§ COLONEL SIBTHORP
rose to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice, relative to relieving the tenant-farmers from the operation of the income tax. He wished some abler Member, and one more competent to enter into the details of the question, had brought forward this Motion. The tenants were suffering from free trade, and they were less able than almost any other class to bear the losses to which they were exposed by the operation of the new system of commercial policy. He wished the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would relieve him from the necessity of bringing forward this Motion, from his own sense of what was due to the tenant-farmers and justice, by acceding at once to his proposition, and thus relieve him and his hon. Friends who attended in that House from a tiresome speech, and an unsatisfactory speech on the part of himself, because of the weak efforts he was only able to make 162 in favour of the Motion. But as he despaired of this proceeding, he should submit his Motion to the House. Ho had been asked why he selected this particular period? He did so because he found that it would give relief to Scotland and England equally. He knew he should he met, and fairly met, by a statement from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the period of three years would expire in April, 1851. If the right hon. Gentleman would assure him—he did not wish to bind the right hon. Gentleman to an impossibility—that during the recess he would look into the whole matter and give it his serious consideration, and that if lie found sufficient reason be would be disposed to give relief to that class of persons for whom he humbly, deeply, and earnestly entreated sympathy—to the tenant-farmers of the country—if the right hon. Gentleman would do that, and hold out a hope of the probability of the removal of this tax, lie would not trespass on the time of the House or of the right hon. Gentleman. But as ho was afraid the right hon. Gentleman was not disposed to give him such an assurance instanter, he must take the liberty to lay before the House the grounds on which he conceived ho was justified in resting his Motion, to which he trusted his hon. Friends in that House would give their support, and thus bring the light hon. Gentleman to a sense of duty, which, however, he would rather see emanate from the right hon. Gentleman from a sense on his part of what was right, and what ought to be granted to those for whom he now ventured to plead. He did not wish to speak ill of any man who had ever sat on the Treasury bench. Though it was his duty to differ from a deceased statesman—the late Sir Robert Peel, to whom ho gave the utmost credit for the exercise of every duty in private life, and with whose family he deeply sympathised in their bereavement—still, as a public servant, and remembering what had passed in that House during the period the right hon. Baronet held, he might say, the most important situation in the country—recollecting what had taken place, and what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet, which led to those great disappointments felt by all in the House and everybody in the country—except the free-traders, certainly by the great and important agricultural body—landlord, tenant, and, not least important, the labouring class, he was bound to call the attention of the House to facts, 163 He well recollected when the late right hon. Baronet in February, 1842, brought in his first Corn Law Amendment Bill, the price of wheat was 56s. 11d.; it was now 36s. 4d. At that time the right hon. Baronet calculated the remunerating price of wheat to be from 54s. to 58s. per quarter. The right hon. Baronet considered his Bill to be an amendment of the existing corn laws—which many on his (Col. Sibthorp's) side of the House thought was anything but an amendment—but, in reality, a violation of those rights and engagements admitted by every statesman, Mr. Huskisson and others; he recollected the words which the right hon. Baronet used to introduce his measure, and he would read them to the House. The right hon. Baronet commenced by saying—Sir, I rise in pursuance of the notice which I have given, to submit to the House the views of Her Majesty's Government with respect to the modification and amendment of those laws which regulate the import of foreign corn.The right hon. Baronet went on to say—I am aware of the difficulties which encompass the subject I am about to bring under the consideration of the House. With regard to a matter in respect to which such adverse opinions prevail, it is difficult to discuss it without making statements or admissions which will be seized on by those who entertain opposite opinions; but I feel that the best course I can pursue is to submit to the House the considerations which influenced the judgment and decision of Her Majesty's Government, and to leave them to be decided on by the reason, moderation, and judgment of Parliament." "The only object which I shall aim at in bringing this subject under the consideration of the House will be to state, as clearly and intelligibly as I can, the considerations which have induced Her Majesty's Government in reference to the nature of the measure I am about to propose. One other object I shall aim at—namely, to discuss this question, affecting such mighty interests, in a temper and spirit conformable with its great importance, bearing in mind how easy it is on each side to raise exaggerated apprehensions, and find inflammatory topics by which the feelings of the people may be excited. Her Majesty's Government have deemed it their duty to consider the corn laws with a view to their modification and amendment. They