HC Deb 27 April 1852 vol 120 cc1200-24

begged to move for leave to bring in a Bill to enlarge the Franchise in the Counties in England and Wales, and to limit the time of taking the poll to one day. The Bill which he now asked leave to introduce was the same as that which he obtained leave to bring in last year, with an addition respecting polling places and the duration of elections, it having been thought desirable that the opinion of the House should be expressed on the question of limiting the polling in counties to one day, and shortening the proceedings at county elections generally to the same standard as in boroughs. When this Bill had been brought forward in the previous year, many hon. Members voted against it, not because they objected to the principle, but solely because the noble Lord then at the head of the Government promised to introduce a measure of reform early in the present Session. The noble Lord had performed his promise by introducing the Bill; but in consequence of his retirement from office, there was now no measure before the House; and he (Mr. L. King) very much rejoiced to add, that there were now no promises to fetter any hon. Member. He must express his regret that the noble Lord had made a promise; he regretted also that the noble Lord had introduced his plan, because he could not help thinking that the Bill, as introduced, differed very much from what the noble Lord originally contemplated when he made the promise, and what his own unfettered judgment would have dictated. He regretted this the more, because the noble Lord had, by his sudden resignation, and letting in hon. Gentlemen opposite, risked, as it were, the prosperity of the nation, divided and weakened the liberal party, and let into power those men of whose policy he had always seemed afraid. Reform had been postponed last year on the plea that certain financial measures and Chancery reform required more immediate attention. After all, they had had no financial measure, save the repeal of the obnoxious Window Tax, which was forced on an unwilling Government; and it had been left to a Tory Lord Chancellor to do, in the way of Chancery reform, what a succession of Whig Chancellors had evaded or neglected. The principle of the present Bill had been often discussed in that House, and no one had ever attempted to assail the character of the classes whom it would enfranchise; but the noble Lord the Member for London—its chief opponent—seemed to say it would he very desirable to keep up the ancient distinction between voting from freeholds and other tenures in the counties and boroughs in any extension of the franchise that might be contemplated. Now, he (Mr. L. King) did not see how any extension of the franchise could be contemplated in counties without extending it to occupiers of houses. The 40s. freehold might, perhaps, be reduced to 20s., but he did not think that would be a very desirable result. He was glad to find, however, that when the noble Lord came to deal practically with the question, he did not resist the principle of extending the franchise to occupiers. It was true that the noble Lord did not go so far as the 10l. franchise, but proposed 20l., no doubt, however, with a view of conceding the entire proportion at a future day. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a former occasion seemed to take credit to himself that the plan of giving votes to occupiers in counties had originated with this party. The right hon. Gentleman did not appear opposed to the principle, but, somehow or other, he had voted against it. It was only the other day the right hon. Gentleman had said that he did not consider the extension of the franchise as synonymous with democratic power, but complained that the territorial interest was inadequately represented. Taking the West Riding of Yorkshire as an example, he said, with perfect truth, that the towns containing a population of 500,000 were represented by sixteen Members, while the county with a population of 800,000 was represented by only two members. But the right hon. Gentleman had counted all these as rural population, and the point had never been answered in that House, but had been effectually done by a friend of his (Mr. L. King's), who was at that moment canvassing the city of York. Mr. Pashley, in one of his late speeches, said— Now, I am exceedingly well acquainted with the West Riding of Yorkshire, and I have no doubt that many of you know it well also. Let us, then, look at what Mr. Disraeli says: 'The population of the West Riding is 1,300,000. The boroughs represented in Parliament contain a population of 500,000, and the rural population of 800,000.' Now, what is the meaning of that? How much of the West Riding is really rural? Take a glance of the country from Leeds to Bradford, and what do you see? Stacks, certainly; stacks, not of wheat, but of chimneys; you see a manufacturing population right and left. Between the towns of Leeds and Bradford there is scarcely a blade of wheat to be seen. Let us proceed from Bradford to Skipton, and thence back to Leeds by a triangular route, and we come to several places of great population, all of them seats of manufacturing industry. Again, proceeding along the valley of the Calder, we come to Wakefield, where Mr. Sandars, the protectionist Member, has struck his flag, and is now coming out a free-trader. Leaving Wakefield and proceeding up the valley of the Calder, we come to Dewsbury, with its immense population, all engaged in manufacturing pursuits. Thence we go in another direction to Barnsley—Black Barnsley, as it is called—the seat of the linen trade, a town containing a great population and no representation. Throughout the whole of the West Riding you have essentially, in fact, a manufacturing interest and a manufacturing population. Speaking of the agricultural counties, Mr. Pashley said— I take ten counties, each of them agricultural. I add up the population and obtain the total inhabitants. I then take the total number of Members, and by dividing the population by the Members, I see how many persons there are for each Member of Parliament. In this way I get a fair view of the state of the agricultural representation. The counties that I have taken are Bedford, Berks, Bucks, Dorset, Essex, Norfolk, Suffolk, Sussex, and Wilts. Those counties contain 2,514,603 in- habitants; they have 108 Members of Parliament, or 23,283 souls for each Member. Now, let us take a commercial and manufacturing district. Let us take it honestly, with every desire to obtain information. Let us take the whole counties of Lancaster, Stafford, and the West Riding of Yorkshire. I take them as fully and fairly representing the manufacturing interests of England; and to prevent the possibility of unfairness, I will add the great commercial county of Middlesex with its immense population, and its intelligence and great fitness to be represented in Parliament. In those four counties we get 75 Members of Parliament as against 108 Members in the ten agricultural counties. The population of those four counties is 5,930,091, which gives an average number of 79,067 souls for each Member of Parliament. But it was not a question of the proportion of Members to population, it was a question of the proportion of electors to population; and he could show, as he had already done last year, that while, only a few years ago, one out of eighteen had votes in the counties and also in the boroughs, now only one in twenty-three have votes in the counties; while in the boroughs, population and electors have moved in pari passu. He could not see how the Government could oppose this very reasonable proposition, when they recollected that it was only an extension of the principle which they themselves had introduced, merely making it more fair and equitable. Still less could he see how they could oppose it, seeing that only a few days since they had seemed inclined to introduce a new species of franchise, and to make an unpopular measure popular, by proposing to give a vote to any man who should consent to carry a musket for a certain time. Having proposed the extension of the franchise to such men, how could they, with any shadow of justice, withhold it from the householder? To continue matters in their present state would be to proclaim to the world that that House was afraid of the masses congregated in towns, and refused to give their just rights to other classes, because they were not afraid of them. He might also use the argument that while popular intelligence had advanced, and science and skill had increased, employment had introduced agricultural improvement, pauperism had greatly decreased; and yet, in spite of it all, the number of electors in the counties had very considerably diminished. He knew that some, for the want of an argument, went back and said that the franchise was not on this footing formerly; but he would say, that the principle was established at the time of passing the Reform Bill, and, without denying that the people of this country were the best governed people on the earth, that principle ought to be carried out. John Locke, after describing how constantly the things of this world changed—that people, riches, trades, power, change their stations, and mighty cities come to ruin, and prove in time desolate corners, whilst other unfrequented places grow into populous cities, filled with wealth and inhabitants, says— But things not always changing equally, and private interest often keeping up customs and privileges when the reasons of them ceased, it often comes to pass in governments, where part of the legislature consists of representatives chosen by the people, that in time this representation becomes very unequal and disproportionate to the reasons it was at first established upon. It is not a change from the present state, which perhaps corruption or decay has introduced, that makes an inroad upon the government, but the tendency of it to injure or oppress the people, and to set up one part or party with a distinction from and an unequal subjection of the rest. But our representation had been after all fixed on a much more democratic basis formerly than at present. He would call the attention of the admirers of antiquity to the fact that besides the barons, who represented themselves, freeholders, ecclesiastics, and burgesses in towns, were the only people who could act as citizens; besides these, there were only to be found servile dependence and an ignorance almost brutal. But now things were sadly altered. As M. Guizot had said— Maintenant le principe a disparu; il y a des Bourgs sans importance et dont les habitans n'ont ni fortune ni indépendance; 1a capacityé n'est plus 1°, et pourtant le droit y est resté. On disait que le nom du Bourg, sa position materielle, ses murailles sont les signes d'une capacityé electorale qui doit y resider à jamais, un privelege appartient à des pierres. He sincerely hoped that these unjust distinctions would disappear. He trusted that those large and influential classes whose cause he advocated would be enfranchised, and would not be refused their just rights because they lived in better houses than the inhabitants of boroughs. He hoped the day was not far distant when great principles would be consistently carried out, and when there would be an end of that sort of political expediency which is founded in feebleness and supported by injustice.

