
House of Commons Hansard
09 May 1837
Volume 38

Lord John Russell moved the Order of the Day for going into Committee on the Irish Poor-law Bill.

Mr. T. Duncombe moved the resolution of which he had given notice. "That the practice of any deliberative assembly deciding by proxy upon the rejection or adoption of legislative enactments is so incompatible with every principle of justice and reason that its continuance is daily becoming a source of serious and well-founded complaint among all classes of his Majesty's subjects;" and after the House should have affirmed that resolution, as he doubted not it would (for he could not believe that they would so far stultify themselves as to reject so reasonable a proposition), he would move, "That a message be sent to the Lords requesting a conference, at which the foregoing resolution might be communicated." He was happy to say, that he had good reason to believe that when the resolution in question should be so communicated it would not only be well received by that assembly, but would be warmly responded to by many of its most distinguished Members. He was well aware that in submitting these resolutions to the House, he was treading upon delicate ground, but he hoped that while he should certainly avail himself of that freedom of debate which was permitted to that (the Commons') branch of the Legislature he should yet avoid doing it in a manner at all offensive, or in any way trenching upon the privileges or independence of the other. He confessed he was at a loss to imagine what valid reasons could be

urged against the adoption of the first of these resolutions; perhaps the antiquity of the custom might be pleaded as one, or the convenience of it as another; no doubt voting by proxy was an ancient custom, but that custom had undergone various changes (chiefly for the worst) at various periods of our history. The first notice to be found of proxies was in the reigns of Edward 1st, and Edward 2nd. when the Bishops of Durham and Carlisle were ordered to remain in Scotland, where they were defending the Marches, but were at the same time commanded to send up well-instructed persons to represent them; and from that time to the reign of Henry 8th Peers, when unavoidably compelled either by illness or employment by the King on foreign wars to absent themselves from Parliament, were enjoined to send proxies, but these proxies were not Members of the House, but men of lesser rank; the spiritual Lords being frequently represented by parsons, prebendaries, and any members of collegiate bodies whom they chose to send. So at all events up to that period those who were to decide upon the fate of great questions had at least the decency to hear those questions put. From Henry 8th to Charles 1st. time a new and worse system obtained; any one Peer being then permitted to represent any number of Peers. In the reign of Elizabeth an Earl of Bedford, it appeared had fifteen proxies, and in Charles 1st. reign a Duke of Buckingham fourteen: this latter case, however, being much murmured at by the public, it was ordered by the House that thenceforth no Peer should hold more than two proxies—a rule which was still strictly observed. There has been, however, an alteration of recent date introduced. Until the close of the last century, Peers who wished for leave of absence were obliged to apply for it to the King, and were sometimes refused, as in the case of Lord Scroop in the reign of Henry 8th., when his servant and his medical man were under the necessity of making oath of that nobleman's sickness before his excuse was admitted; and a Peer being absent without leave forfeited 100 l. In 1678 the oaths of two credible witnesses were required to prove a sufficient cause of absence for any Peer; but at the close of the last century it was decided, during the insanity of George 3rd., that the King's permission might henceforth be dispensed with; and so the last remaining protection that the people of this country had against blind legislation was for ever swept away. In 1695 Lords, Derby