undertake the consideration of this question at a period when there is commercial distress, and when there exist great suffering and privations connected with that distress. But I feel it my duty, in the first place, to declare, that after having given to this subject the fullest consideration in my power, I cannot recommend the proposal which I have to make by exciting a hope that it will tend materially and immediately to the mitigation of that commercial distress. While I admit the existence of commercial distress—while I deplore the sufferings which it has occasioned, and sympathise with those who have un fortunately been exposed to privations, yet I feel bound to declare that I cannot attribute the dis- 164 tress—to the extent in which it was by some supposed to be imputable—to the operation of the corn laws. I do not view with those feelings of despondency with which some are inclined to regard them, the commercial prospects of this country" "But looking at the general state of the commerce of this country, I neither see grounds for that despondency, with which some are in the habit of viewing it, nor can I see any ground for imputing to the operation of the corn laws, as some do, any material share in the evils at present existing. I think we are too apt to assume that there must be a constant and rapid increase in the amount of our exports to other countries; and we are too apt to despond when we find any occasional check in the amount of our exports. We decline to compare the extent of our commerce in the last year with a period of time more distant than the preceding-year. We insist on comparing it with the year immediately preceding, and if there appears a decline, we are too apt to apprehend that the sources of our prosperity are dried up. At all periods of our commercial history there have been these alternations of prosperity and depression. The latest period to which the returns respecting our trade are fully made up will include the year 1840; and comparing the state of trade in 1840 with its condition in preceding years, during the operation of the corn laws, I see no ground for the inference sometimes drawn, that the corn laws are the cause of our misfortunes, and that the repeal or alteration of them will supply an immediate remedy.I refer to this for the purpose of confirming my impression, that to look for any rapid or great change in the condition of the working population of this country from any extensive change of the corn laws, would subject you to great disappointment. My firm belief is—-I am now speaking with reference to those who wish for an absolute repeal of these laws—that if the House of Commons should be induced to pledge itself to a total repeal, which we on this side of the House deprecate so much, without relieving permanently the manufactures of the country, you will only super-add the severest agricultural distress. Any such disturbance of agriculture as must follow from a total repeal of the corn laws would, in my opinion, lead to unfavourable results, not only with respect to the agriculturists themselves, but also to all those numerous classes who are identified with them in interest.The right hon. Baronet went on to say—Nothing can be more difficult than to attempt to determine the amount of protection required for the home producer.With reference to the probable remunerating price, I should say that for the protection of the agricultural interest, as far as I can possibly form a judgment, if the price of wheat in this country, allowing for its natural oscillations, could be limited to some such amount as between 54s. and 58s., I do not believe that it is for the interest of the agriculturist that it should be higher.The average was now much under 40s. Further on the right hon. Baronet said—My belief, and the belief of my colleagues, is, that it is important for this country—that it is of the highest importance to the welfare of all classes in this country, that you should take care that 165 the main sources of your supply of corn should he derived from domestic agriculture; while we also feel that any additional price which you may pay in effecting that object is an additional price which cannot be vindicated as a bonus or premium to agriculture, hut only on the ground of its being advantageous to the country at large."—Hansard (3rd Series), Vol. lx., pp. 201, 206, 212, 213,225,232.Those were the statements in 1842 which they heard from the right hon. Baronet. The protection which he wished to give was not protection to any particular class. His belief, and the belief of his colleagues was, that it was important to this country, and to all classes, that care should be taken that the main source of our supply of corn should be derived from domestic agriculture, and that any additional price which was paid in effecting that object would be counterbalanced by the general gain in other respects. The words of the right hon. Baronet were, that it was essentially necessary to give protection to domestic agriculture; and from the official quotations which could be referred to, it would be seen that the increasing imports from foreign countries continued to depress, and would ultimately annihilate, the productions of this country. In June, 1842, the right hon. Baronet brought in a Bill which granted to Her Majesty an income tax on the property of the country for three years. The tax was to cease in April, 1845; it was renewed from time to time, and it would expire on the 5th of April, 1851. He wished some hon. Member, between 1842 and 1851, had introduced a Bill to effect the removal or the cessation of the tax on those important branches of our national industry. If they looked at the