Motion made, and Question put— That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make the Franchise and Procedure at Elections in the Counties of England and Wales the same as in the Boroughs, by giving the right of voting to all occupiers of tenements of the annual value of ten pounds; by limiting the time of taking the Poll to one day; and by limiting the time of proceeding to Election to eight days.


said, lie must deprecate the introduction of this Bill, for the state of public business and the temper of the House were alike unfavourable to it. That such a measure would occasion prolonged discussions, and give rise to a determined struggle in that House, no one whose opinion on such a subject was of any value, would be disposed to question. Would there be no discussion on the second reading? Would not arguments be used in the Committee? And if read a third time, even without a struggle in that House, would it meet a ready acquiescence in the other House of Parliament? He would record his vote against the Motion, not only because it was ill-timed, but because he could not approve of the principle of such a measure as that proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey. He (Mr. Campbell) could have no hesitation in basing his opposition to such a Bill on the arguments which had been so effectively adduced against it, from time to time, by the noble Lord the Member for London. However great might be the variations of opinion which might be attributed to his noble Friend on other topics, his consistency on this question was beyond impeachment, for on no occasion that the Motion had been submitted to the consideration of the House had his noble Friend ever abstained from voting against it. When the question was first mooted by the hon. Member for East Surrey, on the 9th July, 1850, the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) did not, owing to the lateness of the Session, dilate at any great length upon the merits of the Bill; but he sedulously refrained from uttering one word in approval of it. And when the subject was again introduced by the same hon. Gentleman, on the 20th February, 1851, the noble Lord again called upon the House to reject it, and entered into a long and elaborate explanation of the reasons which induced him to believe that a franchise founded upon tenure ought not to be abolished, and that the assimilation of the franchise in boroughs and counties could not be regarded as an improvement in our electoral system. Nor was there any alteration in the views of the noble Lord when the Bill came on for second reading, on the 2nd April, 1851; for on that occasion also he expressed his strong aversion to the measure, explained the objections to which it was liable, met it himself with a clear and unhesitating negative, and succeeded in inducing the House to reject it by a majority of 216. He (Mr. Campbell) was content to rest his opposition to the Motion on the cases that had been often made out against it by his noble Friend the Member for London; but if he might venture without impropriety to add a single argument to those which had been urged so conclusively and so powerfully, on former occasions, by the noble Lord, he would find that additional argument in the certain fact that the assimilation of the franchise in counties and boroughs would inevitably lead to the increase of bribery. He was ready to prove, on tabular statistics, that no great desire of the franchise existed in the class to which the hon. Gentleman proposed to transfer it. A comparison had been made by the organ of the Whig party between the number of registered electors and the number which had voted in different towns during the general election of 1847, which went to illustrate the principle. He thought it no unimportant consideration that the number of electors who polled in towns—where the 10l. constituency existed—were far less than the number of electors registered. Thus he would state the relative numbers in a few instances at late elections:—

Electors registered. Polled.
In Aberdeen 4,150 1,348
In Aylesbury 1,405 646
In Cardigan 650 590
In Cheltenham 2,278 1,820
In Chester 2,529 1,630
He would take his stand on what appeared to him the valid argument against the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Surrey. Its tendency would naturally be to extend venality to counties. The 10l. franchise had been shown, by a long course of years, to be no security against this evil. In spite of its advantages and merits, the men it had returned, the measures which had flowed from it, it did not guarantee a pure and incorruptible electorate. A certain purity had hitherto existed in the counties, which it was not, upon the whole, expedient to subvert. It might be said, indeed, that the founders of the great Reform Act had been guilty of encouraging venality by bringing about a 10l. franchise in the boroughs. They could easily avoid the charge. Even if their prescience had enabled them to calculate the measure of corruption, their object would vindicate their act. Their object was to give power to the middle classes; and if it was impossible to effect this end without a mixture of venality, the advantage of the end outweighed the evil of the drawback. In proposing to invade the counties with corruption, the hon. Member for East Surrey could not point to any good which would arise from it. The most conclusive argument against the proposition, in his opinion, was, that no measure to amend the Act of 1832 ought to be discussed unless it was preceded by deliberate inquiry, and backed by adequate materials, which some parts of our machinery were well adapted to reach. Had inquiry of this kind preceded legislation, the noble Lord the Member for the City of London would not have introduced a scheme which neither satisfied the party it professed to serve, nor the public it aspired to conciliate.

