HC Deb 12 April 1853 vol 125 cc1019-32

said, he rose in pursuance of the notice which he had given to move an Address to the Crown for a Commission of Inquiry into the state of Clitheroe. In doing this, ho should not be under the necessity of occupying the time of the House for more than a few minutes. Speaking generally, he was disposed to concur with those who viewed propositions of which the practical effect was to place in abeyance the constitutional privileges of any portion of Her Majesty's subjects, with feelings of very great repugnance; but there were cases—and this was one of them—in which the facts that were brought to light were of such a character, in which the malpractices that prevailed were so gross and scandalous, in which the corruption that obtained was so widespread and general, that Committees of that House would be shrinking from the discharge of their public duty, if they did not ask the House of Commons to institute ulterior proceedings, and in which that House would be shrinking from the performance of its duty if it did not act on the recommendation of those Committees. The case of this borough bore a strong resemblance in its general features to other cases which had recently been brought under the consideration of the House. It was chiefly distinguishable from those cases by the unblushing manner in which corrupt practices had been carried on, and by the total absence of those glosses with which it was often sought to cover their perpetration. There had been no scale of refreshments like that at Hull; there had been no coloured tickets like those at Canterbury. The treating had not been confined to the day of nomination, or the polling day: it had existed for near a fortnight previously, and every man, no matter whether an elector or not, appeared to have drunk and eaten as much and as often as he had thought proper at the expense of one, if not of both, the candidates. And not only had there been wholesale and systematic treating, but large sums of money had also been offered for votes: 40l. had been offered in one case, 50l. in another, 100l. in a third, and 30l. had been offered and accepted in a fourth case, which had been proved to the entire satisfaction of the Committee. There had also been gross intimidation. A practice that was termed "cooping" or "bottling" voters had prevailed to a very considerable extent. Persons of weak nerves and doubtful intentions had been conveyed to a place of safety at the distance of some twenty miles from the scene of action, under a strong escort; and in one instance it appeared that a house so occupied had been besieged by a large party in the interest of the opposite faction. He (Mr. Gaskell) would not trouble the House by reading any portion of the evidence. Any gentleman who referred to it would be able to satisfy himself at once that every means of undue appliance had been resorted to—that the public-houses had been indiscriminately thrown open—and that corruption and intimidation had prevailed extensively. He felt, however, that he should not be discharging his duty if he did not call the attention of the House for one moment to another practice prevailing in this borough—a practice which obtained in too many constituencies, which had led at Clitheroe, as it had since led at Blackburn, and as it must necessarily lead elsewhere, if not checked by the intervention of Parliament, to scenes of disturbance and of outrage, and which appeared to him (Mr. Gaskell) to call most loudly for such intervention. The House would find that in this small borough, containing a constituency of only about 440 or 450 voters, it was the constant habit to introduce large bodies of hired bludgeonmen for the purpose of intimidation. Now, if this practice was to be tolerated—if bodies of armed men were to be permitted to assemble at elections, and were to be altogether unchecked and uncontrolled on such occa- sions—if they were to be lodged and kept at the expense of the rival candidates, and were to resort to physical force to procure the success of their employers: it was impossible to conceive a greater mockery than an election carried on under such circumstances, or a course of proceeding which more directly tended to bring contempt and discredit upon representative institutions. He had only to add that in making the proposition that he had submitted to the House, he was expressing the unanimous opinion of the Committee over which he had had the honour to preside.

Motion made, and Question put, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty" [which was read].


