HC Deb 16 March 1849 vol 103 cc870-84

On the Question that Mr. Speaker leave the chair, for going into a Committee of Supply,


said, that as the new rules of the House precluded him from bringing forward the two Motions which stood on the Paper, he should abandon for the present that which called upon the House to adopt means to prevent the repeated explosions from fire damp in coal mines, and bring it forward on an early occasion, as he considered it of great importance. The other Motion, which bore more especially on the subject of the estimates, he would now proceed with. He had hoped that Her Majesty's Ministers would not have rendered such a Motion necessary, but would have, in accordance with much previous practice, and more particularly at a moment like the present, have made their annual financial statement. Being reluctant to do so, he thought it was the duty of the House to enforce it. If there was anything unusual or unconstitutional in such a course, he would not press it on the House, But it had been adopted by different Administrations, and he was the more inclined to demand it now, when he recollected that last year they had three, if not four, financial statements before they obtained any general statement of the expected income and expenditure of the country. It was easy for Ministers to calculate within half a million what they expected the revenue to be, and they ought, at least, to have made up their minds as to the expenditure. They received the accounts for the several departments in December, and ought to be in a position to do so. Considering that they had been for some years wasting the capital of the country, and that, at the end of last Session, they were under the necessity of borrowing 2,000,000l., it did appear to him that the first act of the Government before they asked the House to vote one shilling for the expenditure of the country, ought to have been to have stated what the revenue was to be, which they had ample time to ascertain, and what the expenditure, in order that the House might be in a position to decide whether it might not be advisable to effect a reduction of the public burdens. If Ministers were unwilling to make that statement, he must only conclude either that they had not yet made up their minds what the expenditure was to be, or were afraid to set before the public the amount. If hon. Members would only consider that their duty in that House towards the public was to act as trustees for the public funds, in the same way that they would act, if they were prudent men, for themselves, he was sure they would admit the justice of his Motion. The question was no party one, and he addressed himself alike to Whigs, Tories, and Radicals, when he called upon them, as honest and discreet trustees, to act towards the public in the supervision of expenditure, as they would in affairs of their own. He might be told that what he demanded was unusual. If it had never taken place before, he should say that such had been the waste and extravagance, and so heavy the burden of taxation, that the present was the moment when they ought to adopt such a course. It was never too late to do well; but they had numerous precedents for it. The first act of the Whig Government, on acceding to office in 1830, was to introduce a budget. On the 11th of February, Lord Althorp said he considered it his duty to the House to lay before them not only the revenue, but the expenditure, and all charges which the Government intended making. It might be objected that the estimates were not all on the table of the House. But Lord Althorp said, on that occasion, that, although the whole estimates were not on the table, he was anxious to state what reductions Her Majesty's Government had made, and what they intended to do. He wished the present Government would follow that example. Lord Althorp then stated the amount of taxes at 50,000,000l. Last year it was upwards of 59,000,000l., showing an increase of taxation of nearly 10,000,000l., although the noble Lord at the head of the Government declared, in 1830, that retrenchment, non-interference with foreign States, economy, and reform, were to be the grounds and principles upon which the Government was to act. That declaration, which was repeated in the other House by Earl Grey, gave great satisfaction to the country at the time. It was acted on by Lord Althorp, but abandoned by succeeding Administrations until now, when, instead of enjoying that relief from taxation which a time of peace ought to give, we were burdened with 10,000,000l. additional. Now, he said. Lord Althorp, and the Whig Government of that day, having adopted that course before calling on the House to vote one single shilling, the House was bound to call upon Her Majesty's present Government to do the same. Much, however, of the objection which he entertained to the expenditure of the Government with which Lord Althorp was connected was at that time relaxed, because the Government were carrying on measures of reform calculated to benefit the people. He confessed, however, that his hon. Friend behind him was right when he had stated that he (Mr. Hume) had been "hoodwinked," and that, in fact, the House and the country had been induced to assent to that increased expenditure in the same way as Samson's locks had been shorn by Delilah. Now, Lord Althorp made his statement on the 11th of February, and did not move his estimates until the 18th, when the House had before them a full statement of the expected revenue and expenditure of the country, and were, therefore, in a much better position to consider those estimates. That precedent alone justified his present Motion. But he was fortified by others. In 1841 the budget was brought forward on the 14th of February; the first estimate voted was on the 1st of March. In 1846, the budget was introduced on the 29th of May, and no estimate taken till the 24th July. In 1847, the budget was brought forward on the 22nd February, the first estimate on the 1st of March; and last year, on the 18th of February, the noble Lord, in a most elaborate speech, introduced his never-to-be-forgotten budget, but did not ask for a vote of money until the 20th. A storm then arose, and led to results which proved of what squeezable materials Governments were made. Whig or Tory, it was all alike; and he called upon every Member who was anxious to relieve the country from its heavy burdens, to aid him in putting the screw upon the present Government with that object. It was complained by some hon. Gentlemen that he and his hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire were proposing to take off taxes without providing the means. Now, the noble Lord, in his budget of last year, gave them the following estimate:—

