, as to whether any shares or interests in the funds of a friendly society should be allowed to be transferred or not; and the second question was, whether any such share or interest should be transferable by any member of those societies or his family. In the belief then, that the law still remained, and that it would still remain as it was expressed in this clause, it was desirable to retain the enactment, which was framed expressly with the view of preventing speculation among those classes of society to whom it was most mischievous. It was one of the chief duties of the Legislature to take measures for saving such an evil from taking place. It was true that if they had only to do with lawyers, the greater part of the interests of friendly societies would be well taken care of under the provisions of the present law. But in reference to the observation of his hon. Friend opposite, he must beg to observe, that the amount of the property of any contributor to a friendly society's funds, could no more be disposed of than could any one in the receipt of an income legally sell or mortgage his next quarter's salary. He most positively asserted that the transfer of any such power was altogether illegal;

857
nor were there any powers, or any words which at all sustained the opinion that such contributions had been made, or could be made, transferable. But, in order to save the public from such an impression, and to give a sufficient reason for actually preventing the transfer of contributions to the funds of friendly societies, this clause was expressly introduced; and it was partly to remove the impression which seemed to be entertained by his hon. and learned Friend opposite, that he (the Solicitor General) declared that such was the case; and he would emphatically state that the interests of a contributor to a friendly society were not transferable. It was the more necessary that this should be known, because if they allowed one transfer to be made—if they once threw around a transaction of this sort anything like the sanction of legal approval—if they permitted only a single case to occur, there would be no limit to the practice of disposing of those contributions; and the wife and children of the contributor might in the time of sickness, or suffering from accident, be deprived of that relief which was their only reliance. It was consequently necessary to prevent the transfer of those contributions, either by selling, mortgaging, pledging, or otherwise raising money on them for any future period. Though the sums to which this clause referred might seem small to some persons, yet they were of immense importance to the parties concerned; and these individuals might in a moment of thoughtlessness, or actuated by the infatuation of gambling, give up all that, which a month afterwards, in the time of sickness, they would need; and thus the family of a man who relied upon those contributions for their support, would be deprived of all advantage from them. If the House only considered the subject, they would see, that of all the community it was the working portion of the people which was most entitled to protection from the Legislature. He was now desirous of removing the impressions of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Duncombe) respecting the words of the second part of this clause. Whether the words could bear the meaning or not, he (the Solicitor General) believed that they did; it was desirable to put a still more stringent restriction upon the selling or pledging of contributions to friendly societies. But mistakes had arisen in the minds of some persons, which it was necessary to remove. The words had been introduced into the Bill in consequence of
858
an impression that had got abroad, and which had reached the well-informed mind of the hon. Gentleman opposite, that because shares were pledged, sold, and transferred, that such transactions were sanctioned by law. It was also supposed that if any person who had contributed to the funds of a friendly society in London was desirous of removing to some part of Scotland or Ireland, that on doing so he ceased to become a member, and that he would lose his title to his portion of the funds in the hands of the society, and was, consequently, deprived of all right to his former contributions. This was a great mistake, for it was a misapprehension to suppose that he was to lose all his benefit. Although deprived of the right to sell his contributions or to pledge them, yet he would be entitled to receive back the whole worth of his property in the funds. There was no desire to prevent any member of these societies from enjoying those advantages; but the object of the Secretary of State for the Home Department was to hinder the appropriation of the funds of any society towards the support of individuals who had entered into any association or combination for the purpose of supporting persons who were conspiring or combining to raise wages, or had entered into any arrangement to strike for wages. The object of the Amendment, as proposed by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Duncombe) was, in fact, one to be regulated by the rules for governing the society, rather than by the law under which it was established; and he believed it was, in fact, comprised in the rules of most friendly societies now in existence, and came under the control of Mr. Tidd Pratt, who was the proper officer to supervise or introduce it. An hon. Member had stated, that the law relating to friendly societies as it then stood, was very uncertain in its operation. He was not prepared to state, that under the words in the existing Act of Parliament, namely, "for any other purpose not illegal," that the powers of the Act might not be applied to purposes other than those connected with friendly societies; such, for instance, as the hon. Member had suggested. It was because there existed so much uncertainty upon the present laws relating to friendly societies, that he considered some alterations were essentially necessary.
Clause with amendments agreed to.
On Clause 3 being read,
MR. DUNCOMBEinquired if those societies

859
whose rules had been certified by the revising barrister should be taken to be legal societies under this Bill. He conceived that the stricter provisions of the Bill were retrospective, and might break up some of those societies that had been already certified.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, that all the societies which had been established before the passing of the Act would stand on the same legal footing as they would do if the Act had not passed; but in case of any doubt being entertained by any of those parties in consequence of the legal foundation on which they stood, they might under the fifth paragraph of the clause apply to the Secretary of State and Attorney General for a new constitution.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEcontended that to carry that object into effect, the word "or" should be introduced into the clause, so that the Bill might include all the friendly societies whose rules Mr. Tidd Pratt had certified. He moved to insert the word "or."
The Committee divided — Ayes 7; Noes 93: Majority 86.