said, he had two petitions to present on this subject from the borough of Clitheroe, one of which was signed by 160 of the electors, and the other by a considerable number of non-electors. These petitioners stated that during the last election there was gross intimidation practised; and they gave many particulars, mentioning the names of the parties, who were chiefly proprietors, by whom the intimidation was practised. He did not intend to go into these particulars, and to mention the names given in the petitions, because the question involved was a great deal more important than any which simply affected the borough of Clitheroe. It was a question which that House would have to decide, inasmuch as it affected all the Commissions which had been issued. He could give proofs of the intimidation which had been practised at Clitheroe. He held in his hand a notice to quit, given upon the 30th of July to a voter, he having voted on the 7th of July, after having been for thirty years a tenant of the party by whom the notice to quit was given. He was told, too, that this was only one out of a great number of similar cases. Now he wanted to ask the House whether the inquiries which were to be made by Commissioners in different parts of the country were to include intimidation under the term "corrupt practices?" On looking at the Act of Parliament, he found that, though there might be some doubt on the subject, it was possible for a large and comprehensively minded Committee to say that a door was opened for the taking of evidence of intimidation; but, upon the other hand, it might be contended, as the terms specifically were "corrupt practices," they did not open the door for an inquiry into the existence of intimidation. This, then, was the point upon which, in his view, the House would have to come to a decision. He asked the House whether there was any actual difference between bribing a man to vote according to the will of the briber, and threats of pecuniary loss if the voter did not vote with the party who held out the threat? In both cases the motive was pretty much the same—the one being actuated by the desire a gain, and the other by the fear of loss. He would also ask whether mobs were to be allowed to intimidate voters without suffering a legal penalty? The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gaskell) had spoken of the appearance of bludgeon men who prevented the voters from voting as they pleased. This intimidation was clearly unlawful; but he wanted the House to determine whether the proprietor who held a bludgeon, in the shape of a threat of ejection, over the tenant by threatening to dismiss him if he did not vote according to the landlord's wish, or whether the creditor who held a security over the voter, and threatened him if he did not vote in a particular way, and the customer who threatened the shopkeeper with the loss of his custom if he did not vote according to that customer's wishes—he said he wanted to know whether these were cases that came within the scope of the Act of Parliament for inquiring into corrupt practices at elections? He would take the case of a man who on going to the poll met his landlord; and the landlord said to him, "If you do not vote for A or B, I will dismiss you from my shop or farm." The man, however, voted against the will of the landlord, and the consequence was he was ejected from his farm or shop. Was that a "corrupt practice," or did it come within the scope of the Act of Parliament? He was aware that the House was not the interpreter of its own Acts. It was not possible, therefore, for it to say what the Act meant under which Commissioners were empowered to make these inquiries. He therefore recommended the petitioners in this case, and he recommended it in all cases where intimidation was practised, to tender evidence to that effect before the Commissioners. They must in the first place decide what was the law, while the Judges, as the ultimate tribunal, might have to say what was the meaning of the Act of Parliament; but if there were any difficulty found in bringing forward these cases of intimidation, then, he held, it would be the duty of that House so to amend the Act as to include offences of this description. And in case it should be decided that petitioners were precluded from bringing forward cases of intimidation or any other case, he called upon the noble Lord the Member for the City of London—and he thought he would have the unanimous sanction of the House—to bring in a measure which would secure that these practices should be thoroughly inquired into.