After a pause of some duration,


rose and said, that the ominous silence which prevailed on both sides of the House really surprised him. When he proposed a Motion which comprised two or three branches of reform, Gentlemen said that they were too many to bring forward at once, and that one should be introduced. Now, one subject was brought forward, and no hon. Member seemed to care to speak upon it. This was trifling with the people, who were kept like slaves instead of freemen. On what ground were the occupiers of 10l. houses in counties refused the franchise? They would have it if they resided in boroughs, and he could not see the consistency or justice of such an exclusion. He might not see the day, but there were some Members of that House who would see it, when Governments would see the policy of doing justice to all classes of the community, and not wait till it was wrung from them. He did not know if the Motion was to be favoured with the vote of the noble Lord the Member for London, but he had expressed an opinion favourable to a 10l. franchise. He (Mr. Hume) could not see a safer course to pursue than this, and he really could not conceive why an objection should be made to it, unless they were determined to keep out those who were knocking at the door of the Constitution, and anxious to get in. He hoped that in England, Scotland, and Ireland, the Constituencies would return at the ensuing election men who were determined to support them in obtaining their just rights. Representatives should be able to state to the House what were the opinions and feelings of their constituents on parti- cular subjects; and without extension of the suffrage this could not be. Analyse the division of last night, and it would be found that not one of the large towns—excepting Liverpool, to its disgrace—supported the measure of the Government Militia Bill. Where the people had a voice, and the constituency was large, not one Member would be found voting for that unnecessary measure. He thought that the Government should express their opinion on this Motion, "Aye" or "No." He would not quarrel with them if they said "Nay;" but let them declare what they meant, and not shroud themselves in secrecy, as if they were afraid to state their opinion. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department would come forward and express, on the part of the Government, what they meant to do; for the right hon. Gentleman had been a volunteer on the part of the Government for the extension of the suffrage. He was told that proposition was an "after-dinner joke;" and he really thought that no one of any common sense would have seriously proposed it. Let the Government state if they were determined to oppose all reform, or if they were inclined to grant any portion of it, let them say so. He hoped they would be favoured with the opinions of Gentlemen on both sides of the House on this important question.


said, the House would excuse him if, after the appeal that had been made, he rose to express in a few sentences the view which Her Majesty's Government took of the Motion of the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. L. King). The hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) had asked them to say aye or no to the present proposition, and they assuredly felt no difficulty whatever in saying no. He owned that he should think that to Gentlemen who, like the hon. Member, had been for several weeks calling out for an immediate dissolution of Parliament, the proposal of an unnecessary Motion like the present must seem a useless impertinence and absurdity. A Bill of this nature, effecting a perfect revolution in the county constituencies, would occupy in its discussion a period which he was afraid would not be acceptable to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. L. King) himself. It was evident that any proposal for changing the county constituencies offered two alternatives. The hon. Member proposed to assimilate the county franchise to that of the boroughs in one way by let- ting the standard down; but it must he obvious that the assimilation could be brought about in another way—by raising the standard. Not that he was prepared to take that course, because he believed there was at present a fair representation of the boroughs of England, as well as of the counties. He believed that the existing system was intended to give to the owners of property and the shopkeepers in the boroughs the power of returning men who should fairly represent their sentiments in that House. On the other hand, it was quite fair, and the more because the borough Members formed an actual majority of the House, that the owners and occupiers of the soil should have the same facility of electing men who would fairly represent their interests. The county Members numbered 144; the borough Members comprised the remainder, and consequently were much more numerous. Well, then, he said the intention of the Reform Bill had been in the main carried out. The counties were represented by men in whom the owners and occupiers of the soil had confidence; and he hoped that Gentlemen sitting opposite, who filled so many borough seats, were not prepared to say that the borough representation was unworthy of its objects, or reflected discredit on the authors of the Reform Bill. No subject had led to more controversy in that House, or called forth so many charges of corruption and intimidation, by which the Government was continually assailed; but he thought it would not be denied that to find a pure constituency they must look to the counties. Against what class of the constituent body of the country did they find it necessary to direct measures for putting down the bribery and corruption practised at elections? Against that class, precisely, which it was now proposed to extend to the counties of England. Even if it were admitted, therefore, that a geometrical assimilation between the county and borough franchise was essential to the working of the Constitution, he did not think that any case had been made out for proceeding in the direction of lowering the standard of qualification. Government would be false to the promises given to wind up the business of Session as soon as possible, if they were to agree to this Motion. He should therefore, in their name, give it his most strenuous opposition.


said, that had he been consulted, he should not have recommended the bringing forward of this Motion at the present time, and he regretted that the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. L. King) had joined with his Motion for the extension of the county franchise, a measure of so eminently practical a character as that contained in the latter part of his Motion for shortening the duration of the poll at county elections, and for limiting the time between the proclamation of the writ and the election to eight days. He thought the Government might consent to the introduction of the Bill, for the purpose of striking out the provisions relating to the former, and carrying into effect those relating to the latter part of the Motion. He deemed this limitation the more necessary, because he found, to his great astonishment, that on the previous evening the House had consented to the introduction of a measure according to which county Members were in future to pay half-a-crown to every voter for refreshment before they could receive his vote. If county Members were to be mulcted to that extent, he hoped the House would agree to render the elections a little less costly than they were at present, by shortening their duration, in the manner proposed by the hon. Member for East Surrey. He believed that all the corruption in counties took place on the second day of the poll, and he therefore hoped that even if the House would not assent to the assimilation of the county and borough franchise, they would allow the introduction of the Bill, for the purpose of preserving that portion of it which related to the duration of elections, and which was demanded by the country at large. He should vote for it upon that ground; not pledging himself hereafter with respect to that measure of reform to which he was glad to see that his noble Friend the Member for Colchester (Lord J. Manners) was not so wholly adverse as he and other Members of the Government had appeared from their election speeches. He was glad to see that there was on both sides of the House a general concurrence of opinion in favour of some well-considered measure of reform, as he believed his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) called it. For his own part, he hoped that the small boroughs would be put an end to, and that some equalisation of the constituencies might take place. The necessity for a Reform in Parliament was clearly shown by the declaration of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, which evidently amounted to an admission that that House might not represent public opinion. For the noble Lord did not say that he was prepared to restore protection if he had a majority, but if he had a decided majority in that House—that was, if he had a majority returned by those constituencies which represented public opinion.