agriculture of the country from 1842 to 1850, they would find a constant depression arising from the importation, not only of grain, but of cattle and everything connected with agricultural produce. It deprived the farmers of this country of the chance of a fair remunerative price for their produce. These importations had thrown out of employment a class of persons whom the late right hon. Baronet, of whom he had been speaking, was very much disposed to maintain; and they had tended to increase crime, which hunger compelled that class of men to commit. He might show the amount of corn, cattle, butter, cheese, and other agricultural produce that had been imported into the country'; but he did not think it necessary to read to the House at that time the heap of documents which he had at his side, in 166 order to do this if required. It would be enough to show them that there were strong grounds for asking for this boon, small though it was, for the cultivators of the soil, who in the present state of their affairs knew not where they were, far less where they would be some years hence. On looking at the immense importations that had taken place into this country, he found that in 1847, 1848, and 1849, being three years, they amounted to 18,574,249 quarters of wheat, barley, and oats. In the period of eight years, from 1842 to 1849, the importations amounted to 206,422,739 quarters: this was exclusive of 1850. From these facts, he conceived that there were good grounds for bringing forward his Motion. He would be told by the hon. Members for the West Riding or for Manchester, that there was no distress in the country; but it was only four nights ago that the hon. Member had grounded his objection to the large provision made for the family of the Duke of Cambridge on the distress of the country. He believed, however, that there was no Member of that House who would say that there was not great distress in the agricultural parts of the country; but, should there be, he would ask him why were the farmers unable to produce and to have those necessaries of life which they complained they had not? He might also be told that the Motion for removing the tax applied to a comparatively small number of persons; but what right could there be for calling on any number of men, more or less, to pay that for which they had received no adequate return, and which they had not the means that others had to pay. He did not call upon his right hon. Friend to abolish all taxation. He knew that a large sum was necessary to support the establishments of the country; but what he asked was, for a more equitable adjustment of that taxation. He asked the Government to look at home—not to consider the interest of the foreigner so much, and of the British farmer so little; and, whilst all proper attention was paid to trade and commerce, to have some little regard to the tillers of the soil. He made this appeal, not on behalf of the wealthy and influential—not on behalf of the aristocracy or gentry—but on behalf of that distressed and suffering class, the tenant-farmers of England, lie did not ask for anything novel or extraordinary; he asked the Government, if they did not at once accede to his Motion, to promise that they would 167 take the subject into their serious consideration, so that this suffering body might entertain a reasonable expectation that something would be done for them during the next Session of Parliament. If, however, the Government did not accede to these suggestions, he told them plainly and frankly that he would bring forward the question in the next Session of Parliament. He would again and again renew his application to the House, and endeavour to force upon the Government and the House the necessity of acting justly towards a large and respectable and most useful class of their fellow subjects.
Motion made, and Question put—
That, from and after the 20th day of September next, the Duties payable under Schedule B of the Income Tax Acts shall cease and determine.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
thought the hon. and gallant Member seemed himself to feel that whatever Motion he might think proper to bring forward upon this subject should be made next year. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) need hardly remind the House, that to relieve any class of the community from income tax would be inconsistent with the whole principle upon which that tax was levied. It had always been held that no one class ought to be taxed unless all were taxed—that all persons having incomes at and beyond a certain amount ought to be made to contribute, in proportion, to the necessities of the State, and that all persons not having such an amount of income ought to be entirely exempted. Therefore it would, in his opinion, be unjust and a breach of faith to exempt any one class. If the profits of farmers were not taxed, the manufacturers would at once, and with fairness, claim an equal exemption. Other classes would also complain that they were unduly burdened, and the result would be that the tax must be altogether abandoned or maintained as it at present stood. However, as the hon. and gallant Member intimated his intention of bringing the subject forward next Session, which would be the proper time for mooting any question connected with the mode of levying this tax upon tenant-farmers—and there were many such questions—it would probably be more consonant with the wishes of the House that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) should refrain from saying more upon the subject now; and he hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not 168 think it necessary to give the House the trouble of dividing.