List of the AYES.

Crawford, W. S.

Strickland, Sir G.

Escott, B.

Williams, W.

O'Connell, D.

TELLERS.

O'Connell, J.

Duncombe, T.

Powell, C.

Evans, Sir De L.

Dist of the NOES.

Ainsworth, P.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Antrobus, E.

Elphinstone, H.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Arkwright, G.

Ewart, W.

Baillie, Col.

Finch, G.

Baillie, H. J.

Forbes, W.

Baine, W.

Fuller, A. E.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Baring, rt. hon. W. B.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Beckett, W.

Granger, T. C.

Bennet, P.

Gregory, W. H.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Grimsditch, T.

Bodkin, W. H.

Grogan, E.

Borthwick, P.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Bowles, Adm.

Hawes, B.

Bramston, T. W.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Broadley, H.

Hayes, Sir E.

Buckley, E.

Henley, J. W.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Herbert, rt. hon. S.

Busfeild, W.

Hope, Sir J.

Cardwell, E.

Hope, G. W.

Carew, W. H. P.

Jermyn, Earl

Chichester, Lord J. L.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Jones, Capt.

Coote, Sir C. H.

Kelly, Sir F.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Kemble, H.

Craig, W. G.

Langston, J. H.

Denison, E. B.

Lawson, A.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Lockhart, W.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

M'Neill, D.

Duncan, G.

Mahon, Visct.

860

Manners, Lord J.

Strutt, E.

Marsland, H.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Meynell, Capt.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Milton, Visct.

Trelawny, J. S.

Morgan, O.

Trench, Sir F. W.

O'Brien, A. S.

Vyse, R. H. R. H.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Waddington, H. S.

Pakington, J. S.

Walker, R.

Patten, J. W.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Rawdon, Col.

Wood, Col.

Rolleston, Col.

Wood, Col. T.

Rutherfurd, A.

Worsley, Lord

Sanderson, R.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Scrope, G. P.

Wrightson, W. B.

Seymour, Sir H. B.

TELLERS.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Young, J.

Spooner, R.

Cripps, T.

Clause to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses to 15 agreed to.
House resumed.
Committee to sit again.

COUNTY ELECTIONS BILL.
MR. ELPHINSTONEmoved the Second Reading of this Bill.
COLONEL THOMAS WOODhad not very closely examined the provisions of the Bill; but so far as he understood the nature of it, he was disposed to oppose it. He thought it would be productive of very serious inconvenience to county voters; and he should move that it be read a second time that day six months.
LORD WORSLEYread the following return of the number of votes recorded at county elections in 1841; showing that a large proportion of the registered constituencies recorded their votes on the first day:—

Counties.

Total Votes Recorded.

First Day's Poll.

Second Day's Poll.

Buckinghamshire

8,579

6,938

1,641

South Essex

5,127

4,218

909

Hertfordshire

6,415

7,919

1,406

South Northamptonshire

5,675

4,825

850

West Yorkshire

49,782

41,499

8,283

North Northumberland

3,480

2,762

718

East Cumberland

5,976

5,377

599

North Lincolnshire

13,743

11,103

2,640

East Sussex

5,302

4,290

1,012

South Derbyshire

11,020

8,645

2,375

South Leicestershire

7,563

6,936

627

East Cornwall

7,456

6,961

495

East Norfolk

8,313

6,863

1,450

He thought that the regulation proposed by the present Bill would be a most wholesome one. He was aware of some instances in which voters, from their ignorance of the law, thought that after having recorded their votes on the first day of an election for one candidate, they were entitled to