said, he had been for twenty years striving to get an extension of the county franchise, and he could not let an opportunity pass without in some way attempting to carry forward that extension. He admitted that the noble Lord the Member for Colchester (Lord J. Manners) had given a valid reason why he objected to the introduction of the measure this Session; but unfortunately that reason came too late, inasmuch as the House had not merely consented to the Bill referred to by the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord R. Grosvenor), but had given its assent, without debate, to a Motion which would fill that House with absolute paupers. ["No, no!"] Yes, yes, yes. A Bill had been introduced to take away every particle of qualification for Members of that House. Having admitted this Bill, how could the Government turn round and say it was too late to extend the franchise of the counties? It was excessively mortifying to be obliged to admit that nobody had listened to remarks which had been made upon this question. On a former occasion he had gone into the origin of voting, and had shown that it had its origin in service to the Crown; and he had then contended that in the olden time the lowest person who owed service to the Sovereign was the 40s. freeholder, and that also was the lowest description of the franchise. Now, upon that principle, he contended that every man who served the Crown, as soon as he was discharged, had a right to the franchise. [Laughter.] Yes; he knew the assertion was sneered at. ["No!"] Yes; and a sneer had been thrown out that night at the idea of the franchise being obtained by service in the militia; and by whom was the sneer raised? By the advocates of universal suffrage. [Mr. HUME: No, no!] Yes; you have always sneered at it. The fact was, they had never thought what universal suffrage was. These popular Members heard vague ideas, and received some sort of instructions at their great meetings, and they came to that House repeating the vague ideas of others, but knowing little or nothing about it themselves. It was, however, perfectly useless, no doubt, to discuss this measure in the present Session, and he was sorry his hon. Friend (Mr. L. King) had brought it forward; but he would take leave, in no unfriendly spirit, to tell his Friends on the Ministerial benches that it would not do for the Earl of Derby's Government to pooh-pooh this question in the vein formerly taken by the Duke of Wellington's Government. We could, if we liked, bring to light certain scenes at Brookes's, which, however, we will not. But Her Majesty's Ministers by that course will he doing nothing else than this: they will leave a legacy to the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, by the working of which he will at any moment be able to turn them out, not only of their places as a Government, but out of the House altogether.


said, that he wished to protest against the observations of the noble Lord the Member for Colchester (Lord J. Manners), that by bringing forward measures of that kind, Members were obstructing the progress of public business, and delaying the wished-for dissolution. Had that Motion, however, not been brought forward, Government business could not have gone forward that night, for there was no Government business on the notice papers. An offer was, some weeks ago, made to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that if he chose he might have the Thursdays in each week for the transaction of public business, and he believed the feeling in the House was so strong that he might have had every day in the week if the Government had shown any disposition to facilitate the transaction of public business. The noble Lord the Member for Colchester addressed the House as if he felt that this subject was so hackneyed that he was almost disgusted in having to approach it. The fact was, that he (Mr. Bright) believed every great question that had been carried in that House had been deemed hackneyed by hon. Gentlemen opposite before it was carried. But, notwithstanding that, there was a large body of opinion, both in that House and out of doors, in favour of the Motion now before them; and he had, therefore, no doubt that some advantage would arise from that debate. The proposition was, that the county franchise, instead of being confined to a very restricted class, should be extended to all those who occupied land or houses, or both, of the value of 10l. per annum. Now he believed that hon. Gentlemen opposite would admit that upon the great question of protection or free trade, which was now under discussion in the country, the constituencies of the boroughs were unanimously in favour of free trade. He was quite ready to admit that the same unanimity did not prevail in the county constituencies;-though the principles of free trade had been making their way even with the restricted constituencies of landowners and tenant-farmers. If the constituencies of the counties included population to the same extent as the borough constituencies, there could be no doubt that free-trade principles would be as generally accepted in the counties as in the boroughs; and there would not be the apparent discrepancy which had existed for several years past between the Members returned by the former and the latter class of constituencies. The right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a very ingenious but most fallacious speech, which he addressed to the House a few nights previously upon the question of Parliamentary Reform, had referred to the West Riding as having a rural population of 800,000. It had, however, a constituency of only 32,000 persons; and he would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were in favour of county constituencies—that great safeguard to the Constitution—that safe representation—whether they were content that 800,000 persons of the rural population should only have a constituency of 32,000 persons? It was impossible that such a system could last, be justified, or give satisfaction to the country; or that our Government, or our constitution, or our institutions, or anything that we valued or thought worth preserving, could be more safe under a franchise like that than under a franchise much more widely extended. The noble Lord the Member for London (Lord J. Russell), in that remarkable and curious Reform Bill with which he favoured the House before he went out of office, made a desperate plunge with respect to the county franchise, coming down from a 50l. to a 20l. franchise; and he believed that hon. Gentlemen opposite did not object to the adoption of the 20l. franchise. But, looking at the country villages and rural population of England, he asked them, whether it would not be perfectly safe and judicious to give the franchise to every occupier of 10l.? There could be no doubt that the more of this class we could bring within the franchise, the more self-respect would be given to them, the more interest they would take in public questions; and the more they were stimu- lated to inquire into and comprehend public affairs, the more firm would be the basis on which that House stood, and the greater authority would its resolutions necessarily have with the people. In the discussion of the previous evening, the Members representing the large constituencies had voted against the Government, and no doubt they would do so in increasing numbers at every succeeding stage of the Militia Bill. The country Gentlemen, on the other hand, almost unanimously supported the Bill. They were the parties who were always alarmed. One time the cause was French principles; another, French corn; at another French men; and no one could tell what would be the cause of panic five or six years hence. Let the country Gentlemen, however, recollect that, in supporting increased armaments and an increased expenditure, they were supporting a course of policy which the people of this country did not recognise to be for their advantage, and which they would some day or other take the opportunity of telling the House that they did not. Now he wished to know, not whether the landowners and tenants-at-will, but the occupiers of 10l. and upwards in the counties, agreed in the policy that hon. Gentlemen opposite were pursuing. Although he thought it wrong, and might regret it, he should never call it in question so long as he believed that it was sanctioned by the opinions prevalent amongst and adopted by the constituencies of the country. This proposition was the safest, the one most in accordance with constitutional principles (if that word had any meaning), and with the principles of the Reform Bill, that could be brought forward; and although he admitted that it was in vain to expect to carry it into law at the present period of the Session, that was no reason why it should not be discussed, nor why hon. Gentlemen opposite should not vote for it. If the Motion were carried that night, the question would be in a more favourable state for discussion in the new Parliament. He believed that when hon. Gentlemen met their constituents at the hustings, they would find almost all classes in its favour. He believed that it was one of the best and most necessary steps that could be taken in that progress towards reform in which the country was resolved that that House should go, however unwilling many of its Members might be.