£. £.
Funded Debt 27,778,000
Unfunded Debt 752,600
Consolidated Fund charges 2,750,000
Kafir war 1,100,000
Naval excess last year 245,000
Navy 7,726,610
Army 7,162,996
Ordnance 2,924,838
Miscellaneous 4,006,000
Militia 150,000
Total 54,596,044
In eighteen years from the time Lord Althorp introduced his Motion, what had we arrived at? With the Reform Bill, he had hoped to obtain a proper check on expenditure; he would never have asked for reform of that House, but that there might be a stricter and more careful consideration of the interests of the community at large, in respect, first, to that which immediately touched every man—the finances of the country—and then in respect to those other matters on which the prosperity and happiness of the country depended. He regretted not the efforts he had made to obtain reform. By the Reform Bill, power had been wrested from the borough mongers, and given to the Crown; for neither King nor Queen could then rule this country but through the oligarchy, who then had power. That power had been placed in the hands of the middle-class electors; and if they had neglected their duty, he was glad they were made to smart for it. He wished he could throw the whole weight of the taxation on those corrupt men who had sacrificed the trust reposed in them, and had suffered the country to labour under a taxation of 59,000,000l. sterling. Adding to this the 12,000,000l. of which the hon. Member for Bucks complained, with other items, it need not be matter of surprise that this country was in difficulties with such an enormous amount taken from its industry. The time was come for the public to open their eyes; already there was a glimmering of light from Liverpool, which he hoped would rapidly spread and enlighten all the boroughs and counties in the kingdom. The House was, therefore, called on to ask the Government to do that which had been done of their own accord by Lord Althorp, and also by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, who, in his statement on the 14th of February, 1845, said— Whatever might be the precedents, and whatever might be the ordinary course as to financial statements, he felt he had no alternative but, at the earliest day, to submit to the House and the country the general views of Her Majesty's Government with respect to our financial position and our future commercial policy. Sir, it will be my duty to present to the House a general view of the present financial position of the country, to make an estimate of the probable revenue, and to discuss the great question, whether it be consistent with the public interest that the present amount of expenditure should be retained. He wanted the Government now to do the same—to follow this good example, and to ask the House, after stating the amount of the proposed expenditure, whether it was fit it should be maintained? In asking this, he asked nothing unreasonable. No man could be the worse for having before him a fair debtor and creditor account. If the Government had made out a balance-sheet, let them produce it; if not, let them be compelled to make one. The right hon. Baronet proceeded— I will first give you an estimate of the financial expenditure made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year. The revenue estimate was 51,790,000l.; the expenditure, 48,643,000l,; leaving a surplus of 3,147,000l. By the balance-sheet of 5th January, 1845, the surplus was 3,357,000l., and the revenue was 54,003,000l. Every one who heard that statement must have approved of it. The country Gentlemen seemed to fancy that he (Mr. Hume) was no friend to the farmers; but he would give them a piece of good advice. Let them lay aside all party feeling, and discuss this matter as one in which they were all alike interested. They ought to do so for their own interests, for they were likely to want relief before long, and the only way in which they could obtain it was by a large reduction of taxation. He would not now enter into the question of establishments; that would be for subsequent consideration. He should take the sense of the House on his Motion; and if he fortunately succeeded in carrying it, Government would only have to postpone the estimates until they had made up such an account as he desired. At the same time, not being anxious to throw difficulties in their way, he should be happy to vote a reasonable sum on account until this statement was before the House. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Amendment of which he had given notice.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair."