§ MR. BUCK
was very glad his hon. and gallant Friend had brought the subject under the consideration of the House, and hoped it would attract the serious attention of the Government during the recess. He believed there was no class of men in any country suffering more deeply than the tenant-farmers of England at the present moment. There was scarcely a tenant-farmer in England who had not for the last two or three years been paying the income tax, not out of his profits, for he made none, but along with his losses. He much regretted to find that the Government did not sympathise with the sufferings of that class—had they done so, and even promised that they would take the whole question into their consideration—had they shown they were willing to meet their case with some degree of liberality, it would be a consolation; but there was neither sympathy nor the promise of relief. He now came to the conclusion that any relief to the agricultural interest must be the result of the exertions of that class—that fair play would not be conceded, but must be wrung from the Government—that agitation must be rekindled and kept up, and the pressure from without brought to bear upon the reluctance of the Government and of Parliament. The tenant-farmers would not, could not, rest satisfied under the present state of things, and they would not be satisfied until they either received that degree of protection which would enable them to pay the taxes, or were relieved from those national burdens, so that they might be able to compete with the foreigner on something like equal terms.
§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken of the income tax as fair and equable in its pressure on the farming class; but he ought to be aware that there was, as regarded its imposition on that class, a most remarkable anomaly, namely, that the farmer must pay whether he made profits or not. When their case, however, was brought before the House, it was always met by the sternest refusal to consider the anomalous position in which they are placed. They had invested their capital to a large extent on the security of laws which they did not suppose would be abrogated; but yet the House of Commons refused to pay the slightest attention to their distress. The right hon. Gentle- 169 man attempted to include all within one formal category. He laid down the rule broadly that the income tax ought universally to apply. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: I did not say universally, but to all classes.] Just so. The right hon. Gentleman meant to say that all classes ought to be equally taxed? But the farmers were not allowed to plead no profits, and to be exempted from the income tax, if they proved they made no profits, which constituted the application of this tax unjust and exceptional in their case, because all traders were exempt if they proved they made no profits. The right hon. Baronet had not ventured to assert that all classes were equally prosperous, or rather equally depressed—that all had the same ability to endure taxation? Would he deny—could any man deny—the notorious fact that the agricultural class, and especially the tenant-farmers, were in a most depressed condition? The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, on a previous occasion, himself admitted this fact; and yet he now would continue to tax them more heavily than the most prosperous portions of the community. Did the House consider the fact that upon the faith of an Act of Parliament the tenant-farmers of England had invested their capital in the soil? They had done so upon the security of the laws of England; those laws were abolished, and yet it was, forsooth, a matter of surprise that the tenant-farmers should seek to be relieved and lightened of that load of taxation which was imposed during the existence and in the faith of the continuance of those laws. He was much grieved at the speech of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, a few nights ago, on the subject of the malt tax. The noble Lord expressed a hope, it was true, that the distress would be only transitory, but he did not seem to have the slightest conception how long it would last, or to what extent it would proceed; but to whatever length it would extend—whatever might be the suffering it would occasion—whatever might be the ruin it would produce, upon one thing the noble Lord seemed determined, and that was to introduce no remedial measure. The Government had declared in favour of this direct taxation, and thus declared, that taxation ought to give no advantage to any one but to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that not only the proceeds ought to be applied ex- 170 clusively to the public expenditure, but that neither by the imposition nor by the indirect operation of taxation, ought it to benefit any class of the community, but that to them all it should be solely and exclusively a burden—in fact, that taxation should represent nothing but encumbrance to every class of British subjects. The Government seemed to forget that in thus claiming the exclusive benefit of the form as well as the proceeds of the taxes for the State, they would teach all classes to consider the taxation and the Government itself an encumbrance. He confessed his dissatisfaction at the meagre declaration of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer respecting the consideration of this question next Session. To an interest suffering deep distress, such a statement would be rather insulting than consoling, especially when coupled with the assurance of the Premier, that, however deep that distress might be, the Government would bring forward no remedy. According to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he produced the budget, there was a surplus of 2,220,000l. from 1849. There was 1,500,000l. expected this year, which would be, together, a surplus of about 3,700,000l.; yet whilst the agriculturists were in such distress, instead of helping them, Government had only taken the duty off bricks; and this, as everybody knew, would relieve the towns rather than the rural districts; in fact, the Government had sternly refused out of this surplus to afford any relief, worthy the name, to the interest they knew was suffering. He had felt it to be his duty to support the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lincoln.