said, he should vote against the Motion, but should not have risen to address the House had it not been for what had fallen from the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord R. Grosvenor), with respect to that part of it which related to the shortening of the duration of county elections. Although the limitation of the poll in boroughs to one day had been attended with great advantage, he thought that the effect of adopting a similar measure in counties would be to disfranchise a large portion of the constituency, who, it must be recollected, resided in all parts of the country, and who might not in that case be able to attend to give their votes if only a single day was allowed for taking them.


said, that although it might be uncommonly convenient for hon. Gentlemen opposite to appeal to the electors at the coming elections upon the single point of "confidence in Lord Derby," and to merge all other questions into that, he thought it was the duty of the Opposition to bring forward as many subjects as possible, in order that the electors might know what really were the opinions of the candidates. He did not think, therefore, that the Motion had been brought before the House at an improper time. He quite agreed with the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord R. Grosvenor), that the poll at county elections should terminate in one day, for every one conversant with the facts knew that the bribery, corruption, and intimidation took place at the end of the first day's polling—that they were continued during the ensuing night, and that the electors were driven to the poll in a state of intoxication on the subsequent morning. The noble Lord the Member for Colchester (Lord J. Manners) said, that if they wished to find purity of election, they must go to the counties. Why, then, if the electors were such honest men, did they refuse them the protection of the ballot? The Bill, for the introduction of which the House gave leave on the previous evening, was one for the encouragement of treating and bribery, and yet, notwithstanding the expense it would entail on candidates, it was supported by the country party, who were suffering so much from free trade. A Militia Bill had been introduced too, and the people were to have muskets if not votes. He trusted, however, that the people would feel that if they were not allowed to vote, muskets should not be placed in their hands by a forcible ballot; and he thought that both the feeling and the intelligence of the country were misunderstood and underrated by the Government if they believed the people would be forced to carry arms in defence of a Government that would not allow them the rights and privileges of freemen.


said, he should oppose the Motion. In the county which he represented (North Devonshire), there were 4,000 freeholders; but he found from inquiries he had made, that if this Motion were carried into effect, they would be overbalanced by the 10l. householders and the occupiers of small farms.


said, he was as anxious as anybody to extend the elective franchise as far as he could. He would give the vote to the 5l. householders in many cities and towns. If a man occupied a 5l. house in the city of Lincoln, he should consider him far better qualified for a vote than if he had a 10l. house in a more populous town. But, speaking generally, he was opposed to the present Motion, because he thought it would have the effect of swamping the constituencies of many important counties.


Sir, I certainly cannot vote against the proposition before the House on the ground stated by the noble Lord the Member for Colchester (Lord J. Manners); because, if the Government were to say that on any particular Tuesday they wished to supersede private Motions in order to promote the business of the Government, and thus accelerate a dissolution, I do not believe that any Member would insist upon bringing forward his Motion upon that Tuesday. But as the Government not only do not ask for the Tuesdays, but seem reluctantly to accept the Thursdays, I do not see that there is any objection to discussing Motions of an important public nature upon the Tuesdays. Then, with respect to the nature of the question itself. I must say it appears to me to be a fair matter for consideration with the House what should be the amount of the occupation franchise that should be allowed in the counties. The Reform Act contains a Clause which was introduced by the Marquess of Chandos, but which was, perhaps, originally suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Lincoln (Col. Sibthorp), and by which an occupation franchise of 501. was given to the counties. Subsequently we proposed that in Ireland there should be an 8l. franchise. That proposition, however, was afterwards objected to by the other House of Parliament, and it was ultimately agreed that 12l. should be the sum, and accordingly, that is now the law in Ireland. In the Bill which I submitted to the House in the present year, I proposed to reduce the 50l. franchise to 20l. in the English counties; so that it seems to me not merely according to the proposals of different Members, but according to the measures sanctioned by Parliament, that we may very fairly discuss the reduction of the occupation franchise in the counties of England. But I own it appears to me that if measures of this kind are to be proposed with the view of dealing with the franchise for the counties, they cannot well be considered separately, and that, considering how important is the question of framing the representation of the country, how important is the attempt to make any change in the suffrage which at present exists, it is far better that when Parliament does consider the subject they should consider it as a whole—not altering from time to time the franchise of the counties in one Bill, and the franchise of the boroughs in another. Upon this subject I cannot say that I differ very much from what I saw had been stated as the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General, whom I see opposite. I understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to have said he thought it of the utmost importance that the commercial policy of the country should be settled, and that we should not proceed to discuss measures with regard to the reform of the representation until that question had received a settlement. I entirely differ from him, however, in the statement which he made that this country, is now being ruined owing to what are called the measures of free trade. I differ also from the noble Lord the Member for Colchester, and from the right hon. Secretary of the Colonies, in thinking that the Colonies are being-ruined, as well as from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Scarborough (Mr. G. F. Young), in believing that the shipping-is in a state of utter prostration from the same cause. I believe, on the contrary, that when this question comes to be considered in the new Parliament, the House of Commons, with the approbation of the country, will declare that the free-trade measures generally, collectively and individually, are calculated to promote the prosperity of the country; and that it is the duty of Parliament to maintain and extend those measures. But, as I said before, I do think it is desirable that that great question should receive a solution before we proceed to the serious consideration of the question with respect to the reform of the representation. I was glad to hear the noble Lord the Member for Colchester say, as I understood him, that the present Government would be ready to concur in any well-considered measure for the reform of the representation. I hope I was not mistaken when I understood him to declare that he thought it a question which was very fairly open to the consideration of this or any other Parliament. And when we have settled these great questions of our commercial policy, which it is so desirable should be settled some way or other, I trust he will agree with me in the view I shall take on this important question of a reform in the representation of the people.


Sir, I have been anxious to say a few words in this debate, the more especially as the noble Lord who has just addressed you seems to have greatly misapprehended what was said by the noble Lord (Lord J. Manners). I certainly did not understand my noble Friend to say that Her Majesty's Government was prepared to "concur in any measure" for the reform of this House.