said, he agreed with the observation of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden), that the law with regard to intimidation required alteration. He also agreed that the law with regard to bribery and treating required to be amended; but the question of what ought to be the law as to bribery, treating, and intimidation at elections, was a very different question from that of what ought to be the practice with regard to the inquiries under the Commissions issued by the Crown upon an Address from both Houses of Parliament. As regarded the former there must be full proof given in the House, and a Bill would be requisite: but the latter must be determined by the Act of Parliament—an Act which gave the Commissioners more extensive powers than were delegated to any Judge in the land. It was therefore the duty of the House to see that no Commission issued unless it was clearly brought within the terms of the Act of Parliament. By the recital in the Act it appeared that the House might present an Address for a Commission if upon the Report of a Committee it appeared that the Committee had reason to believe that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed in any borough. The words were, "if corrupt practices extensively prevailed." In the present case the Committee had not so reported. They had only reported one case of bribery. Their report was— That extensive and systematic treating, together with other corrupt and illegal practices, prevailed at the last election for the said borough." And "that it has been proved to the Committee that Henry Taylor was bribed with the sum of 30l." Also, "That violent and tumultuous proceedings appeared to have taken place at the said election, and that hired bands of men, armed with sticks and bludgeons, were introduced into the said borough for purposes of undue influence and intimidation. Let not the House imagine that he did not wish these proceedings to be put down or not inquired into; but he wished the House to take a proper course with regard to the address now moved for, as was prescribed by the Act of Parliament. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth (Sir G. Grey) intimated his opinion the other night that the words "corrupt practices," in the meaning of the Act, extended to treating as well as bribery; but the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cobden) had expressed a reasonable doubt whether the Act extended to intimidation. There was certainly a reasonable doubt upon that point, and even more he thought upon the question of treating. The sixth section of the Act, which described the mode in which the Commissioners were to act, provided first that they should inquire generally whether corrupt practices had been committed; and they were to report whether these corrupt practices had been committed in a certain way. The only three ways specified in the section were, first, by the payment of any sum of money, or the lending of any loan, for the giving of a vote, or for promising to give a vote, or for inducing persons to refrain or forbear from giving votes; secondly, by the payment of any sum of money in the character of head-money, in compliance with any usage prevalent in the borough; and, thirdly, by the payment of any sum after the election as a reward either for giving, or refraining from giving, a vote at the election. Then the section went on to say that, in case the Commissioners should find that corrupt practices had been committed at the election into which they were hereinbefore authorised to inquire, then it should be lawful, &c. Now, the words "hereinbefore" limited the Commissioners to the points mentioned in the preceding part of the section; and, as he read the Act, these were the only points into which the Commissioners had power to inquire into the corrupt practices alleged to have been committed at any election. It might then be said that if bribery was the only thing implied in the Act, then it did not go far enough to meet the case now before the House; and the House should not, consequently, take the initiative in addressing the Crown to issue a Commission of Inquiry, which for these reasons would, from its very commencement, be illegal, and all inquiry under it would go for nothing, for in that case the House would have empowered the Commissioners to make a most searching investigation, and to exercise powers as to the examination of persons, in a way that could not be done in courts of justice. He therefore deprecated the carrying of the provisions of the Act of Parliament beyond that which the law allowed; and for this reason he thought the Motion ought not to be acceded to. Yet he felt as strongly as any one could feel that treating might be as corrupt in its influence as bribery, and that intimidation might prevent freedom of election much more than bribery or treating. Feeling this so strongly, he was inclined to think that this Session ought not to pass over without a Bill being brought in to consolidate and amend the laws relating to bribery and treating; and as he had bestowed not a little time upon such a Bill already, he should, if he obtained encouragement from the House, be inclined to ask for leave to bring it in.


said, he quite concurred in the construction which his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) had put upon the Act of Parliament. From the best construction which he (the Attorney General) could put upon it, he was of opinion that treating did not come within the section which authorised that House to address Her Majesty. He very much regretted this circumstance, for he could not but think that treating was one of the very first causes of corruption, and that it might be made not only as mischievous, but possibly more demoralising, than money bribery itself. He begged leave, however, to remind his right hon. Friend of this—that in the Bill, as introduced by the noble Lord the Member for the City of London last year, treating was included among corrupt practices. It was struck out, however, in another place; and the Bill came back to the House of Commons shorn of that provision. But he rejoiced to hear that his right hon. Friend was impressed with the notion that treating ought to be within the scope of the Commissioners' inquiries; and he hoped when he introduced his Bill on the subject of bribery, treating, and intimidation—an announcement which he (the Attorney General) was sure would be received with satisfaction—he would remedy the defect in the existing law, in order that there might be no difficulty in future.


