HC Deb 09 July 1851 vol 118 cc406-16

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

presented a petition, signed by the principal distillers of London, against the Bill. The right hon. Baronet said, though he had more than once addressed the House on this subject, yet he felt that in opposing the second reading he should not do justice to the great interests involved in this question if he were not again to state what appeared to him the insuperable objections to passing this measure. The grounds on which it had been advocated hitherto were those of justice, and they had heard not a little the cry that justice to Ireland was concerned in the passing of this Bill. Now he must say that to any person whatever who investigated the subject, there would appear no claim of justice whatever on the side of those who advocated the second reading of the Bill. There was a claim of justice on the part of those who opposed the Bill. What was asked was that duty should be paid on home-made spirits when they were taken out of bond, as in the case of colonial spirits. The principle of levying Excise duties and the principle of levying Customs duties were so entirely distinct, that no analogy could be set up between them in relation to this subject. The principle in levying Customs duties was to levy them at the latest moment, because, up to the latest moment, there was no saying whether the articles would or would not be exported—whether they would or would not pay duty at all; whereas the principle in levying Exceis duties was to levy them at the earliest moment, so that, the duty once paid, the owners of the article paid upon might be relieved from any further supervision or interference on the part of the Excise. In relation to these home spirits, the earliest moment at which the Excise duty could be levied was that when the spirit issued from the worm-end, and this, therefore, was the moment at which, for the convenience of the producer, the duty was levied, and from that time the supervision of the Excise officers ceased. If they were to levy it at a later period, they would have a continuance of the supervision of the Excise officers, and they would reverse the principle on which the Excise duties had been regulated. He quite ageed that there might be some ground of complaint if the duty on the spirit which came into competition with the home-made spirit was unfairly levied, so as to give a boon to the colonial producer; but a difference of 4d. a gallon above the duty on home-made spirit was levied on colonial: and this differential duty, which was levied in England, Scotland, and Ireland, was fixed in 1848, after a lengthened inquiry before a Committee of that House. It might be said that was an unfair settlement, but the reverse was the case. It could not be proved that the settlement was unfair, because the consumption of colonial spirits in Ireland and Scotland had fallen off since that time; and the consumption of home-made spirits had considerably increased. The consumption of colonial spirits in Scotland in 1847, was 392,000 gallons, and in 1850, 210,000 gallons, showing a falling-off of 182,000 gallons. In Ireland the consumption was in the former year 176,000 gallons, and in the latter year 166,000. But what was the consumption of home-made spirits in these two countries? He would not go back to 1847, which was not a fair case as regarded Ireland, but he would take the last three years, and he found that in Scotland the consumption was—

In 1848 6,548,000 gallons
1849 6,935,000 gallons
1850 7,122,900 gallons
In Ireland the consumption was—
In 1848 7,072,000 gallons
1849 6,973,000 gallons
1850 7,480,000 gallons
So that there had been an increased consumption of 900,000 gallons in these two countries, when it was stated by the promoters of this Bill that the producers of home-made spirits were ruined by colonial spirits; and by a return which had just been made he found that the consumption of Irish spirits up to the 5th of July had gone on increasing. Again, if you took the imports of spirits from Scotland and Ireland into England, you found that while the average of five years to 1825, was 1,400,000 gallons, that of the five years to 1850, was 3,400,000 gallons, exhibiting, he need not observe, a most material increase. It was not pretended that the adoption of this measure would not injure the revenue, even though all the transactions in home spirits were free from fraud and dishonesty; but the grand objection, after all, was, that the adoption of the measure would open the door to perfectly unlimited fraud and dishonesty, and, of consequence, to an unlimited injury to the revenue, the only possible mode of remedying the loss to the revenue would be to impose higher duties upon the classes of spirits; and though this would obviate all loss where the transactions were honestly conducted, it would be no security against fraud, but on the contrary would increase the temptation to attempt to cheat the revenue. At present the amount of duty levied upon home spirits was distributed in a manner highly favourable to the interests which purported to be most aggrieved by the existing system, for while English spirits paid 7s. 10d. a gallon, Scotch spirits only paid 3s. 8d., and Irish spirits only 2s. 8d. Under the existing arrangements, again, the system of warehousing spirits in remote parts of the country was adapted to the convenience of the smaller distillers in a manner which it would be quite impossible to continue if the proposed changes were effected. The revenue, however, was not the only party concerned in this question. There was another party, and that was the English distiller, for what was really sought by the Irish and Scotch distillers was to gain an unfair advantage over the English. If the change in the mode of taking the duties took place, the English distillers would not be able to derive a corresponding benefit from it. And he saw no reason why they should be subjected to this additional disadvantage, because scarcely any English spirits were consumed in Ireland or Scotland, while the quantity sent to England last year from Scotland and Ireland amounted to about one-third of the whole consumption of England. For these reasons he trusted that the House would not agree to the second reading of this Bill.