What I said was, that I understood the noble Lord the Member for Colchester to say, that the Government would concur in or take into their consideration a well-considered measure for reform.


Sir, I think it is evident that to "consider" and to "concur" are two very different things. I should be sorry that any Government would be permitted to exist who was not prepared to consider a measure of such importance as affected the arrangement and construction of this House. I have so recently addressed this House on the subject of Reform, that, even if the sacred hour of the evening was not at hand, I would hesitate to trespass again upon its attention. But I am induced to do so now in order that it may not be considered I am desirous of evading the giving of an opinion upon the question before us, in consequence of the peculiar circumstances of the present Session of Parliament. I object to the measure proposed to be I brought in by the hon. Member for East Surrey for various reasons: in the first j place, because it is partial. I entirely agree with the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) that the question of the representation of the community is one which must always be considered on an extensive scale. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that the lax system of Session after Session tampering with the Constitution, now of attempting to alter the constituencies of the towns, and again seeking to add to or adjust the constituencies of counties, would, in the end, evidently lead to some conclusion which cannot be satisfactory. Sir, I think that the question must be viewed on a much larger scale than that which is suggested by the proposition of the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Surrey. But I have also another objection to this Bill. I have often said to this House—I repeat it now, and it is the expression of a deep and sincere conviction on my part—that I think that in the construction of that memorable law, the Reform Act of 1832, there was a very great deficiency—which consisted in a want of due consideration of the rights of the working classes to the franchise; and I own that I was very glad, on a recent occasion, to hear the noble Lord the author of that same Reform Act acknowledge that long observation had induced him to hold the same opinion—an opinion which he certainly at one time did not consider with such favour. And if there be that great deficiency in our system of representation, I assuredly cannot understand how this measure, or the other measures on the same subject which have been so frequently proposed, are at all to meet the deficiency. Under our old system, by the suffrages of the freemen, the political rights of the labourer were acknowledged by the Constitution. We virtually destroyed those rights. I am aware, of course, that the rights of the then possessors were reserved. But the fountains which supplied that constituency were destroyed; and, in fact, we virtually terminated the political rights of labour with the class of freemen we destroyed. I do not for a moment wish now to maintain that there were not strong reasons why the existing arrangements should be interfered with; but, then, I never heard a reason why a more satisfactory arrangement could not have been substituted in lieu of the old one. I trace much of the discontent in this country, which at times has been painfully felt, with regard to the Reform Act of 1832, to the omission to which I have adverted. Well, then, Sir, what has been the remedy which has been offered by those who arrogate to themselves the sole privilege of representing and championing the rights of the working classes? They came forward and proposed a large extension of the suffrage, virtually universal suffrage; their remedy is to throw the whole power of the country into the hands of a mere class. Instead of securing a constituency which gives to property all the rights of property, which gives to labour all the rights of labour, which cherishes, in short, the existence of those various classes, the recognition, the legal and political recognition, of whose interests has, I believe, been one of the main causes of the flourishing condition of this country, and of the duration of its order, both social and political—they propose, as a remedy, a measure which essentially is a measure of class legislation, because they propose to give political authority to a class so numerous that they would overwhelm all other classes, and entirely change the Constitution of the country. To such a change I am opposed, as injurious to the fortunes and condition of the nation. But then, Sir, that is no reason why we may not consider whether an industrial franchise may not be invented, which would give satisfaction to those who claim to be represented in the legislation of the country. That is a question which deserves the grave consideration of any man responsible for the good government of the country. But is this omission in your Reform Act—the source of so much public discontent, and which some think may lead ultimately to public disorder—is it met by the measure proposed to be brought in by the hon. Member for East Surrey? On the contrary; for whilst some hon. Gentlemen acting with the hon. Member for East Surrey complain that property is even too much represented in existing constituencies, let us see what is the answer made to the claims of labour by the hon. Member and his school. The answer is, "he will represent property still more." That, at any rate, is the answer, in this Bill of the hon. Gentleman. Sir, I cannot myself sanction legislation so crude, and, as I believe, founded on such pernicious principles. On the part of myself and on the part of my Colleagues—I have said it before, and I repeat it now, in order that our opinions may not be misunderstood—I state that we do not necessarily associate an extension of the franchise with the extension of democratic power. If I could see any measure brought forward—well matured, conceived, not in political passion, but with a sincere desire of giving to deserving artisans the exercise of the suffrage in a manner consistent with the maintenance of those institutions the preservation of which I believe are as much for the interest of those artisans as they are for the interests of any other class of this country—I would give, and so would those with whom I act, to such a proposition a dispassionate and kind consideration. But, Sir, the Motion of the hon. Member for East Surrey is not of this class; and until some measure is brought which, as I think, meets the difficulties of the case, I must take my stand upon the settlement which exists—not from any superstitious reverence for that settlement, but because I am opposed to year after year tampering with the Constitution of the country—a tampering which I am convinced is the source of political weakness and of national debility. It is, I say, the interest of all men and of all parties who wish to continue the good government of the country, to maintain the existing order, unless they can bring forward propositions which, as regards the suffrage, may tend to give general satisfaction. I am willing to acknowledge that the Act of 1832 has in a great degree fulfilled those expectations; but I have expressed before the point in which I think that that arrangement was weak. I have had satisfaction in hearing the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) himself acknowledge that he recognises the deficiency of which I have spoken. But I have not yet met from any person in this House any practical or sufficing mode by which the omission is to be supplied. If a proposition of that kind were brought forward which really would meet the difficulty of the case, I would listen to such a proposition with the most respectful attention. Let no one suppose that there is, on the part of the present Government, any bigoted adherence to the forms now existing. The present Government have only one object, an object which I sincerely believe is the object of all the Members of this House, the good government of the country. But they desire to see the greatness of the Realm maintained, and the prosperity of the people secured. And if a change in the franchise is only proposed as a mode of obtaining political power, and of exciting political agitation, to such proposal we must give our unconditional and uncompromising opposition. I have too much respect for the hon. Member for East Surrey to de- scribe his Motion as a measure of this kind. But I must nevertheless describe it as essentially unsatisfactory, not calculated in any degree to meet the exigency of the state of affairs; one which I can easily understand, if successful, may lead to much disturbance and readjustment, but which at the same time can conduce to no permanent or enduringly acceptable settlement; and, therefore, I must give to it—not because this is the last Session of the existing Parliament, but because I would take the same view under any other circumstances—an unqualified opposition.