Amendment proposed— To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, in the present state of the Finances of the Country, Her Majesty's Ministers, before calling on this House to vote the Estimates for the Public Service, should submit a general financial Statement of the whole or expected Revenues, and the total intended Expenditure for the ensuing financial years.'


seconded the Motion, and felt much pleasure in being able to adopt that course of proceeding. When the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose proposed to reduce so many millions of taxation, he (Sir H. Willoughby) was not able to see into what way that course would lead him, and consequently, must decline to vote with the hon. Gentleman; but when he made a Motion to effect an economical administration of the public finances, then he had great pleasure in following him. He thought the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose had settled the question of precedent; and, therefore, he should not refer to the course taken either by Sir Robert Peel, Lord Althorp, or Lord John Russell, but should proceed to state the reasons that, in his mind, furnished a justification for the course pointed out by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose. His first reason for following in that course was to be found in what had happened during the last Session of Parliament. After a variety of statements, the financial policy adopted consisted in running more deeply into debt. The only ray of light which had been thrown upon their finances was thrown upon them during the debate on the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer made some observations and threw out some hints as to the state of the public finances of the kingdom. The object of the right hon. Gentleman was to show that it was probable that the income and expenditure of the present year, 1849–50, would be equal. Now, he (Sir H. Willoughby) wished to impress upon the House that the probability lay the other way. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer took the income of the year at fifty-two millions and a quarter, and he agreed with him in that calculation. The right hon. Gentleman guessed that the expenditure would be fifty-two millions and a half; but he thought it was more likely the annual expenditure would be fifty-four millions and a quarter. Should it fortunately happen that no more expense would be required on account of the Kaffirs, there was an expensive contest impending with the Sikhs—and as to the Irish distress, it would be difficult to place a limit upon the amount that would be required in addition to the 50,000l. already voted. He was sorry to see that the estimates were becoming less and less an index of the real expenditure of the country. In the years 1846 and 1847 an excess in the naval expenditure of 145,260l. took place; in 1847 and 1848, the excess was 245,411l.; in 1848 and 1849, it would be 323,787l. This course was altogether opposed to the terms of the 26th clause of the Appropriation Act, which required that the sums granted should not be exceeded. He would illustrate the opposite practice by an example. In February, 1847, 811,304l was voted; 883,620l. was spent, showing an excess of expenditure of 72,316l. Of this sum, 52,316l. was spent upon dockyard battalions. Now, on the same day, the hon. the Secretary of the Admiralty obtained a vote for that purpose of 20,000l.; and yet 72,316l. was spent without the shadow of authority. He thought it exceedingly desirable that in this, the thirty-fourth year of peace, the country should not get into debt; and this was all the more necessary as he found that the debt had been increased from 7,000,000l. to 8,000,000l. since 1847. It was equally important that they should have a fair outline of the income and expenditure of the country before they passed the estimates. When they passed the estimates, they had nothing to do but to pay, and the House should exercise the greatest vigilance before they performed those acts that would be really and finally conclusive. He trusted that hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House would have no hesitation in supporting a Motion which directly affected the economical administration of the finances of the country.