Weymouth, and Lempster, having sent excuses which did not satisfy the House, the question in debate was sent to them, and they were required to return their assent or dissent in writing. In 1646, a curious and ludicrous instance of the impolicy of the custom of voting by proxy occurred. Lord Say and Sele, who then held Lord Mulgrave's proxy, having voted in opposition the wishes of the latter Peer, Lord Mulgrave thereupon addressed a letter to the House, disclaiming any participation in the opinions expressed by his proxy, and his vote was accordingly changed to the other side. But what were the historical excuses urged in favour of the practice of Peers voting by proxy at all? Historical writers, generally speaking, gave none, but seemed all content to quote the dictum of Sir Edward Coke in his fourth institute, "that any Lord of Parliament, by licence of the King, upon just ground, to be absent, might make a proxy; but a knight, citizen, or burgess cannot, because he is elected and trusted by multitudes of the people." Blackstone, and other writers 'on the constitution, seemed also satisfied with merely quoting these words, without comment, excepting De Lolme, who said "the Lords were Members of the Legislature by virtue of a right inherent in their own persons, and they were supposed to sit in parliament on their own account, and for the support of their own interests: in consequence of this they had the privilege of voting by proxy, the Commons not having this privilege, as they were but proxies for the people." But he thought that the principle laid down by De Lolme and by Coke was completely set aside by the practice of the Scotch and Irish Peers, who were clearly not members of the Legislature by any right inherent in their own persons, but were themselves, like the Commons, proxies for others, and yet they voted by proxy. There were also the bishops, who were said to be representatives of the clergy: they, too, had no right inherent in their own persons to sit there, but yet they voted by proxy. He might be told "This is all very true, but what was the objection?" Why, the objection was, in (the first place, that it was a proceeding contrary to common sense; and in the next, that it was a privilege generally used for the sole convenience of the Peer, to the great inconvenience and detriment of the interests of the people. We had at present 420 Peers—two-thirds of that number might be absent, and yet vote upon any question

involving perhaps the welfare and fate of the country, and a majority of the remaining one-third, namely, seventy-one individuals, were to be considered superior in judgment and ability to the 658 Members of the House of Commons; or let it be supposed that 135 peers should be present during a debate upon a Bill, in framing and considering which the House of Commons should have passed many long and anxious nights, was it to be borne that when 100 of those present might have voted in favour of that measure, a miserable monopolizing minority of thirty-five, by simply emptying their breeches pockets of seventy proxies, enabling them to represent as many absent Peers, some of whom, perhaps, ere in China, others dancing at Paris, others amusing themselves at a Carnival at Rome, and some possibly in the grave—was it to be borne, he said, that these thirty-five should have it in their power to defeat such a measure and to disappoint the wishes of the country, and render futile the labours bestowed on the subject elsewhere? We might talk of the civilization of the people, and boast of our "free institutions," but this was one which was an insult to our understandings, and which he thought he had shown was not borne 200 years ago, and to which he could see no reason for submitting now. He had heard it said, that the Lords were responsible for their votes and acts to God and their own consciences; he believed that all men were so, but it did appear to him that the consciences of Peers in voting by proxy had an analogy to the equity law of chancellors, as described by Selden, when he said, "Equity is a roguish thing; for law we have a measure; know what to trust to; equity is according to the conscience of him that is chancellor; and as that is larger or narrower, so is equity. It is all one as if they should make the standard of measure a chancellor's foot; what an uncertain measure would this be! One chancellor has a long foot; another a short foot; a third an indifferent foot—'tis the same thing with a chancellor's conscience." Now, as chancellors and ex-chancellors were Peers, this rule might be thought to be applied to all, and it was just possible that one Peer might entrust his very long conscience to another Peer with a very short one; or if Peers were liable to the casualties and defects of other men, and it was not scandalum magnatum to disclose the fact, it might occur that some Peer might entrust his conscience to some other Peer with no con-

science at all. In making this motion he could assure the House that nothing was further from his intentions than to increase any feeling of irritation which the conduct of the present Peerage might unhappily have given rise to. No one who had the public good at heart would wish in these times to widen that civil or that religious breach which was daily opening before us; on the contrary, he thought that much might be done by timely concession and mutual forbearance, at present the concession and forbearance had been all on one side; it had been entirely on the side of the House of Commons, for which reason he believed that the Peers of England did not hold so high a place in the estimation of the people as they had done; he still, however, believed that it was not too late for them to retrace their steps or retrieve their character, but then it must not be by repeating the errors of past Sessions; it must not be by calumniating, individually and collectively, the chosen representatives of the people; it must not be by accusing of perjury and infidelity those whose religious opinions happened to differ from their own; "nor," continued the hon. Member, addressing himself to the Speaker, "must it be by repeating those base insinuations which I myself heard last year levelled against that high office, the duties of which you fulfil with so much honour to yourself, and so much satisfaction to us. No, the public confidence and esteem can only be restored to the Peers of England by their frankly admitting that as human nature is weak, and the heart of man is frail, they, like other men, have been liable to error; and believing as I do that a repetition of those errors may be best avoided by the personal presence and attendance of those who, as legislators, are to decide upon the fate of questions involving not only the rights and liberties of the people, but the peace, religion and happiness of the country." The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his resolution.