said, at the commencement of the Session they read in the papers a statement made by Lord Derby, immediately on his taking office, to the effect that there should be no further reform in the representation of the people; and, therefore, he (Sir B. Hall) was not surprised at the opposition which had been made to the Motion before the House. But, he would ask, what was the extension of the franchise which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had just shadowed forth? Was it to be a reality, or was it only a miserable claptrap for the hustings? Was the right hon. Gentleman sincere in what he had stated, or was he not? The right hon. Gentleman said the great deficiency in the Act of 1832 was the want of proper attention to the rights of the working classes. Was the House to collect from that voluntary admission on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that when Parliament assembled again, Ministers would bring in a measure for the purpose of extending the suffrage to the working classes? If the right hon. Gentleman was sincere, and really intended to do that which he had hinted at, let him say so at once. Let him say, in reference to this question—as in reference to protection, which he gave up six months ago—that he would once more come forward a radical reformer, as in days of yore, when he cast an eye on the representation of Marylebone, and bring in a Bill for conferring the franchise on the working classes. But when the right hon. Gentleman talked of tampering with the franchise year after year, he (Sir B. Hall) would remind him that no alteration whatever had taken place in the franchise from the time of the Reform Bill to the present day. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had recently, however, made a strange proposition in refer- ence to the militia franchise. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House might well cry "Oh, oh!" for he supposed they were now ashamed of that matter. He thought the House ought to see what was the class of people which the Government intended to enfranchise, and what was the class which was proposed to be placed on the electoral list by the Motion before the House. Let them suppose a scene in the revising barrister's court. Let them fancy two persons claiming to be placed on the electoral list. One of them had served with distinction in the Peninsular campaign, and wore on his breast the badge of the highest class of knighthood, and came before the barrister desiring to be placed on the register, on the ground that he occupied a tenement of 48l. a year. The revising barrister told that man, if he had all the glory of the Duke of Wellington, and all the honour of Nelson, but at the same time only occupied a tenement of the value of 48l. a year, he could not admit his name to be placed on the register: that as the law at present stood, the qualifications tendered by the gallant officer were unknown and uncared for, and the application must be dismissed. Now, let them see the other candidate for electoral rights, the militiaman, who claimed to be enrolled as a voter. Hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House must not treat that now as an after-dinner joke. It was a deliberate proposition: the noble Lord at the head of the Government would not so work upon the simplicity of the Secretary of State as to allow him to make such a proposal to the House, unless the matter had been previously settled in the Cabinet. The other man who applied to the revising barrister for admission on the register might be a loutish clown—a feeder of pigs in a farmyard—a Hugh Oatcake or a George Seacoal, as portrayed by Shakspeare, in his Much Ado about Nothing. He could imagine Dogberry addressing such a claimant in these terms:—"Come hither, neighbour Seacoal. God hath blessed you with a good name: to be a well-favoured man is the gift of fortune; but to write and read comes by nature." Well, such a man was asked by the barrister what his qualification was? But "qualification" was a long word, he did not understand foreign languages—he only comprehended the Queen's English, which he occasionally murdered to the greatest possible extent. But when he came to state what his calling was, it was found to be of the meanest description. He had received the 6l. bounty money, had worn a red coat for twenty-one days, was five feet two in height, and desired to be placed on the register. The revising barrister admits the claim—and he was placed on the register. That was, the person whom the Government at one time thought of investing with the elective franchise; and now they rejected a proposition like that of his hon. Friend the Member for Surrey. All he (Sir B. Hall) could say was, that if the Government intended to abide by a recent statement of the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby), that it was his intention there should be no reform, the House and the country ought to understand their intentions clearly and distinctly. If, on the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant to enfranchise the working classes, let him say so at once, and he (Sir B. Hall) would be very glad to see a Bill for that purpose laid on the table.


in reply, said, that it had been stated the measure he proposed would introduce a very great constitutional change. It would, however, do an act of simple justice, by giving to the inhabitants of certain localities the right of voting possessed by persons occupying property of the same value in other localities; and so far he thought it was desirable that a constitutional change should take place. It had been also said that the object of his measure was merely to secure representation to property; but what he contended for was, that if property was represented in one locality it should be represented fairly in another.

The House divided:—Ayes 149; Noes 202: Majority 53.