§ MR. WODEHOUSE
would support the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend, though it might be regretted that the subject was not brought forward at an earlier period of the Session. He regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had dismissed the, question so summarily, as the position of the farmers at the present moment was perfectly new; and he hoped that, both with regard to himself and family, and to his landlord, the farmer's position would be fully entered upon. There never was a period at which the agricultural interest was more depressed; and, in fact, their case was at the present moment altogether new and extraordinary; there never was a time at which the farmers, landlords, and their dependants, 171 were so depressed by hasty and inconsiderate legislation.
§ MR. SPOONER
said, there were two circumstances which ought to be taken into account in the consideration of such a proposition as the present: the first was, that the income tax was imposed when the rents of land were much more easily paid, and the profits of cultivation much greater than at present; and the second, that whereas the farmer was paying the tax out of a profit, he was now obliged to pay it with a loss upon his farm. Now, he thought the injustice of this was manifest, and that the least the Government could do was to pass a short Act in which the farmers would have the power of appeal to the Property Tax Commissioners in the same way as the trading classes; and that if they could show that they farmed at an absolute loss instead of a gain, and that, as was the case, their capital was absorbed in the cultivation of the land, they ought to be exempted from the tax. At all events, the power of appeal ought to be granted. If his hon. and gallant Friend would feel it to be his duty to divide the House, he certainly would vote with him.
§ COLONEL SIBTHORP
felt it to be his duty to divide the House upon his Motion. He could not account for the absence of some hon. Gentlemen belonging to the party he had the honour to be connected with; but as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given so little hope of any remedial measure being introduced, he would take the sense of the House on the Motion.
§ MR. DISRAELI
I think my hon. and gallant Friend is to be commended in bringing forward his Motion. I think it is the duty of every hon. Gentleman who supports the opinions we do, to take the sense of the House upon every convenient opportunity, and to endeavour to obtain ample and complete justice for this much suffering and depressed class. As to what has been remarked that it would be impossible to repeal the Income Tax Act during the present Session, I think there is no force in it, for there would be no difficulty in introducing a Bill during the present Session—a Bill which, if introduced by the Government, they would easily carry, with the aid of the Opposition, accomplishing the object which my hon. and gallant Friend has in view. I am glad that the subject has been introduced, although, I regret, that it has not been brought forward at an earlier period of the Session, 172 when it would have been discussed more amply, and in a fuller House. I will give my vote with the greatest satisfaction in favour of the Motion of my hon. and gallant Friend. It is in perfect harmony with the principles which I have always supported; and it is my firm conviction that Parliament ought not to lose a moment in endeavouring to remedy the most unfortunate and depressed condition of the agricultural interest.
§ MR. BRIGHT
said, that, from the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, one might suppose that the farmers were suffering most dire injustice from the present state of the law. [Cheers from the Protectionist benches.] He was not surprised at those cheers; for it seemed to be understood on the other side of the House that the farmer's condition had always been considered that of a beast of burden, and that he had never met with much sympathy in that House. Now, he recollected the passing of the income tax, and how it came to be levied as it was upon the farmer. It was notorious that it was almost absolutely necessary that it should be so levied, The necessity arose from the fact, that it would have been almost impossible to ascertain precisely to what the profits of farmers really amounted, simply because they had not adopted the accurate methods of book-keeping which prevailed in most branches of trade. It might, he believed, be shown that where sufficient capital was employed, the present mode of levying the income tax imposed on the farmer a smaller amount than he would have to pay if the ordinary mode of assessment were applied. If, indeed, it were proposed that farmers should pay no income tax whatever, while all other classes who employed capital in various ways should continue to bear the burden, he must say that that appeared to him one of the most extraordinary, and, he would add, one of the most impudent, propositions that could possibly be submitted to the Legislature. Hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to be aware that they were approaching the end of the Session. During the recess it would be necessary for them to keep together the band of their followers in the country; and, perhaps, as the protection cry was nearly worn out, this might serve for a cry until next Session, and, in the meantime, probably that system of delusion which had been so long practised upon the farmers would be continued. Next year they would have to 173 consider whether the income tax should be continued at all or not. When it was first proposed in 1842, no man was more opposed to it than he was; hut so convinced was he now of the necessity of maintaining whatsoever direct taxation was now levied, so far as the amount was concerned, and of the propriety of relieving the grout mass of the population from taxes which fell on the articles of which they were the chief consumers, that, obnoxious as the income tax was, he would he very sorry if the present or any other Government proposed that it should he repealed. He was quite sure that, in saying this, he spoke the sentiments of the great body of the people; although there might he many persons who felt the tax to be such a grievance that they would at all hazards support a proposition for its repeal. Let hon. Gentlemen opposite picture to themselves the amount of annoyance to which traders were subjected under this tax, and compare it with the absolute absence of annoyance in the case of farmers. He believed that the inhabitants of the towns would gladly exchange their own position for that of the farmers with regard to this impost.