This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

said, that the hon. Member for Finsbury told the House that he had no wish to widen the breach between that House and the House of Lords. The hon. Member had taken a very extraordinary mode of evincing that feeling. The hon. Member had taken the very means of aggravating that feeling. He ventured to tell the hon. Member for Finsbury, that if he anticipated, or if he was led to imagine that the House of Lords did not stand high in the estimation of the country, he was very much in error indeed. He should like to know what would he said if the House of Lords thought proper to move resolutions affecting the usages of that House? Such an attempt would, and most properly, be denounced in terms of the loudest indignation. He protested against the course adopted by the hon. Member for Finsbury, as inconsistent with the constitution and the privileges of the other, and equally independent, branch of the Legislature—a branch which enjoyed the respect, and he trusted would, ere long, enjoy the confidence, of all the well-disposed persons in the country; and when the hour of danger and of difficulty arrived there would be found ranged under the banner of the Lords a greater number than the hon. Member for Finsbury reckoned upon.

This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

did not think that the hon. Member for Finsbury deserved the attack which the hon. Member for Durham had made upon him. He considered the resolution one of conciliation, and if the House of Lords took it in good part they would make a great advance in the good opinion of the country. If they received that proposition as he hoped they would, and give up the practice of voting by proxy, they would do much to conciliate the country.

This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

agreed with the hon. and gallant Member that the adoption of this resolution would tend to raise the House of Lords in the opinion of the country. If that House could be brought calmly and deliberately to review the privilege themselves, he was sure they would be disposed to give it up. With respect to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. A. Trevor) as to the right of that House to interfere with the privileges of the other, he would venture to say that, the privileges of that and of the other House of Parliament were intended for the benefit of the people, and that House as the representatives of the people, had a right to review those privileges. He remembered Several bills that had passed through that House after the most mature deliberation, and which had been read a second time in the other House with the assent of all the Lords present, and which, nevertheless, having thus received the assent of both Houses, were afterwards rejected in consequence of the proxies of those who were absent, and who never heard anything of the matter. These proxies were not given for a single individual occasion, but for the general voting on all legislative measures. It was intolerable in reasoning to suppose that a deliberative legislative body in the present state of civilization should have such a power of deciding on legislative acts. He would ask, did any legislative body exist in any other country in the world that were allowed to vote in this way. If the other House of Parliament had not long possessed this power, they would indignantly reject, and consider it an insult to make a suggestion to them that they should adopt such a privilege. Formerly Peers voted aids for the Crown in their own chamber, as the knights and burgesses did in theirs, and as the clergy did in convocation; but when the mode of taxation was changed, the reason for allowing voting by proxy was at an end, and no possible reason existed for the continuance of the practice. He did not conceive, therefore, that there was any impropriety on the part of his hon. Friend in bringing the matter before the attention of Parliament; but instead of the resolution that had been proposed, he would suggest that it would be better to come to a resolution to recommend the House of Lords to review these privileges with a view to the alteration of the custom.