said, he was afraid the House made rather a ridiculous figure in respect to the provisions of the present Act. He begged the House to remember that it was only passed last year, and that the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord John Russell) promised that it should be an amendment upon the previous state of the law. But when the Bill came down from that other place, where many measures were altered, but very few amended, he perceived at once that it was so changed as to be almost altogether nugatory; and he took the liberty of recommending the noble Lord not to assent to the alterations which had destroyed, as it had turned out, the utility of the measure. The very first time they attempted to put it into force, they found it to be so defective, that the particular kind of corruption which was most commonly practised, and which was most notorious and most destructive to electoral purity, was absolutely excluded from the operation of the Act. The whole system of treating was really a system of bribery in the very worst form, for it corrupted two persons in respect to one vote. The manner in which it was done, so far as his experience went, he could easily state. Personally, as a candidate, he had no knowledge of it; but he happened to live in a town which he believed to be as pure a borough now as any in England; but at an election fifteen years ago, this system of corruption prevailed to a large extent. For several weeks before the election, means were taken by one of the political parties to bribe the publicans and beershop keepers, and through this means to influence both voters and non-electors. Sums of money were said to have been, and he had no doubt were, given to the public-house and beershop keepers—2l. in one case, 5l. in another, and 10l. in another—for the purpose of free drink being given to anybody who chose to take it, especially electors. Under the present Act these publicans and beershop keepers could not be charged with being bribed. The beer was purchased from them; but the transaction was a bribe, while the distribution of the liquor would come under the head of treating. This mode of treating was excluded from the operation of the present Act; and so was nine-tenths of all the corruption that was practised at the late election. Still, if the House was willing to adopt a liberal and just construction of its own Act, and to give some latitude to the freedom of the Commissioners, they might arrive at a different conclusion from that of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Walpole). He (Mr. Bright) conceived that the words "the manner in which the election had been conducted," in the beginning of the clause, and the words "and all other things whereby, in the opinion of the Commissioners, the truth may be better known touching the premises," afforded the necessary latitude. He was glad, however, that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to consolidate and amend the laws relating to this subject. Such a measure would be very useful to the Committees and for the information of the public; but he was convinced that no proposition of reform would at all meet the case, unless it included the proposition which he supposed would soon be brought before them by the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. H. Berkeley). For he contended that the only remedy for the evils of the existing system was that provided by the method of taking the votes by ballot.


said, he was unwilling hastily to acquiesce in the opinion that no case of treating could be brought within the operation of the Act, because a general power was given to issue a Commission in all cases where extensive corruption prevailed. Treating might amount to absolute bribery. He understood that in the present case there was treating for the purpose of influencing the votes of electors. Now, if the money was spent at the publican's, though in the shape of treating, for the purpose of obtaining votes, it was very doubtful whether this did not amount, in law, to a "valuable consideration." There was no more reprehensible mode of bribery or corruption than that which consisted in opening public-houses for the purpose of securing voters. It would be a strong measure to disfranchise publicans, and he did not say he should be willing to go to such a length; but there was a necessity for some measure to repress such evils. It did not, as he said, appear quite so clear that treating did not come within the Act; but after the doubts expressed by those for whose opinion he entertained great respect, he was disposed to think that the Commission should not issue in this case. But he hoped that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) would bring in his Bill, and that the law would be put in a satisfactory state.


in explanation, said he should be sorry if it went forth that he was of opinion that treating might not be one form of bribery. Treating, if applied in the mode suggested, might be as clearly bribery as a gift of money; but he did not understand the report in this case to say that treating was resorted to with the view of bribing the publicans.