List of the AYES.
Adair, H. E. Clay, Sir W.
Adair, R. A. S. Clements, hon. C. S.
Aglionby, H. A. Clifford, H. M.
Alcock, T. Cobden, R.
Anstey, T. C. Cockburn, Sir A. J. E.
Bailey, C. Cogan, W. H. F.
Baines, rt. hon. M. T. Colebrooke, Sir T. E.
Bass, M. T. Collins, W.
Bell, J. Cowan, C.
Berkeley, C. L. G. Crowder, R. B.
Bernal, R. Davie, Sir H. R. F.
Blackstone, W. S. Dawes, E.
Bright, J. Dawson, hon. T. V.
Brotherton, J. D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C. T.
Bunbury, E. H. Divett, E.
Carter, J. B. Douglas, Sir C. E.
Caulfeild, J. M. Drummond, H.
Clay, J. Duff, G. S.
Duff, J. Norreys, Sir D. J.
Duke, Sir J O'Flaherty, A.
Duncan, Visct. Parker, J.
Duncan, G. Pechell, Sir G. B.
Duncombe, T. Perfect, R.
Ellice, E. Pigott, F.
Ellis, J. Pilkington, J.
Elliot, hon. J. E. Pinney, W.
Evans, Sir De L. Ponsonby, hn. C. F. A. C.
Evans, J. Price, Sir R.
Evans, W. Rawdon, Col.
Ewart, W. Ricardo, J. L.
Fergus, J. Ricardo, O.
Ferguson, Col. Rice, E. R.
Foley, J. H. H. Rich, H.
Fordyce, A. D. Romilly, Col.
Forster, M. Russell, F. C. H.
Fortescue, C. Sadleir, J.
Fox, W. J. Salwey, Col.
Geach, C. Scholefield, W.
Gibson, rt. hon. T. M. Scobell, Capt.
Glyn, G. C. Scully, V.
Greene, J. Seymour, H. D.
Grenfell, C. W. Shafto, R. D.
Grosvenor, Lord R. Smith, rt. hon. R. V.
Hall, Sir B. Smith, J. A.
Hardcastle, J. A. Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.
Harris, R. Staunton, Sir G. T.
Hastie, A. Strickland, Sir G.
Hayter, rt. hon. W. G. Strutt, rt. hon. E.
Headlam, T. E. Stewart, Adm.
Henry, A. Stuart, Lord D.
Heywood, J. Tancred, H. W.
Heyworth, L. Tenison, E. K.
Hindley, C. Tennent, R. J.
Hobhouse, T. B. Thicknesse, R. A.
Hodges, T. L. Thompson, Col.
Hurt, W. Thompson, G.
Jackson, W. Thornely, T.
Keating, R. Townshend, Capt.
Keogh, W. Tufnell, rt. hon. H.
Langston, J. H. Villiers, hon. C.
Lennard, T. B. Vivian, J. H.
Lewis, G. C. Wakley, T.
Littleton, hon. E. R. Wall, C. B.
Loveden, P. Walmsley, Sir J.
Lushington, C. Watkins, Col. L.
M'Gregor, J. Westhead, J. P. B.
Mangles, R, D. Willcox, B. M.
Marshall, J. G. Williams, J.
Martin, J. Williams, W.
Melgund, Visct. Wood, Sir W. P.
Milligan, R. Wyld, J.
Milnes, R. M. Wyvill, M.
Mitchell, T. A.
Moncreiff, J. TELLERS.
Morris, D. King, L.
Mowatt, F. Hume, J.
Norreys, Lord
List of the NOES.
Adderley, C. B. Benbow, J.
Arbuthnott, hon. H. Bennet, P.
Arkwright, G. Beresford, rt. hon. W.
Bagot, hon. W. Bernard, Visct.
Bailey, J. Blair, S.
Baillie, H. J. Blandford, Marq. of
Baird, J. Boldero, H. G.
Baldock, E. H. Booker, T. W.
Bankes, rt. hon. G. Booth, Sir R. G.
Baring, H. B. Bowles, Adm.
Barrow, W. H. Bramston, T. W.
Bridges, Sir B. W. Halford, Sir H.
Brisco, M. Hall, Col.
Brooke, Lord Hallewell, E. G.
Bruce, C. L. C. Hamilton, G. A.
Buck, L. W. Hamilton, J. H.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Hamilton, Lord C.
Bunbury, W. M. Harris, hon. Capt.
Burghley, Lord Hatchell, rt. hon. J.
Burrell, Sir C. M. Hayes, Sir E.
Burroughes, H. N. Heathcote, Sir G. J.
Campbell, Sir A. I. Heneage, G. H. W.
Cardwell, E. Henley, rt. hon. J. W.
Carew, W. H. P. Herbert, H. A.
Castlereagh, Visct. Herbert, rt. hon. S.
Cavendish, W. G. Herries, rt. hon. J. C.
Cayley, E. S. Hervey, Lord A.
Chandos, Marq. of Hildyard, T. B. T.
Charteris, hon. F. Hill, Lord E.
Child, S. Hogg, Sir J. W.
Childers, J. W. Hope, Sir J.
Christopher, rt. hn. R. A. Hotham, Lord
Christy, S. Hughes, W. B.
Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G. Johnstone, Sir J.
Clive, hon. R. H. Johnstone, J.
Clive, H. B. Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.
Cochrane, A. D. R. W. B. Kelly, Sir F.
Cocks, T. S. Knox, Col.
Coke, hon. E. K. Knox, hon. W. S.
Coles, H. B. Langton, W. H. P. G.
Collins, T. Legh, G. C.
Corry, rt. hon. H. L. Lennox, Lord A. G.
Cotton, hon. W. H. S. Leslie, C. P.
Davies, D. A. S. Lewisham, Visct.
Deedes, W. Lindsay, hon. Col.
Denison, E. Lockhart, A. E.
Disraeli, rt. hon. B. Lockhart, W.
Dod, J. W. Long, W.
Douro, Marq. of Lopes, Sir R.
Drax, J. S. W. S. E. Lowther, hon. Col.
Drumlanrig, Visct. Lygon, hon. Gen.
Drummond, H. H. Macnaghten, Sir E.
Duckworth, Sir J. T. B. Mahon, Visct.
Duncombe, Hon. A. Manners, Lord J.
Duncombe, hon. O. March, Earl of
Duncombe, hon. W. E. Masterman, J.
Dunne, Col. Maunsell, T. P.
Du Pre, C. G. Maxwell, hon. J. P.
Edwards, H. Miles, P. W. S.
Egerton, Sir P. Miles, W.
Egerton, W. T. Moody, C. A.
Emlyn, Visct. Morgan, O.
Farnham, E. B. Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.
Farrer, J. Mundy, W.
Fellowes, E. Naas, Lord
Filmer, Sir E. Napier, J.
Fitz Patrick, rt. hn. J. W. Neeld, J.
Floyer, J. Neeld, J.
Forbes, W. Newport, Visct.
Forester, hon. G. C. W. Noel, hon. G. J.
Fox, S. W. L. O'Brien, Sir L.
Freestun, Col. Ossulston, Lord
Frewen, C. H. Packe, C. W.
Fuller, A. E. Pakington, rt. hon. Sir J.
Gallwey, Sir W. P. Palmerston, Visct.
Galway, Visct. Patten, J. W.
Gaskell, J. M. Peel, Sir R.
Gilpin, Col. Plowden, W. H. C.
Gladstone, rt. hon. W. E. Prime, R.
Goddard, A. L. Pusey, P.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Repton, G. W. J.
Grogan, E. Richards, R.
Gwyn, H. Rushout, Capt.
Hale, R. B. Russell, Lord J.
Sandars, G. Vesey, hon. T.
Scott, hon. F. Vivian, J. E.
Seymour, Lord Vyse, R. H. R. H.
Shelburne, Earl of Waddington, H. S.
Sibthorp, Col. Walpole, rt. hon. S. H
Somerton, Visct. Wegg-Prosser, F. R.
Sotheron, T. H. S. Welby, G. E.
Spooner, R. Wellesley, Lord 0.
Stafford, A. West, F. R.
Sturt, H. G. Whiteside, J.
Tennent, Sir J. E. Williams, T. P.
Thesiger, Sir F. Wood, rt. hon. Sir 0.
Thompson, Aid. Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.
Tollemache, J. Wynn, H. W. W.
Trollope, rt. hon. Sir J. Yorke, hon. E. T.
Tyler, Sir G.
Tyrell, Sir J. T. TELLERS.
Vane, Lord H. Bateson, T.
Verner, Sir W. Lennox, Lord H.
Back to