This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

did not think there was anything very dangerous or alarming to the other House in the motion of the hon. Gentleman, or in the manner in which it had been received; and he did not think that either from the tone of the debate or from the feeling of the House any very serious result could be anticipated from it. He could not help feeling that the right hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House had upon his mind some proceedings connected with a more recent occurrence in that House than what had taken place in the other House of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman brought forward a motion last night which he thought of great and overwhelming importance as regarded the constitution of that House, and notwithstanding this, the attendance on the right hon. Gentleman's oratory was not very great, nor was the effect very impressive. The right hon. Gentleman came down to night, and complained of what had occurred in one of the deliberative legislative assemblies of this country. He did not say which. He proceeded to ask, would any hon. Gentleman imagine that in a civilised country a practice could exist of some Members sending down others to vote for them on motions without hearing the reasons pro and con, and without having weighed well the reasons on one side or the other. "How was it possible," exclaimed the right hon. Gentleman, "for any person to give a proxy, unless after attentively listening to the viva voce reasoning on the subject. He (Lord Stanley) would ask what happened last night? Why did not the right hon. Gentleman consult the hon. Member for Mary-la-bone on this subject? Why did he not consult that hon. Gentleman as to the extreme impropriety, the unconstitutional course of proceeding, the custom so absurd that it ought not to be tolerated by a civilised people, of the members of the legislative assembly pairing off for two or three hours, for the purpose of refreshment, or the whole of the night, and then coming down to give a decision on a question on which they had not heard one word of argument. He knew that the right hon. Gentleman was very ill-treated last night during the period he was addressing the House; for while the right hon. Gentleman was speaking, there were hardly forty Members present, and because the division took place before ten o'clock, the hon. Gentleman had a large minority of eighty-seven. He knew that it was convenient for hon. Gentlemen to go away to refresh themselves, instead of attending to the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman; but might it not also be said, that this arose from the circumstance that they rather wished to hear a debate on a measure of much importance to the country instead of listening to the discussion of the motion of the right hon. Gentleman? It appeared, however, that with a view to refresh themselves, hon. Gentlemen paired off last night for two or three hours, and afterwards came down to vote without listening to any portion of the debate; but this he might be told, should be regarded as nothing, because a person by study might have been convinced of the reasonableness of a proposition without hearing the discussion. He admitted the force of this argument, but how a man could consistently give a vote for the whole of the Session on all questions that might become before that House was perfectly incomprehensible to him. And had they never heard in this House of such a practice as pairing off for a week or month; for half a Session, or for even a whole Session? He would not enter upon the question of the privileges of the House of Lords—the privileges of that assembly which represented only themselves, and which was actually an independent branch of the Legislature, the Members of which possessed the undoubted right, through other Members belonging to it, of voting by proxy. But, sacrificing all the force that this argument gave him, he was content to rest his case upon what he had previously stated, which was a valid argument, not against voting by proxy in the House of Lords, but against that House, because they were a representative body, and representing those that gave them legislative proxies; and the members of that branch of the legislature were nothing but proxies in that House. But setting aside the privileges of the other House, those who argued against proxies in the other House, and not against the practice of pairing in the House of Commons, were guilty of the most flagrant inconsistency. Hon. Gentlemen opposite said, that they had not heard any valid arguments for the practice of voting on a subject when the debate on both sides had not been heard; but, he would ask, as regarded the voting, whether they might not have heard the arguments urged in the course of a night's debate in that House. But those who made these attacks upon the privileges of the House of Lords should, both by precept and example, be satisfied that they should hear the arguments on one side as well as the other, before they gave a vote instead of allowing hon. Gentlemen to pair off for three hours of the discussion, and then come and vote, without being able to weigh the reasons that had been urged. What, then, became of the charge of such inconsistency in persons coming to a conclusion, affirming that conclusion by their votes, and yet not to have heard any of the arguments used. This was the inference from the argument of the hon. Gentleman, if his position was sound, but it certainly was not sound; but the inference followed necessarily from what he had stated. He did not consider that the hon. Member for Lambeth complained of the position in which he was placed, in Members coming down to that House to vote on the motion he brought forward who had not heard the discussion. He contended, that as a matter of consistency, hon. Gentlemen opposite must accompany the condemnation of pairing with that of proxy. But there was nothing inconsistent that the Members of the House of Lords, which was a body only representing themselves, and not elected to represent the people, should have the right of delivering their opinions by proxy as well as by voice. He must add, that it was most inconvenient to delay, by such motions, the business of the House, instead of expediting the Bills before them. There were many most important and very grave questions to be decided by that House, and if Gentlemen who had notices of motions on the books, would only look to the practical advantages likely to be derived from them, he hoped that they would see how desirable it was to proceed with those most important matters, to the result of which the country naturally looked with anxiety. Hon. Gentlemen when passing such severe censures on others, should turn some attention to the course now pursued in that House.