said, he concurred in the opinion that treating was a species of corruption not reached by the Act of Parliament. He might, indeed, add that he thought, if the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. S. Wortley) had carefully read the Act, he too would have agreed with the hon. and learned the Attorney General, and his right hon. Friend the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole), that this was not a case in which it was competent for the House, within the conditions of that Act, to address the Crown. He took this opportunity, as more than one question had arisen in that House, and necessarily in the other House of Parliament, of earnestly impressing on those hon. Members who constituted Election Committees the importance of adopting the very words of the clause of the Act of Parliament, if they really saw a case which, in their judgment, required further investigation by Commission under an Address to the Crown. There were many reasons, but one was quite decisive on this point. Although it was not regular to allude to discussions elsewhere, it was now notorious that two of the most learned Judges that ever sat upon the bench entertained one opinion—and two other learned and eminent Judges, one of them at the head of the administration of the law, entertained a directly opposite opinion—on this question. Therefore, it was clear, doubts existed which were entitled to the most serious consideration; and the reason why it was essential the words of the Act should be adopted by Committees, was to prevent those doubts arising; for, however the effect of the Committee's report might be sufficient to address the Crown, if in the proceedings which took place oaths were given, oaths were taken, perjury was committed, and an indictment for perjury followed, no authority in the other House of Parliament, should the precise words be omitted or changed for words equivalent, would prevent the acquittal of the person so indicted, and the total defeat of the ends of justice. Having offered that recommendation, he could not sit down without alluding to what had fallen from from his right hon. Friend the Member for Midhurst. It was with much pleasure that he heard his right hon. Friend indicate his intention to bring this great and important question under the consideration of the House. He took leave to say he was somewhat disappointed at not having heard any intimation from the Government that they were prepared, without reference to the numerous reports of Committees, and the possible reports of Commissions, to bring forward some great and substantial measure on this subject. He should rejoice, in common with others, if further means were devised to investigate and check bribery, and those corrupt practices which formed the greatest blot on the fair page of the constitution. He was one of those who thought they had enough information to enable the House satisfactorily to legislate on this subject; and he could only say, looking at the continuation of those practices, although most anxious that the course should be adopted by Her Majesty's Government, that unless within a very short time indeed—unless at some time which would give a fair hope of carrying some full and satisfactory measure through both Houses during the present Session—Her Majesty's Government should intimate their intention to bring forward a Bill, he should, with such assistance as he might be able to procure, take an early opportunity of moving for leave to bring in a general, and he hoped a comprehensive and satisfactory, measure on this subject.


said, he hoped the House would not by any logical licence defeat the ends of justice and the great object of all their legislation. After some experience in matters of election petitions, he could not recall an instance in which an election was carried by practices of a more illegal and improper character than those which disgraced the proceedings of the last election for Clitheroe. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midhurst had remarked that only one case of bribery was reported to the House. That was unquestionably true; but the right hon. Gentleman, after so much experience in Election Committees, would recollect that, from the nature of the proceedings, it was unlikely that more than one gross and palpable case would be furnished to the House. The parties who prosecuted these petitions were not likely to spend large sums of money in carrying out a protracted inquiry, after their own purpose had been served, and which could only give satisfaction to the public. The case reported was a very remarkable one, and it came out that the practice of offering to give and receive bribes in exchange for votes was in constant and continual operation in the borough of Clitheroe. But that was not the only act of corruption which marked the proceedings at this election. Treating of a most extensive character prevailed, and it was found by the evidence that in one house as many as 2,000 persons were entertained at the expense of the candidate. If practices of that character, when brought under the cognisance of the House, were not to be followed by further proceedings, he confessed he thought they might as well legalise the putting up to public auction the representation of the people in the several boroughs of England. He was quite sure by such a proceeding they would as well sustain the honour, the influence, and the reputation of the House and the morality of the electors, as by giving an absolving protection to the system which prevailed in the borough of Clitheroe.


said, he believed the whole House would unite in condemning the proceedings at this election; but the question was whether the Act of Parliament confined the House to bribery, or extensive bribery, in moving an Address to the Crown to issue a Commission for further inquiry. The House of Commons could not carry out the Act by themselves. They had to concur with the Lords, and they knew what passed in another place last night. Therefore, they ought to adopt the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly) and be extremely careful, when acting on an Election Committee, to make their Resolution so completely in accordance with the Act that both Houses might agree as a matter of course.


said, he thought it would be a great injustice to Canterbury and other constituencies if Commissions were issued with respect to them, and not with respect to Clitheroe. As to only one case being reported, much larger lists were given in; and it was well known petitioners never would prove more than sufficient to answer their own object.