said, he was aware that almost every discussion which preceded a Motion for going into Committee on the Estimates was of a very discursive character, and was not confined to the precise question before the House. He believed, however, that he would best consult the convenience of the House if he abstained from following either his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose or the hon. Member for Evesham into some of the extraneous topics to which they had referred. He should, therefore, confine his observations as much as possible to the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose—that a general and accurate financial statement should be made to the House before it proceeded to vote the estimates. He said a general and accurate statement, because as regarded a probable estimate of the income and expenditure of the year, the House would remember that he had already given such an estimate. Now, that was not a new proposal of his hon. Friend, who had frequently before called on them to reverse the immemorial practice of the House of considering the Supplies before they considered the Ways and Means. But he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would confess that the more he became acquainted with the rules which regulated the conduct of business in that House, the more did he become convinced of the wisdom of those rules which had been sanctioned by the experience of ages. It appeared to him, that if their merchants were to require protection for their trade, it would be but a sorry answer to give them that they could not receive that protection, because the customs revenue might happen to be falling off at the time. He doubted whether a refusal to send the necessary protection to our trade, would tend to improve the revenue, a falling-off in which would be the justification offered by his hon. Friend for not making an adequate provision for the national security. His hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Evesham had compared the mode of managing the public income and expenditure to the mode of managing the estate of a private individual. Now, it was certainly true that in many respects there was a great resemblance between the financial affairs of an individual and those of a nation; but it so happened that in the instance then under their consideration they were not only not alike, but they were diametrically opposed to each other. His hon. Friend had said, that if, from accidental circumstances, the income of an individual increased, that individual would be justified in increasing his expenditure. But it had always been laid down in that House—and he entirely concurred in the doctrine—that no improvement in the national revenue could justify the slightest unnecessary expenditure. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had strongly laid down that doctrine in the year 1845, when he had 5,000,000l. of surplus revenue. The right hon. Baronet had then said, in that speech to which his hon. Friend had referred, that he did not think the circumstance of his having that surplus revenue would justify any addition to the national expenditure, beyond what the circumstances of the country might absolutely require. The great consideration which regulated the expenditure of an individual was the income which he expected to receive. But he was sure his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose would admit that no circumstance could justify a Government in incurring any unnecessary expenditure; and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) should feel himself imperatively called upon to remove any amount of taxation which was not necessary for the due maintenance of the national establishments. He very much doubted whether, if his hon. Friend were to find that he could reduce his expenditure by parting with horses and carriages, he would therefore go to his tenants and tell them that as he was able to reduce his expenditure, he would reduce the fair and reasonable rents which they had previously paid. He did not think that was the course which his hon. Friend would pursue; and yet if that was the course it would be the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pursue under analogous circumstances, if the national income was more than sufficient to cover the expenditure, allowing a fair margin for unforeseen charges, it would be the manifest duty of the Finance Minister of the day to give the people some remission of the burdens of taxation. The circumstances which governed the income and expenditure of a country were therefore, so far, in direct opposition to the circumstances which governed the income and expenditure of a private individual. His hon. Friend had quoted cases in which financial statements had been made at an early period of the Session; but he would find that such a practice had never been adopted except when it was proposed either to impose or to renew some large amount of taxation; and the financial statements then made were submitted to the House for the purpose of justifying some unusual measure. In the year 1845, for instance, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had made his financial statement on the 14th of February, because he then proposed a continuance of the income tax, which would otherwise have expired on the 5th of April. And in the year 1842, the right hon. Baronet had made his financial statement on the 11th of March, because he then proposed to impose an income tax. Again, his noble Friend at the head of the present Government had last year made his financial statement at an early period of the Session, because he then proposed to continue the same tax. But his hon. Friend would find that, under ordinary circumstances, the general practice of Ministers in this country had been to reserve their financial statements until a late period of the Session. His hon. Friend would find that even in the year 1835—the pattern year to which his hon. Friend and the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire were so fond of referring—his hon. Friend would find that in that year the financial statement had been made at so late a period as the 14th of August. His hon. Friend had quoted the words of a noble Lord, in the admiration of whose character they all agreed—namely, the late Lord Althorp. But that noble Lord, in making his financial statement in the month of February, 