LORD NAAS

said, after all preparation, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had advanced no new argument against the measure. The injustice complained of was palpable. The produce of the home manufacturer was by the excise laws placed in a less advanta- geous position than that of the importer of foreign and colonial spirits. As to the charging of colonial spirits in bond at the last moment, because they might be exported, the great complaint of the home producer against the present system was, that it operated almost entirely as a prohibition to the export of home spirits. As a proof of this, he could state that of late years the exportation of our colonial rum had immensely increased, while, on the other hand, that of our home spirits had absolutely so diminished that it was not thought worthy of a place in the returns of the Board of Trade. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Bill would alter the present modes of measurement—modes supposed to be necessary for the security of the revenue—hut such was not the case. The measurement of homemade spirits was taken now three times, viz., at the worm's end, when going into bond, and when coming out of bond. He should like to know what there was in the plan which he proposed to prevent this measurement being still taken. The only difference would he, that the charge would be made when the spirits were coming out of bond, so that every security that was now obtained by measurement could still be enforced. Under his Bill the quantity to he measured would be ascertainable with the greatest ease, and would be subject to none of the difficulties and dangers connected with the existing mode of measurement. With regard to the differential duty of 1848, he had said frequently before, that consideration could not in the least degree embarrass the carrying of this Bill, because the Bill did not propose in any way to interfere with the settlement which was made in 1848. It had been stated that this measure would be in a degree a breach of faith and an unsettlement of a solemn compact made in consequence of the Report of the Committee on Coffee and Sugar Duties; but Lord G. Bentinck, the chairman, had in his place in that House stated that the alteration of duties was forced upon the Irish and Scotch distillers. The Irish distillers had never consented to that arrangement; no Irish witnesses were summoned before the Committee; and this consideration of the differential duty was only introduced into the question incidentally. It was clear also, when they considered the different items of which the 4d. of differential duty was composed, that the differential duty, which was made a bar to granting a most just demand, was only a bugbear, because only a halfpenny, or one-eighth of the whole amount of the duty, was at all concerned in this discussion. In Mr. Wood's evidence he stated that in calculating what the differential duty ought to be, one halfpenny per gallon was the supposed value of decreases. He was authorised, however, to state to the Government, that the distillers were perfectly ready to give up that part of the differential duty which would be affected by this measure, rather than forego their just claim, so that let the Chancellor take his halfpenny by way of additional duty, and give us our just demand. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's figures, showing the increase in the consumption of home-made spirits, could have no weight whatever with the House, because the prosperity of any particular interest ought not to be made a reason against the removal of a grievance, provided a good case could be made out. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to wish the House to infer that the increased consumption was the consequence of the advantage enjoyed by the British distiller over the colonial distiller. But the fact was entirely different: the reason for the increase in the sale of home-made spirits had arisen simply from a circumstance which did not at all affect the present question—the reduction in the price of the grain which constituted the material of those spirits. He perfectly agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, that if there was to be that reduction of taxation which was generally demanded by the nation, the duty on spirits was perhaps the last tax that they ought to reduce. But the Irish and Scotch distillers did not ask for any reduction in the duty; and if, next year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer could show that the operation of this Bill had really occasioned a diminution of the revenue, those whom he (Lord Naas) represented would, he was sure, be quite willing to consent to any increase of duty which might be required to make up the deficiency which the revenue might have sustained. The amount of duty, therefore, had nothing on earth to do with this question; the complaint was that they had to pay for an article which at the time when the duty was paid was not in existence. They asked for the repeal of an unfair and most unjust restriction, and they asked for it on the principle of justice alone. The whole system of the warehousing would be left untouched by this Bill; it would create no inconvenience, and they would have exactly the same officers, the same locks, and the same houses. The right hon. Gentleman said this Bill would create further temptations to collusion between the excise officers and fraudulent distillers. But the officers could connive with the distillers now with perfect ease if they were so disposed. The honesty of the officers was the only security to the revenue; and this measure would not take away a single existing check upon fraud. What was the position of the Irish and Scotch distillers? They, by the nature of their trade, found it of the greatest use to bond an article which became of superior value by being kept a considerable time. The English distiller, on the other hand, according to the nature of his trade, did not want to bond at all. He sold his spirits the moment they were made, to the rectifier, and obtained payment directly. The English distillers had been opposed to bonding for many years, merely from the selfish consideration that they did not want it themselves. They did not want to bond themselves, and therefore they used all their influence to prevent others in the trade from enjoying a considerable advantage from it—a dog-in-the manger like policy, which a free-trade Government ought to blush to encourage. So far from the Irish distiller being in a more advantageous position than the English as regarded the revenue, the fact was, he was in a far inferior position. There were not more than eleven distilleries for the whole of England, and they made the enormous amount of spirits which were drunk in this country. The House was perhaps not aware that there was not a single English distiller now distilling strictly according to Act of Parliament. The eleven English distillers were manufacturing their spirits in stills which were actually illegal, and were only sanctioned by a Treasury Minute, and not rocognised in any Act of Parliament. But the English distillers had this further advantage over the Irish, that they obtained very large credits, and were often allowed to be in arrear with the payment of their duty. In fact, the eleven English distillers had a monopoly of the English trade, and they were afraid that if this restriction, however unjust, was not kept up, the Irish and Scotch distillers would, in the natural course of trade, send more whisky to England, and so interfere with their business. The Irish and Scotch distillers only asked to be put on the same footing as the foreign and colonial distillers; and their whole claim being a claim of justice and fairness, a claim which the House had on four distinct occasions ac- knowledged, he hoped the House would readily accede to it.