861
vote for the other candidate on the next. He assured the House he was aware of instances in which voters expressed their disappointment on being informed, when endeavouring to record their votes for the candidate opposed to the one for whom they had voted on the first day, that they could not be received again, they having already voted. He thought the Bill would prevent such mistakes, and he should most decidedly support it.
MR. NEWDEGATEopposed the Bill, and urged upon the Government and the House not lightly to interfere with the county constituencies pending the investigation upon the subject now going on before a Committee of that House, or hastily to judge of those constituencies by the past, as a criterion for the future, He was sincerely anxious to see the constituencies of the country fairly represented; but if this measure were agreed to, and the election for a county to take place in one day, the Anti-Corn-Law League might crowd the booths with their friends, and so interfere with the fair exercise of the franchise; and if the polling places were made more numerous, the sheriffs' expenses and the expenses of conveying the electors would be increased. He would meet the argument that the greater proportion of votes was taken on the first day, by referring to what had taken place before that House in the present Session. No less than thirty-six petitions had been presented, in the case of contested elections for cities and boroughs; and of these twenty-nine had been decided by Committees, and seven had been withdrawn; while only three had been presented in the case of county elections, of which two had been decided by Committees, and one withdrawn. He thought the Bill would have a mischievous effect, and he should support the Amendment.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, that the arguments urged against the present Bill had also been advanced when the existing system was proposed as an alteration of the Reform Bill. But the experience of limiting elections to one day in boroughs, proved how wholly untenable those arguments were. His experience led him to believe that the desire to place county elections on the same footing was universal. He believed it had been admitted even by the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire, that the whole of that county might be polled in one day.
MR. B. DENISONhad made that admission; but that was not the question.
862
The question was, whether they ought to apply the same ride to counties as to boroughs. If they did, they would undoubtedly deprive a number of out-voters of the opportunity of voting. He, for instance, had a vote in Lincolnshire and in Yorkshire, but could not avail himself of it, if the election for each took place on the same day. He had heard no complaint whatever from county constituencies on the score of the expense; and having been requested by a great number of persons to oppose this Bill, he, for these reasons, had resolved to do so.
SIR J. GRAHAMwished to state shortly his reason for opposing the Bill. He agreed with the hon. Member for Middlesex (Colonel Wood), and did not attach much importance to the question before the House, because practically he did not believe that the measure would have any material effect on the results of county elections. He was about to state the principle which ought in his opinion to guide the decision of the House. He thought it politic to reduce the expenses of contested elections within a certain limit; and that limit was the consideration due to the full and free exercise of the franchise. The paramount consideration was not whether the expenses of candidates could be reduced, but whether such reduction was consistent with the full and free exercise of the franchise. He was bound to say he did not think it was, trying the present measure by that test. He perfectly agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. B. Denison), that the analogy between counties and boroughs could not be sustained. No Bill had ever met with greater approbation than that for abridging the time for elections in boroughs. But it must be observed that residence within seven miles was an indispensable condition of voting in boroughs. In reference to counties, there was no such limitation; and in some counties it appeared that so many as one-fourth of the electors were non-resident. This discussion was in some respects rather a game at cross-purposes; the facts adduced by the noole Lord (Lord Worsley), for the purpose of showing that the number of voters on the second day at various contested elections was so small as not to affect the result, might bear a different construction. He had no idea that the number of voters who voted on the second day was so great. He knew two constituencies—the one the largest in England, Middlesex; and the

863
other the smallest, Rutlandshire—in which the decision of the first day was reversed by that of the second. Speaking generally, no rapidity of communication could compensate for the difficulty stated by the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. B. Denison), that several gentleman had a right to vote in two, three, or four counties; and that they might be precluded from the exercise of their right by means of the proposed restriction. When there was a rule established by which parties were permitted to exercise their rights in more than one county, he did not see why the House should depart from that principle. The period of two days for polling was in favour of the franchise. He saw no advantage to be gained from the adoption of the present measure, except in reducing the expense of contested elections; but he did not think that advantage would be wisely purchased in the present instance. On the whole he was for adhering to the present practice. He was surprised that those who were seeking to enlarge the county constituencies, which could only be done by multiplying the number of outvoters—to which he had no objection, provided they were bonâ fide votes—should wish to abridge the time of polling. He wished to maintain the practice most conducive to a full and free exercise of the franchise. On these grounds he should vote against the second reading.
SIR R. H. INGLISwould venture to say, that in any of the cities or boroughs there was not a circle to be found, of a mile in diameter, which would not contain at least two polling booths; but in the counties the diameter of a circle including two such booths, would not be less than six or seven miles. There was, therefore, little or no analogy between counties or boroughs in this respect to the facility of voting and the communication. In most instances twelve per cent. of the electors lived out of the counties; in some instances twenty-five per cent; the preamble of the Bill should, therefore, set forth that it was not desirable such out-dwellers should have the privilege of exercising the franchise at all. That would be the most honest mode of declaring the intentions of its promoters. He would support the Amendment of his hon. Friend.
MR. ESCOTTsaid, he did not think the Legislature ought to be called upon to alter the present law merely for the purpose of diminishing the expenses of contested elections; but for the purpose of promoting
864
and increasing purity of elections, which he thought the present Bill would, to some extent, achieve. It was because he thought it would have this salutary effect, that he would support the second reading. It was a step in the right direction. He thought that it was generally upon the second day of polling at county elections that unfair practices were resorted to—that bribery and treating generally took place. His gallant Friend (Colonel Wood) might say "no;" but he would say "yes." He dared to say that the electors in Middlesex were very pure; but still he must observe, that it was generally upon the morning of the second day's polling that certain doubtful voters were secured. Upon that day, at contested elections, there was generally a number of these voters hovering about the booths, presenting a great temptation to the candidate who was anxious to secure the first place in the uncertain conflict. In some eases, not merely the waverers were secured by such temptations, but even those who had promised one candidate, were induced to vote for another. He had no doubt but the present Bill would, by shortening the duration of county elections, increase their purity. Those who used corrupt practices to secure their return, were not likely to make useful representatives, or trustworthy public men.
COLONEL SIBTHORPhad listened with great attention to the speeches on both sides, but had not heard it satisfactorily explained how the present Bill was at all consistent with the full and fair exercise of the franchise. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, cautiously avoided that point. He had votes in five different counties, which were widely separated from each other. He was anxious, in the present state of affairs, to record every one of these votes; but, according to the provisions of the Bill, he should find it impossible. The noble Lord complained of the expense attending electioneering contests, and stated that he had stood three of them. He had stood six of them; but he would not be in the least deterred from standing six more such contests. Hon. Members talked censoriously of days gone by, when contested elections were very different matters from what they at present were; but he regretted the day when a check had been put upon the free circulation of the wealth of those who could afford to lose it, and thought the beggarly parsimony of the present time ten times more shabby and