1831, had told the House that he could only form his estimates in a general manner, and that it would be quite idle for him to pretend to anything like accuracy as to the amount of expenditure in the following year. When his hon. Friend told them that the House could have no notion of what might be the probable expenditure of the year, and that Ministers either had not made up their minds on the subject, or that they were afraid of stating what the amount might be, he felt it his duty to remind his hon. Friend that the House had already received the estimates for the throe great services, and that they were already aware of nine-tenths, or more, of the whole expenditure of the country. Besides, he had himself stated in general terms that the probable amount of the miscellaneous estimates could not be very far short of those of last year; and he had stated in those general terms, which alone were possible, according to Lord Althorp, at an early period of the Session, what he believed would be the total expenditure of the year. He could not do better than quote the language of the right hon. Member for Stamford, which contained the sound principle which ought to guide the House on this subject, and which he found in a statement made by that right hon. Gentleman before the Committee on Public Income and Expenditure in 1828. The right hon. Gentleman said— My opinion is, that a careful investigation of the expenditure is, in point of order, the first object of an inquiry such as we are now engaged in; because, I conceive that where the revenue of the country is wholly derived from taxation, the extent of it must be regulated entirely by the necessity of the expenditure which is to be provided for; the exigencies of the State, for the maintenance of its safety and honour, and the promotion of its essential interests, well understood, constitute the limits beyond which no contribution should be drawn from the people of this country. The revenue, upon this principle, ought to be adapted to the expenditure, not the expenditure to the revenue; and I should, therefore, consider that our first step should be to ascertain the narrowest limits within which the annual charges for the public service could be confined, and afterwards to examine how far the revenue which we now possess be or be not sufficient, or more than sufficient, for such an expenditure. It was impossible to state in clearer language the principles which had always regulated the proceedings of the House. If all his hon. Friend wanted was a general idea of the probable expenditure, he had given that already. A detailed statement it was not in his power to furnish; and this he understood his hon. Friend not to require. He, therefore, invited his hon. Friend to a discussion of the estimates; and the Government would be perfectly willing to listen to any proposal which the hon. Member, or any other hon. Gentleman, might have for reduction—and state the reasons on which they justified the outlay. When this had been done—of course it would be his duty to state the ways and means by which he proposed to meet that expenditure. He begged to repeat the assurance which he had given on a former evening—that, with the estimates proposed to the House, and assuming the miscellaneous estimates to be of the same amount as last year, they might securely rely that the expenditure of the country would be within the income. That was the turning point of the information afforded by the budget; that information he had already given to the House, although he was unable to state in accurate detail how that would be made up. The hon. Member said that last year there had been several financial statements. But they were engaged in an attempt to reduce the public expenditure, and as soon as they had ascertained to what extent they could go, a statement was made, founded on the experience which had elapsed since the first statement of the Government. But when the hon. Member talked of the regular period at which the financial statement had been made in former years, he must remember that, originally, the period, before the change made by Lord Althorp, began on the 5th January—and a considerable portion of the financial year had elapsed before the statement was made. It now began on the 5th April, and his hon. Friend was, in fact, calling upon him to state the prospects of the year before the year had begun. If he would refer to the experience of the last twelve or fifteen years, he would find not a single instance of a statement before April, with the exception of the time when a measure was to be introduced for creating a large addition to the taxation of the country. He really should have thought that, engaged as they were at that moment in endeavouring to revise the estimates, with the view of keeping them down to the lowest point, the experience of the past year might have shown the impolicy of attempting to make a correct statement at so early a period. It was not till somewhere about August that they had brought the expenditure to so complete a state as to enable him to make an accurate statement of the expenditure of the year. With regard to reduction, no persons could be more anxious than the present Government to make all practicable reductions. At that moment they were engaged in revising all the minor estimates which were not yet on the table, and he was anxious not to produce them till they had carried reduction as far as they thought possible, consistently with a due regard to the public service. His hon. Friend might rest assured that he would not facilitate the progress of real economy, by calling for a regular statement, until it was in the power of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give it. He again repeated that he had already stated in general terms the prospects of the year, and this was all his hon. Friend professed to ask. If the hon. Member, therefore, adhered to that, his Motion was utterly useless, and on that ground he called on the House to allow the Government to go into a Committee of Supply. The Motion of his hon. Friend either asked an impossibility or was calculated to delay the progress of public business, which must be prejudicial to his hon. Friend equally with the Government, inasmuch as it would prevent him from proposing those reductions in Committee of Supply which he thought essential to the interests of the country.