MR. BRAMSTON

said, that seeing that, the interests of his constituents would be compromised by the measure of the noble Lord (Lord Naas) he should move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."

MR. BASS

said, that the noble Lord who had brought forward this measure had been misinformed on some points on which he had rested the case of his Bill. The noble Lord had especially complained, on the part of the Irish and Scotch distillers, of their want of an export trade; but where could he hope for an export trade in British spirits, when every other country had a beverage which it preferred to anything we could send them? But he found, notwithstanding, that the fact was, that the export trade had actually increased from 73,000 gallons in 1848, to 330,000 gallons in 1850. Again, Ireland consumed fifty gallons of her own spirits to one gallon of colonial spirits; and Scotland consumed fifty-six gallons of her own to one gallon of colonial. It was quite absurd, therefore, to talk of competition. The noble Lord also complained that the English distillers had a certain degree of credit allowed them by the Government, and that the revenue suffered loss in consequence; but the fact was, that during a period of fifty years there had only been one loss of the kind, therefore the Irish and Scotch distillers had no great cause for complaint on that ground. The noble Lord said it was a question of competition between the English distillers and the Scocth and Irish distillers; but whereas there were about 26,000,000 gallons of British spirits manufactured, 20,000,000 of them were made by the Irish and Scotch. He agreed with the noble Lord that that was no reason why they should not manufacture more, but it was an argument to show that they could not at present labour under any serious disadvantage. They had a total monopoly of the consumption in their own countries; and, when the spirit-consuming qualities of the inhabitants of those countries was considered, that was no light matter, for an Irishman consumed more than two Englishmen, and a Scotchman more than five Englishmen. He had himself seen the secretary of the body of English distillers and rectifiers that very day, and had been assured by him that they regarded this Bill as an attack upon them. Even viewing the question as one of domestic industry, as the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) had done on a former occasion, they ought not to be called upon to encourage Irish and Scotch industry at the expense of English. The Bill was one which the House ought not to concede.

MR. REYNOLDS

said, he should support the seeond reading. He maintained that the question before the House, when stripped of all the technicalities in which it had been enveloped, was simply this—Were the Irish and Scotch distillers to be allowed any deduction on account of leakage and evaporation? He did not see why the 167 distillers in Scotland, and the 56 in Ireland, should be sacrificed for the benefit of ten or eleven monopolists in England. The Irish Brigade were often accused of offering a factious opposition; but he thought the Treasury bench were now offering a factious opposition on a question upon which they had been beaten four times. On the 11th of June last year the Government were beaten by a majority of 85 to 53; on the 4th of July they were beaten by 135 to 95; on the 8th of July they were beaten by 121 to 120; and on the last division the Government were beaten again. 481 votes had been given in the course of those four divisions in favour of the Bill, and 391 against it. The Government had been beaten four times, and there they were still. He believed they would be defeated again on the second reading; and he would ask the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intended to persist in his factious opposition to the measure? The settlement of 1848 had been talked of in that discussion; but that arrangement had been determined upon by a Committee of that House which did not contain a single Irish Member, and which did not call a single Irish witness. Ireland, therefore, had never consented to that settlement of the question; and until justice was done to the Irish distiller, Ireland must continue to repeat her demand for a fairer and more equitable adjustment.