said, he thought the House ought not to endeavour to strain the law beyond what the law prescribed. Had the Bill which he introduced last year come back from the Lords in the same state in which it went up, this case of Clitheroe would have been clearly included in it. No doubt the Motion for an Address would have passed the House, and inquiry by a Commission would have taken place. But the House of Lords expressly excluded the case of treating from the Bill, and such being the case it was impossible to act as if the words were included. He stated, at the time he advised the House to concur in the Amendment of the Lords, that if gross cases of treating occurred, they might proceed, as in the Sudbury and St. Albans' cases, to carry a Bill through the Parliament; and that was a course which was open for any Member of the House to take in this instance. The hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) stated that he warned him (Lord J. Russell) of the effect of leaving out the words, and adopting the other amendments which were made. He, (Lord John Russell) as he then expressed himself, was unfavourable to those amendments; but the question was, whether he should allow the Bill to drop, and have no Bill at all on the subject. He thought it preferable to obtain such an Act as they now had; and the case of Canterbury and other cases had shown that they were able by that Bill to institute investigations into bribery, which otherwise they would not have been in a position to do. He thought, after the experience they had had, it was tolerably evident the House ought to have power to proceed with an address to the Crown in cases of treating. He was glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midhurst had paid considerable attention to, and meant to introduce a Bill on, the subject. Whether the Act of last year and the Act of 1842 would be included, the right hon. Gentleman did not say; but he was very glad to hear that he had given the matter his attention, and in introducing a Bill the right hon. Gentleman might rely on receiving the best attention of the Government. He did not think it always incumbent on the Government to introduce Bills of this kind. Individually he had frequently introduced such Bills—some were successful, and others had been altered—but these were questions upon which the House ought to endeavour as far as possible to act without distinction of parties. He thought they would make more way if Bills of the kind were carried by large majorities composed of the different parties into which the House was divided. No doubt, much might still be done in the way of detecting bribery. He thought further legislation would be very beneficial; at the same time he did not regret that he did not take the advice of the hon. Member for Manchester, and allow the Bill of last year to drop.


said, he quite agreed with the noble Lord that they ought not to strain the law, and he quite agreed, after what had occurred in another place with reference to the Bill of the noble Lord, that it would not be wise in them to sanction any Commission being issued to inquire into cases of treating, however extensive they might be. Notwithstanding the evidence as to treating in this case of Clitheroe, that was not the basis of the recommendation for a Commission. He must remind the House that the evidence and report to inquire were not at all confined merely to the matter of treating. There was considerable evidence, if he recollected right, proving that corrupt practices—consisting of direct bribery or offers to bribe—did prevail at the Clitheroe election. It was quite true that in the report of the Committee only one case of bribery, though that case was a very flagrant one, was alleged. But they all knew, and the reason had been already referred to, why the inquiry into questions of bribery ceased before Election Committees. No doubt, it was perfectly open to the House to appoint a Commission to inquire into the subject of treating; but he thought before they decided on that question, they ought to ask themselves whether or not the evidence before the Committee on the Clitheroe election petition proved that corrupt practices of direct bribery extensively prevailed. He did not know what was the number of instances of bribery given in to the Committee; but he apprehended it was by no means inconsiderable. [An Hon. MEMBER: Only one.] He believed a list was furnished of more than twenty. He knew the evidence disclosed four or five instances in which bribes were offered; and one man stood out because they would not give him 150l.—he refused less than 150l. He confessed it was a difficult case to decide; but if he must decide, he must decide in favour of issuing the Commission.

The House divided:—Ayes 141; Noes 58: Majority 83.