said, he should be disposed to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose, but that he found him almost invariably supporting the party with whom he now found fault, and he remembered the old saying Noscitur esociis. As to the professions of the Government, when he saw them, with no surplus, guilty of such extravagance, he could not believe that they were bonâ fide intent on reduction. He had heard a great deal of the sound principles of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth. Oh Lord! He could only say that they were diametrically opposed to what he regarded as sound principles. If the hon. Member for Montrose would give him his assurance that he would not listen to the persuasive language of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but go to a division—[Mr. HUME: Hear, hear!]—he would support him, and put the soundness of his principles to the proof.


said that the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, was not a very satisfactory one. The right hon. Gentleman said that his hon. Friend proposed what was impossible.


said that what he stated was that he could not give an accurate account before the 5th of April.


But where was the necessity of voting the supplies before the 5th of April? Even if it were impossible to postpone them till after that period, they might at least have an approximate estimate of the expenditure and sources of income before the 5th of April. He wanted to have the whole estimate of expenditure and income before them, but they did not get that. They got the Army, Navy and Ordnance Estimates, but they had not got the Miscellaneous Estimates yet. The right hon. Gentleman made use of one argument which seemed to him to be very extraordinary—namely, that they probably might be in a state of war; that the enemy's fleet might be ravaging the coast—[The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: No. no!] Certainly the right hon. Gentleman made use of that argument.["No, no."] Surely he did not misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman.


You do indeed.


could not see how he misrepresented his right hon. Friend, for he surely put the possible case of an enemy ravaging the coast. That was the first argument used by him. It assumed that after 34 years of peace they were about to go to war. This constant tendency of considering war as the normal state of society was what he objected to. At all events, while they were at peace, let them have the advantage of peace. Let them have, at the beginning of the Session, the estimate of what the income and expenditure were likely to be. Although he admitted that the affairs of the nation were different from those of an individual, inasmuch as it might not be always in their power to confine the expenditure of a nation within its estimated income, yet, even in the affairs of a nation, the expenditure must in some measure be regulated by the income, because there was a limit to the income of a nation. When the nation at large was calling out for a reduction of expenditure, they ought to have the case placed plainly before them; and if they had the whole estimates before them, they would be the better able to judge, by reference to the sources of income, whether they could fairly and legitimately vote the expenditure, than they could when they were in total ignorance where the income was to come from. The right hon. Gentleman knew from fortnight to fortnight what the progress of the income was—he knew what the progress of the excise and customs was. It appeared to him that it was for the House and country also to know as far as possible the state of the national resources. Surely there was nothing unreasonable in that. He did not propose to embarrass Government, or to throw any impediment or inconvenience in their way, by refusing to vote money on account. He hoped, therefore, his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose would press his Motion, and, if unsuccessful now, he trusted he would move at another time a substantive Motion, that on all future occasions before the vote of supply an approximate estimate should be given of the income and expenditure of the country.


explained that he had not said anything upon the present occasion which referred to the possibility or practicability of war. He merely put the case as an illustration, without reference to the present or any other time, in order to show how impossible it would be, under certain circumstances, to arrive at any accurate conclusion as to the amount which might be required. He said it would be a sorry answer to those persons who might be injured by a want of proper protection, to tell them that the revenue was falling off, and that therefore they could have no protection. That was all he had intended to convey.


said, that if the right hon. Baronet had read his resolution he would see that he did not ask for an accurate account. There was the instance of Lord Althorp in 1834, and subsequently, of Mr. Goulburn, for the course he proposed.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

House divided:—Ayes 97; Noes 48: Majority 49.