MR. GOULBURN

said, he did not consider this as a question of small or of minor importance. He did not even consider it of small or of minor importance as regarded the Scotch and the Irish distillers. Considering, as he did, that these distillers were now asking from that House an indulgence and a favour, as compared with other dealers in spirits, to which they were not entitled, his firm belief was, that whatever might be the result of the present discussion, or of the present Bill, the ultimate consequence must necessarily be a general conviction throughout the country that an advantage had been conceded to them which they were not entitled to receive; and a reaction would follow, leading to the depression of the very interest which hon. Gentlemen now advocated. There was nothing more fallacious in the discussion of commercial or of financial questions, than the taking a partial view of the regulations under which they were placed. To say that there was an inequality of taxation in any particular branch, without considering the corresponding inequality in another, was sure to lead to fatal error, and to involve their financial arrangements, perhaps, in inextricable anomalies; and yet that was the course in which the House was advised to take on the present occasion by the supporters of this Bill. The question of spirits was a question, as he had said, of the greatest importance to this country; because we derived no less than between 8,000,000l. and 9,000,000l. of our annual revenue from it, which was paid easily and regularly into the national exchequer. It was no light matter, therefore, to affect, by a partial change in the law, a revenue so important under all circumstances, and perhaps most important of all, because it was raised in a manner less objectionable, perhaps, than any other species of impost. This question of spirits was settled in 1848. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the city of Dublin (Mr. Reynolds) said that as there was not an Irish Member on the Committee which sat in that year, Ireland therefore was not bound by the result. Now, he (Mr. Goulburn) could state that the case of the Irish and Scotch, as well as of the English distillers, as against that of the colonial distillers, was ably represented before the Committee, and the Committee heard all that could possibly be said on the subject. But it was not the Committee which made the regulation as to Irish spirits—it was the House of Commons. Every man had an opportunity of stating his objections, and having stated them, and been overruled by the majority, he was as fully bound by the decision as any other Member was. Viewing the settlement of 1848, then, as a general arrangement, the question was, had the Scotch and Irish distillers suffered any injury under it, and was there now any ground for giving them a special advantage? So far as facts and documents went, he thought that absolutely the reverse of that was the case. They were told that the distillers did not make as much spirits now as they did in 1835; but what had that to do with the question as to how far the arrangement of 1848 had, or had not, been productive of benefit? The fact was, that before 1848 the spirits made in Scotland and Ireland amounted to 14,000,000 gallons, while in 1850 it was 20,000,000 gallons. It also appeared that there had been a diminution in the consumption of rum in those countries from 557,000 gallons in 1847, to 360,000 gallons at the present time; while there had been a corresponding increase in the consumption of home-made spirits. The augmentation in the export trade of Scotch and Irish spirits had been no less than 700 per cent during this period. Was that a proof that the law, as regarded colonial spirits, was at all prejudicial to the interests of the Scotch and Irish distillers? Nor had the English distillers, with all the advantages thay were said to possess, been able to keep the Scotch and Irish distillers out of the English market, for the last re-turn showed that one-third of the whole consumption of that part of the United Kingdom had been furnished by the Irish and Scotch distillers. The House should recollect that the success of this Motion would overthrow an existing arrangement. English spirits were manufactured under very different circumstances from those of Scotland and Ireland, for while the latter were bonded in a state palatable to the taste of the consumer, the English distiller could not bring his spirits into the market before they had undergone the subsequent process of rectification. If, therefore, this Motion were agreed to, they must allow the English rectifier to place his spirits in bond, and this would open the door to extensive frauds upon the revenue. The course which the House was asked by the noble Lord (Lord Naas) to pursue was dangerous to the revenue, dangerous to the interests of other dealers in spirits, and would ultimately, he was convinced, overthrow the small advantage which the Irish now sought to obtain for themselves by that reaction which injustice never failed to create.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 166; Noes 194: Majority 28.