The MARQUESS of GRANBY
would support the Motion. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had altogether mistaken, or affected to mistake, the grounds upon which the present Motion was made, and had given no answers to the plain statement of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lincoln as to the grounds upon which this test was imposed upon the tenant-farmers. There was this difference between that period and the present, that then they made large profits, now they sustained severe losses. When that tax was imposed, their produce was protected against the foreigner—now, the tax was maintained whilst the farmer was obliged to endure its burden, and to submit to foreign competition. At the time the income tax was imposed, the farmers were making large profits, and it was therefore an advantage to them to have the tax assessed on half their rents instead of on the gross profits. At that time the corn law existed; but now that it was repealed, the condition of the farmers was changed, and they were paying the tax not on a profit but on a loss. He could assure the hon. Member for Manchester that there was no fear of the cessation of the cry of "protection," to which he had alluded; it would be kept up with increased vigour; and had not the hon. Gentleman well known that such had been 174 the case, he would not have spoken in the way he had done.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 32; Noes 50; Majority 18.
|List of the AYES.|
|Arbuthnott, hon. H.||Lewisham, Visct.|
|Arkwright, G.||Lygon, hon. Gen.|
|Blackstone, W. S.||Manners, Lord G.|
|Bremridge, R.||Newdegate, C. N.|
|Buck, L. W.||O'Connor, F.|
|Chatterton, Col.||Packe, C. W.|
|Codrington, Sir W.||Portal, M.|
|Cubitt, W.||Richards, R.|
|Dickson, S.||Rushout, Capt.|
|Disraeli, B.||Spooner, R.|
|Dunne, Col||Trollope, Sir J.|
|Frewen, C. H.||Vivian, J. E.|
|Granby, Marq. of||Wodehouse, E.|
|Gwvn, H.||Wyld, J,|
|Halford, Sir H.|
|Hamilton, G. A.||TELLERS.|
|Hildyard, T. B. T.||Sibthorp. Col.|
|Hornby, J.||Vyse, R. H. R. H.|
|List of the NOES.|
|Anderson, A.||Kershaw, J.|
|Baines, rt. hon. M. T.||Lewis, rt. him. Sir T. F.|
|Barnard, E. G.||Maule, rt. hon. F.|
|Bellow, R. M.||Milner, W. M. E.|
|Blackall, S W||Morison, Sir W.|
|Blewitt, R. J.||Nicholl, rt. hon. J.|
|Bouverie, hon. E. P.||Nugent, Lord|
|Boyle, hon. Col.||O'Connell, M.|
|Bright, J.||Palmerston, Visct.|
|Brotherton, J.||Parker, J.|
|Cobden, R.||Romilly, Sir J.|
|Cowper, hon. W. F.||Salwey, Col.|
|Craig, Sir W. G.||Scholefield, W.|
|Crawford, W. S.||Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.|
|Duncan, Visct.||Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.|
|Dundas, Adm.||Tenison, E. K.|
|Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.||Thompson, Col.|
|Ebrington, Visct.||Thornely, T.|
|Ellis, J.||Trelawny, J. S.|
|Grey, rt. hon, Sir G.||Walmsley, Sir J.|
|Harris, R.||Williams, J|
|Hatchell, J.||Wilson. J.|
|Hawes, B.||Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.|
|Henry, A.||Wyvill, M.|
|Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.||TELLERS.|
|Hodges, T L||Hill, Lord M.|
|Hume, J.||Hayter, W. G.|