865
wretched than the generous profusion of an antecedent period.
LORD G. BENTINCKsaid: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Winchester has dilated at some length upon the conduct of those voters who say one thing and do another. He talks about those electors who are to be found hovering about the booths on the morning of the second day's polling, and who, he says, are induced to vote contrary to their promises. I hope that hon. and learned Gentleman will apply the principles he has laid down respecting the poor man to his own conduct, and bear in mind that when the Corn Laws are next brought under discussion in this House, he will vote as he promised his constituents he would vote. I hope, Sir, he will not forget how very reprehensible—how disgraceful it is to promise one way, and to vote another. For my own part, Sir, I am not anxious for change where I think change may not improve. I do not think it has been at all shown that the present law works badly, and will, therefore, support the Amendment of my gallant Friend the Member for Middlesex. The hon. Member for Durham argued against the present measure that before the Reform Bill fifteen days were spent in an electioneering contest. I cannot perceive how that argument bears upon the present law, which limits the days for polling to two. There may be an extreme upon one side as well as upon the other. I happen to enjoy a vote in three counties, situate in England and Scotland; but, if the present Bill were to become law, I could not exercise the privilege which the Constitution confers upon me. I will vote against the second reading of the Bill.
MR. ESCOTT: I hope the House will listen to me for a moment. The noble Lord has upon this, as well as upon one or two other occasions, spoken of me in a manner that I am not disposed to endure. All I can say, in reference to the noble Lord's conduct, is, that ignorance is commonly attended with presumption. I will not now enter into the topic to which the noble Lord alluded; but, if he had been "with me last week, the electors of Winchester could have set him right upon a matter in which he seems to be altogether misinformed.
The House divided on the Question that the word "now" stand part of the Question:—Ayes 32; Noes 55: Majority 23.

List of the AYES.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Morris, D.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

O'Connell, J.

Bowring, Dr.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Bright, J.

Parker, J.

Corbally, M. E.

Philips, M.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Power, J.

Escott, B.

Scott, R.

Ewart, W.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Granger, T. C.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Hawes, B.

Strutt, E.

Heneage, E.

Thornely, T.

Howard, P. H.

Ward, H. G.

Langston, J. H.

Wyse, T.

M'Carthy, A.

Yorke, H. R.

Mangles, R. D.

Marsland, H.

TELLERS.

Milton, Visct.

Elphinstone, H.

Moffatt, G.

Worsley, Lord

List of the NOES.

Allix, J. P.

Grogan, E.

Antrobus, E.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Arkwright, G.

Henley, J. W.

Baillie, H. J.

Hotham, Lord

Bennett, P.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Jones, Capt.

Blackburne, J. I.

Kemble, H.

Bodkin, W. H.

Lockhart, W.

Borthwick, P.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Bowles, Adm.

Meynell, Capt.

Broadly, H.

Morgan, O.

Bruce, Lord E.

Norreys, Lord

Buckley, E.

Packe, C. W.

Cardwell, E.

Patten, J. W.

Carew, W. H. P.

Rolleston, Col.

Carnegie, hon. Capt.

Sibthorp, Col.

Christopher, R. A.

Smith, A.

Chute, W. L. W.

Sotherton, T. H. S.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Spooner, R.

Cripps, W.

Sutton, Hon. H. M.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Villiers, Visct.

Finch, G.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Wood, Col. T.

Forbes, W.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Young, J.

Greene, T.

TELLERS.

Gregory, W. H.

Denison, B.

Grimsditch, T.

Newdegate, C. N.

Bill put off six months.
House adjourned at Six o'clock.