"Oh that some power the gift would gie us To see ourselves as others see us."
He did not refer to one side of the House more than the other, but he wished to impress upon hon. Gentlemen how unnecessary it must be to proceed with notices of motions when other business of such grave importance was before them—when such indifference was manifested by the majority, that it was not possible to get together some thirty-five or thirty-eight Members. The real effect of putting these motions in the motion paper was, to put a stop to all business of real importance. He hoped, therefore, that Gentlemen would look to their own motions in the same view that other Members of the House regarded them, and would withdraw them from the notice-book, from the probability that discussions on such matters would lead to nothing. He was glad that his noble Friend, (Lord John Russell) had that night interposed by moving the order of the day on the first motion, for this showed equal respect or disrespect to all the motions in the book. He trusted that his noble Friend would proceed. He trusted that the hon. Gentlemen who had given notice of such motions would feel that it was better to proceed with the important Bills before them, than to the discussion of questions which could lead to nothing, and with respect to which the great majority of the people cared not one straw. He should vote for the motion of his noble Friend to go into the Committee on the Irish Poor Laws, even if the motion under discussion was of more importance than it was, but, above all, as it was a question open to very serious objections.

This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

wished the noble Lord possessed the ocular gift to see himself as he was regarded by others, sitting where he did, and speaking and voting as was now his custom. If that was the case the House would have been saved from the infliction of that speech which the noble Lord had just delivered. He was glad, however, that only one Member had defended the practice of voting by proxy, and that Member was a noble Lord. It had been stated, that there was not one supporter of the motion of his hon. colleague in the country out of that House; but the truth was, that the question was rife throughout the country. The common sense of the nation cried out against the practice of voting by proxy, and he would tell the noble Lord that the common sense of England would not long endure the practice. Because Members paired off for weeks or months, was it a sufficient reason to justify the practice of sending pieces of paper from the continent of Europe for years together to authorise any member of a legislative body to vote for another? He, for one, thanked his hon. colleague for having brought forward this motion, and for the future it would become a sessional motion until it was carried. The noble Lord justified proxies by the practice of pairing in that House, but one abuse would not justify another. If the noble Lord did not approve of pairing as he appeared to do, why did he not bring forward a motion to put a stop to it? But what justification was that practice of voting by proxy? Hon. Members only paired for certain votes, but still it was a practice he condemned, and he was satisfied that it would ultimately bring the House into contempt, as it would appear, that Members, instead of listening, to the reasons adduced on one side or the other were prepared on all questions to vote with their party. He trusted that his hon. Friend would press his motion to a division, and he was convinced that in the course of three years he would carry it.