List of the AYES.
Anstey, T. C. Henley, J. W.
Arbuthnott, hon. H. Herbert, H. A.
Archdall, Capt. M. Higgins, G. G. O.
Baird, J. Hildyard, R. C.
Bankes, G. Hildyard, T. B. T.
Barron, Sir H. W. Hill, Lord E.
Barrow, W. H. Hodgson, W. N.
Bateson, T. Hope, Sir J.
Benbow, J. Hope, H. T.
Bentinck, Lord H. Hornby, J.
Beresford, W. Howard, Sir R.
Best, J. Hudson, G.
Blair, S. Johnstone, J.
Blake, M. J. Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.
Boldero, H. G. Jones, Capt.
Booth, Sir R. G. Keating, R.
Boyd, J. Keogh, W.
Bremridge, R. Kerrison, Sir E.
Brooke, Lord Knox, Col.
Bruce, C. L. C. Knox, hon. W. S.
Buck, L. W. Langton, W. H. P. G.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Lawless, hon. C.
Campbell, Sir A. I. Lennox, Lord H. G.
Charteris, hon. F. Leslie, C. P.
Chatterton, Col. Lindsay, hon. Col.
Chichester, Lord J. L. Lockhart, W.
Clements, hon. C. S. Long, W.
Cochrane, A. D. R. W. B. Lowther, hon. Col.
Coles, H. B. Lowther, H.
Conolly, T. M'Cullagh, W. T.
Cotton, hon. W. H. S. Magan, W. H.
Cowan, C. Meagher, T.
Crawford, W. S. Mahon, The O'Gorman
Dawson, hon. T. V. Mandeville, Visct.
Devereux, J. T. Manners, Lord C. S.
Disraeli, B. Manners, Lord G.
Dodd, G. Manners, Lord J.
Duncan, G. March, Earl of
Dundas, G. Maxwell, hon. J. P.
Dunne, Col. Meux, Sir H.
Du Pre, C. G. Milton, Visct.
Fagan, J. Moffatt, G.
Fellowes, E. Monsell, W.
Fergus, J. Moore, G. H.
Ferguson, Sir R. A. Mullings, J. R.
Forbes, W. Mundy, W.
Forester, hon. G. C. W. Muntz, G. F.
Fox, R. M. Murphy, F. S.
Fox, S. W. L. Napier, J.
French, F. Newdegate, C. N.
Frewen, C. H. Newport, Visct.
Fuller, A. E. Norreys, Sir D. J.
Gaskell, J. M. Nugent, Sir P.
Gilpin, Col. O'Brien, J.
Goddard, A. L. O'Brien, Sir L.
Gooch, E. S. O'Brien, Sir T.
Goold, W. O'Connell, F.
Gordon, Adm. O'Connell, M. J.
Grace, O. D. J. O'Connor, J.
Grogan, E. O'Ferrall, rt. hn. R. M.
Gwyn, H. O'Flaherty, A.
Hallewell, E. G. Packe, C. W.
Hallyburton. Lord J. F. G Pakington, Sir J.
Halsey, T. P. Pilkington, J.
Hamilton, G. A. Power, Dr.
Hamilton, J. H. Prime, R.
Hamilton, Lord C. Renton, J. C.
Hastie, A. Repton, G. W. J.
Hayes, Sir E. Reynolds, J.
Roche, E. B. Tennent, R. J.
Sadleir, J. Tyler, Sir G.
Sandars, G. Verner, Sir W.
Scott, hon. F. Vesey, hon. T.
Scully, F. Vyse. R. H. R. H.
Seaham, Visct. Waddington, D.
Seymour, H. K. Waddington, H. S.
Sibthorp, Col. Walsh, Sir J. B.
Smollett, A. Whiteside, J.
Somers, J. P. Willoughby, Sir H.
Somerset, Capt. Wynn, H. W. W.
Spooner, R. Young, Sir J.
Stafford, A.
Stuart, H. TELLERS.
Talbot, J. H. Naas, Lord
Taylor, T. E. Mackenzie, W. F.
List of the NOES.
Abdy, Sir T. N. Dundas, Adm.
Adair, H. E. Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.
Adair, R. A. S. East, Sir J. B.
Alcock, T. Ebringtou, Visct.
Armstrong, R. B. Ellis, J.
Baines, rt. hon. M. T. Elliot, hon. J. E.
Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T. Estcourt, J. B. B.
Bass, M. T. Euston, Earl of
Beckett, W. Evans, Sir De L.