List of the AYES.
Abdy, T. N. Brooke, Sir A. B.
Acland, Sir T. D. Brotherton, J.
Adair, R. A. S. Brown, W.
Anson, hon. Col. Bruce, Lord E.
Arundel and Surrey, Earl of Burrell, Sir C. M.
Carter, J. B.
Baines, M. T. Cayley, E. S.
Baring, rt. hon. F. T. Chichester, Lord J. L.
Bernal, R. Clive, hon. R. H.
Blackall, S. W. Corry, rt. hon. H. L.
Boyle, hon. Col. Cowper, hon. W. F.
Cubitt, W. Mulgrave, Earl of
Dundas, Adm. Mullings, J. R.
Elliot, hon. J. E. Nugent, Sir P.
Farrer, J. Paget, Lord A.
Ferguson, Sir R. A. Palmerston, Visct.
Forbes, W. Parker, J.
French, F. Patten, J. W.
Galway, Visct. Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E. Pinney, W.
Gordon, Adm. Pugh, D.
Grace, O. D. J. Raphael, A.
Granger, T. C. Rice, E. R.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. Romilly, Sir J.
Haggitt, F. R. Russell, Lord J.
Hastie, A. Russell, F. C. H.
Henley, J. W. Sandars, G.
Herbert, H. A. Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.
Herbert, rt. hon. S. Smith, J. A.
Hervey, Lord A. Smollett, A.
Heywood, J. Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.
Hodges, T. L. Spearman, H. J.
Hogg, Sir J. W. Stafford, A.
Hope, Sir J. Strickland, Sir G.
Howard, Lord E. Tennent, R. J.
Howard, hon. C. W. G. Thicknesse, R. A.
Howard, P. H. Thompson, Ald.
Jermyn, Earl Thornely, T.
Kildare, Marq. of Townshend, Capt.
Labouchere, rt. hon. H. Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Langsten, J. H. Ward, H. G.
Lascelles, hon. W. S. Watkins, Col. L.
Lewis, rt. hon. Sir T. F. Wilson, J.
Littleton, hon. E. R. Wodehouse, E.
Mahon, The O'Gorman Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Maule, rt. hon. F. Wyvill, M.
Milner, W. M. E. Young, Sir J.
Milnes, R. M.
Morgan, H. K. G. TELLERS.
Morison, Sir W. Tufnell, H.
Morris, D. Hill, Lord M.
List of the NOES.
Aglionby, H. A. King, hon. P. J. L.
Archdall, Capt. M. Lacy, H. C.
Baldwin, C. B. Meagher, T.
Bennet, P. Martin, J.
Blewitt, R. J. Moffatt, G.
Bouverie, hon. E. P. Molesworth, Sir W.
Cobden, R. Mowatt, F.
Duncan, G. Muntz, G. F.
Duncuft, J. O'Connell, J.
Ellis, J. Osborne, R.
Ewart, W. Pechell, Capt.
Floyer, J. Perfect, R.
Gibson, rt. hon. T. M. Pilkington, J.
Greenall, G. Scholefield, W.
Greene, J. Sibthorp, Col.
Gwyn, H. Sidney, Ald.
Harris, R. Smith, J. B.
Hastie, A. Stuart, Lord D.
Heald, J. Thompson, Col.
Henry, A. Waddington, H. S.
Heyworth, L. Walmsley, Sir J.
Hindley, C. Williams, J.
Hodgson, W. N.
Horsman, E. TELLERS.
Humphery, Ald. Hume, J.
Kershaw, J. Willoughby, Sir H.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Supply considered in Committee.