This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

staled, that when his noble Friend rose to address the House, a similar train of thought had passed through his mind as had been so ably just urged by his noble Friend. He trusted the House would not come to a vote on the present motion until they were aware of the principle involved in the motion, and also considered how they would hereafter deal with this principle. In the Bill which they would have to consider, he trusted, immediately after the present motion was disposed of, he found the following expression:—"And be it enacted, that it shall be lawful for any rate-payer, from time to time, by writing under his hand, to appoint any person to vote as his proxy in respect of any property not in the actual occupation of such rate-payer, and any such appointment shall remain in force until revoked." The hon. Gentleman had made an inquiry of one of the Members of the Tower Hamlets. He doubted not that hon. Gentleman would have agreed with him had he been present; but, as both the Members for that borough were absent he had no doubt but that they had paired off. He agreed in what had been said by his noble Friend as to the custom of Members pairing, and he thought while his noble Friend was speaking, that he would endeavour to draw up some resolutions as to their own practices which should be passed before they tried their apprentice hands to another assembly. His resolutions were to this effect:—First "Resolved that the practice of letting members of any deliberative legislative assembly vote without having heard all the arguments on both sides of the question, was incompatible with every principle of justice." His second resolution was this:— "Resolved that the absence of Members by pairing, for several hours for the purpose of refreshment, and for several weeks at a time, from the question under discussion, without hearing the arguments which arose on such questions, was becoming a source of well-founded complaint among all classes of the community. He would ask the hon. Member opposite whether it was not clear that they should attack the evil in their own House before what might be good elsewhere? He agreed with one suggestion that had been thrown out on the opposite side, namely, that they should begin at home. They could not speak to the House of Lords on this subject before they reformed themselves on a practice which they had the high authority of the hon. Gentleman for saying it was bringing them into contempt. But supposing that the amendment of the hon. Member for Finsbury was carried, and was ordered to be gent up to another place—supposing, also, that an amicable conference took place, what should prevent the other House presenting them in return with a counter resolution? The hon. Gentleman proposed that this resolution should be presented to the Lords. He (Sir R. Peel) would propose that after passing the resolution he had read, as to not hearing arguments, and to the practice of pairing, the following resolution should be adopted:—" Resolved, thirdly, that the hon. Member for Mary-le-bone be requested to bring in a Bill founded on the previous resolutions." He would do this because that hon. Gentleman stated last night, that he was a metropolitan Member, and that he was convinced that the question before the House was regarded by the country as one of vital importance, and in comparison with which the Reform Bill was as nothing. He said, that he was only prepared with a crude speech, but feeling the vital interest of this question he felt bound to speak; but he concluded with stating, that he had paired-off till ten o'clock. He stated with a degree of kindness and candour that could not be surpassed that he thought it was too much for the House to come to a decision on this important question during the hours devoted to taking refreshment. He observed, that he had paired-off from seven to ten, and he earnestly entreated the House not to conclude the debate till ten o'clock. Seeing, however, the indisposition of the House to pause till ten o'clock, that his constituents might not think that he was absent, he had thought it his duty to make this crude and undigested speech to show the reason why he was elsewhere. Before they proceeded to discuss the clauses of the Bill which took away the right of proxy from the other branch of the Legislature, ought they not to consider what took place last night when one of the metropolitan colleagues of the hon. Gentlemen said that he had paired off till ten o'clock, but had spoken to show that he was present? What figure would they make before the House of Lords in presenting the resolution of the hon. Gentleman if this matter should become known? Therefore he would give this advice—namely, that they should not proceed with the resolution, but get rid of it by allowing the House to go into Committee on the Irish Poor-law Bill. It was not prudent to attempt to take away any of the privileges of a co-equal and independent branch of the Legislature, they should take the beam out of their own eye before they attempted to take the mote out of another's.

The House divided on the original motion: Ayes 129; Noes 81: Majority 48.

List of the AYES.

Agnew, Sir A., bart.Barclay, David
Andover, ViscountBarclay, C.
Anson, Col.Baring, F. T.
Archdall, M.Bateson, Sir R.
Ashley, ViscountBernal, R.
Bagot, hon. W.Borthwick, Peter
Balfour, T.Bowles, G. R.