Bell, J. Evans, J.
Bellew, R. M. Evans, W.
Berkeley, Adm. Fitzroy, hon. H.
Berkeley, hon. H. F. Fitzwilliam, hon. G. W.
Berkeley, C. L. G. Foley, J. H. H.
Bernal, R. Forster, M.
Birch, Sir T. B. Fortescue, hon. J. W.
Blackstone, W. S. Freestun, Col.
Bouverie, hon. E. P. Gallwey, Sir W. P.
Bowles, Adm. Geach, C.
Boyle, hon. Col. Glyn, G. C.
Bramston, T. W. Goulburn, rt. hon. H.
Brocklehurst, J. Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.
Brockman, E. D. Granger, T. C.
Brotherton, J. Greene, T.
Brown, H. Grenfell, C. P.
Brown, W. Grenfell, C. W.
Bunbury, E. H. Grey, R.W.
Buxton, Sir E. N. Grosvenor, Lord R.
Cardwell, E. Guest, Sir J.
Carew, W. H. P. Hanmer, Sir J.
Carter, J. B. Harris, R.
Childers, J. W. Hatchell, rt. hon. J.
Cholmeley, Sir M. Hawes, B.
Clay, J. Headlam, T. E.
Clay, Sir W. Heneage, E.
Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G. Henry, A.
Clifford, H. M. Herries, rt. hon. J. C.
Clive, hon. R. H. Heywood, J.
Cockburn, Sir A. J. E. Heyworth, L.
Collins, W. Hindley, C.
Cowper, hon. W. F. Hobhouse, T. B.
Craig, Sir W. G. Hodges, T. L.
Crawford, R. W. Howard, Lord E.
Currie, H. Hutchins, E. J.
Curteis, H. M. Hutt, W.
Dashwood, Sir G. H. Jermyn, Earl
Dawes, E. Johnstone, Sir J.
Denison, E. Kershaw, J.
Denison, J. E. Labouchere, rt. hon. H.
D'Eyneourt. rt. hn. C. T. Lacy, H. C.
Divett, E. Langston, J. H.
Douglas, Sir C. E. Lawley, hon. B. R.
Duckworth, Sir J. T. B. Lewis, G. C.
Duncan, Visct. Littleton, hon. E. R.
Duncombe, T. Locke, J.
Lygon, hon. Scrope, G. P.
Gen. Mackinnon, W. A. Seymour, Sir H.
Mangles, R. D. Seymour, H. D.
Marshall, W. Seymour, Lord
Martin, J. Shafto, R. D.
Martin, C. W. Shelburne, Earl of
Masterman, J. Smith, rt. hon. R. V.
Matheson, Col. Smith, J. A.
Maule, rt. hon. F. Somerville. rt. hn. Sir W.
Melgund, Visct. Sotheron, T. H. S.
Miles, P. W. S. Spearman, H. J.
Milner, W. M. E. Stanley, hon. W. O.
Molesworth, Sir W. Stansfleld, W. R. C.
Morris, D. Strickland, Sir G.
Mostyn, hon. E. M. L. Thicknesse, R. A.
Norreys, Lord Thompson, Col.
Ogle, S. C. H. Thornely, T.
Owen, Sir J. Tollemache, hon. F. J.
Paget, Lord A. Townley, R. G.
Paget, Lord C. Trelawny, J. S.
Paget, Lord G. Tufnell, rt. hon. H.
Palmerston, Visct. Tynte, Col. F. J. K.
Parker, J. Vane, Lord H.
Pechell, Sir G. B. Verney, Sir H.
Teel, F. Villiers, Visct.
Pendarves, E. W. W. Vivian, J. H.
Perfect, R. Wakley, T.
Philips, Sir G. R. Wall, C. B.
Pigot, F. Wawn, J. T.
Pinnoy, W. Westhead. J P. B.
Powlett, Lord W. Willeox, B. M.
Price, Sir R. Williams, J.
Reid, Col. Willyams, H.
Ricardo, O. Wilson, J.
Rice E. R. Wilson, M.
Rich, H. K. Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Robartes, T. J. A. Wood, Sir W. P.
Romilly, Col. Wrightson, W. B.
Rumbold, C. E. Wyld, J.
Russell, Lord J. Wyvill, M.
Russell, F. C. H.
Salwey, Col. TELLERS.
Sandars, J. Hayter, W. G.
Scobell, Capt. Hill, Lord M.

Words added; Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to; Second Reading put off for three months.