List of the AYES.
Anderson, Sir J. Dunne, Col.
Baillie, H. J. Evans, Sir De L.
Barrow, W. H. Ewart, W.
Ball, J. Ferguson, Col.
Bennet, P. Ferguson, J.
Biggs, W. Floyer, J.
Blair, Col. Fox, W. J.
Bland, L. H. Franklyn, G. W.
Boldero, Col. French, F.
Booth, Sir R. G. Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.
Boyle, hon. Col. Gladstone, Capt.
Bright, J. Goodman, Sir G.
Brisco, M. Goold, W.
Brotherton, J. Grace, O. D. J.
Brown, W. Greenall, G.
Bruce, C. L. C. Greville, Col. F.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Grosvenor, Lord R.
Butler, C. S. Gwyn, H.
Cobbett, J. M. Hadfield, G.
Cobden, R. Hall, Sir B.
Coffin, W. Hamilton, Lord C.
Corbally, M. E. Hamilton, J. H.
Craufurd, E. H. J. Hardinge, hon. C. S.
Crook, J. Headlam, T. E.
Cubitt, Ald. Henchy, D. O.
Dashwood, Sir G. H. Heyworth, L.
Disraeli, rt. hon. B. Hotham, Lord
Duncan, G. Hughes, W. B.
Dunlop, A. M. Jocelyn, Visct.
Jones, Capt. Percy, hon. J. W.
Keating, R. Phillimore, J. G.
Keating, H. S. Phillimore, R. J.
Kendall, N. Pigott, F.
Kennedy, T. Pollard-Urquhart, W.
Kingscote, R. N. F. Power, N.
Kirk, W. Price, W. P.
Knox, Col. Repton, G. W. J.
Knox, hon. W. S. Ricardo, O.
Lacon, Sir E. Sandars, G.
Langton, H. G. Scholefield, W.
Langton, W. G. Scobell, Capt.
Laslett, W. Scully, F.
Legh, G. C. Scully, V.
Liddell, H. G. Seaham, Visct.
Lindsay, hon. Col. Shee, W.
Lockhart, A. E. Smith, J. A.
Lucas, F. Smith, J. B.
Luce, T. Smith, W. M.
Mackenzie, W. F. Smyth, R. J.
M'Gregor, J. Smyth, J. G.
Malins, R. Spooner, R.
Maxwell, hon. J. P. Stapleton, J.
Meager, T. Stuart, Lord D.
Meux, Sir H. Swift, R.
Miall, E. Thompson, G.
Milligan, R. Trollope, rt. hon. Sir J.
Michell, W. Tudway, R. C.
Montgomery, H. L. Turner, C.
Montgomery, Sir G. Vane, Lord A.
Moore, R. S. Walmsley, Sir J.
Mostyn, hon. E. M. L. Whalley, G. H.
Mullings, J. R. Whatman, J.
Muntz, G. F. Wilkinson, W. A.
Murrough, J. P. Williams, W.
Naas, Lord Wise, A.
Napier, rt. hon. J. Wodehouse, E.
North, Col. Wynn, H. W. W.
O'Brien, P. Wyvill, M.
O'Brien, Sir T. Yorke, hon. E. T.
Osborne, R. TELLERS.
Pakenham, E. Gaskell, J. M.
Pellatt, A. Hutt, W.
List of the NOES.
A'Court, C. H. W. Henley, rt. hon. J. W.
Archdall, Capt. M. Herbert, rt. hon. S.
Baldock, E. H. Hervey, Lord A.
Barrington, Visct. Hindley, C.
Beaumont, W. B. Johnstone, Sir J.
Berkeley, C. L. G. Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.
Blackett, J. F. B. Kelly, Sir F.
Browne, V. A. Mangles, R. D.
Bruce, Lord E. Molesworth,rt.hn.SirW.
Burke, Sir T. J. Monck, Visct.
Burrell, Sir C. M. Monsell, W.
Chambers, T. Morgan, O.
Charteris, hon. F. Mulgrave, Earl of
Clay, Sir W. Oliveira, B.
Cowper, hon. W. F. Palmerston, Visct.
Davies, D. A. S. Phinn, T.
Egerton, Sir P. Pilkington, J.
Fielden, M. J. Russell, Lord J.
Fitzgerald, J. D. Russell, F. W.
Fitzgerald, Sir J. F. Sawle, C. B. G.
Fitzroy, hon. H. Seymour, Lord
Forester, rt. hon. Col. Smith, rt. hon. R. V.
Gladstone, rt. hon. W. Stafford, Marq. of
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J. Stirling, W.
Granby, Marq. of Strickland, Sir G.
Hayes, Sir E. Thompson, Ald.
Hayter, rt. hon. W. G. Villiers, rt, hon. C. P.
Whitmore, H. Young, rt. hon. Sir J.
Wood, rt. hon. Sir C. TELLERS.
Wortley, rt. hon. J. S. Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.
Wyndham, W. Cockburn, Sir A.

Resolved—That the said Address be communicated to The Lords, at a Conference, and their concurrence desired thereto.

Ordered—That a Conference be desired with the Lords on the subject matter of an Address to be presented to Her Majesty under the provisions of the Act of the 15 & 16 of Her present Majesty, cap. 57.

Ordered—That Mr. Gaskell do go to The Lords, and desire the said Conference.