Bramston, T. W.Lefevre, C. S.
Buller, E.Lefroy, A.
Burrell, Sir C. M.Lefroy, Thomas
Campbell, Sir H.Lewis, David
Campbell, Sir J.Longfield, R.
Castlereagh, ViscountLowther, Col. H. C.
Cavendish, hon. C.Lowther, J. H.
Chandos, Marq. ofLucas, Edward
Charlton, E. L.Maclean, Donald
Clive, hon. R. H.Maule, hon. F.
Colborne, N. W. R.Maunsell, T. P.
Cole, A. H.Moreton, A.
Cole, ViscountMorpeth, Viscount
Copeland, W. T.O'Neill, General
Corbett, T.Palmer, George
Corry H.Palmerston, Viscount
Crawley, S.Parker, M.
Crewe, Sir G., bart.Parker, J.
Cripps, JosephParnell, Sir H.
Curteis, H. B.Parry, Sir L. P.
Dalbiac, Sir C.Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Dalmeny, LordPerceval, Col.
Darlington, Earl ofPlumptre, J. P.
Dillwyn, L. W.Polhill, Frederick
Dunbar, GeorgePollington Viscount
Duncombe, W.Ponsonby J.
Dundas, hon. T.Praed, W. M.
Egerton, Sir P.Pusey, P.
Elley, Sir J.Richards, John
Elwes, J.Rickford, W.
Fector, John MinetRolfe, Sir R. M.
Ferguson, Sir R. A.Rushbrooke, Colonel
Fergusson, R. C.Russell, Lord John
Foley, Edw. ThomasSandon Viscount
Forbes, W.Scourfield, W. H.
Forster, Charles S.Scrope, G. P.
Freemantle, Sir T. W.Shaw, F.
Freshfield, J.Sinclair, Sir George
Gaskell, Jas. MilnesSmith, R. V.
Gladstone, Wm. E.Stanley, Edward
Goulburn, H.Stanley, Lord
Goulburn, SergeantStanley, W. O.
Halford, H.Stewart, John
Hamilton, Geo. Alex.Sturt, Henry Chas.
Hardy, J.Talbot, C. R. M.
Hayes, Sir Edm. S. bt.Thomas, Colonel
Heathcote, GilbertThomson, C. P.
Hogg, J. W.Townley, R. G.
Houstoun, G.Trevor, hon. A.
Howard, R.Verney, Sir H. bart.
Hoy, James BarlowVesey, hon. T.
Ingham, R.West, J. B.
Irton, SamuelWeyland, Major
Jackson, SergeantWilson, H.
Jephson, C. D. O.Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.
Jermyn, Earl ofYoung, J.
Johnstone, J. J. H.TELLERS.
Jones, TheobaldSeymour, Lord
Knight, Henry GalleySteuart, R.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.Bewes, T.
Angerstein, JohnBish, T.
Attwood, T.Blake, M. J.
Barry, G. S.Bodkin, J.
Bellew, Rich. M.Bowes, John
Berkeley, hon. F.Brocklehurst, J.

Brotherton, J.Mactaggart, J.
Browne, R. D.Maher, John
Buckingham, J. S.Marsland, Henry
Bulwer, E. L.Martin, T.
Chalmers, P.Molesworth, Sir W.
Chapman, M. L.Mullins, F. W.
Clay, W.Musgrave, Sir R. bt.
Clements, ViscountO'Brien, Cornelius
Codrington, Sir E.O'Connell, J.
Collier, JohnO'Connell, Morgan
Collins, W.O'Conor Don
Cookes, T. H.Oliphant, L.
Crawford, W. S.Parrott, J.
Denistoun, A.Pease, J.
D'Eyncourt, C. T.Philips, Mark
Evans, G.Rundle, J.
Ewart, W.Scholefield, J
Fergus, JohnScott, J. W.
Fitzgibbon, hon. R.Sheil, Richard L.
Fitzsimon, C.Speirs, A.
Fort, J.Stuart, Lord J.
Grattan, J.Tooke, Wm.
Grattan, HenryTrelawney, Sir W. L.
Handley, HenryTulk, C. A.
Hastie, A.Vigors, N. A.
Hawes, B.Wallace, R.
Hector, C. J.Warburton, H.
Hindley, C.Wemyss, Capt.
Hume, J.White, Samuel
Humphery, JohnWilliams, W.
Hutt, Wm.Wood, Alderman
King, Edward B.Wyse, Thomas
Lennard, T. B.Young, G. F.
Lennox, Lord A.TELLERS.
Lennox, Lord G.Duncombe, T
Macleod, R.Wakley, T.

The House then went into Committee on the Poor-law (Ireland) Bill, and proceeded as far as the 36th clause. The House resumed.

On Mr. Robinson moving for leave to bring in a Bill to permit the grinding of foreign corn, in bond. The House Was counted out.