HC Deb 14 June 1842 vol 63 cc1530-43
Mr. Shaw

rose to move, pursuant to notice, that a new writ be issued for the borough of Belfast. He entirely concurred in the opinion which the right hon. Baronet had expressed, in common with other Gentlemen who maintained, that in cases of this kind, the House should act judicially, and without any party feeling; and he could assure the House, that it was entirely in this spirit that he brought the present ca9e under consideration. The facts of the case, as far as the House was in possession of them, were very brief. On Friday, the 5th of June, the election committee reported that the then sitting Members for the borough of Belfast had not been duly elected, and that the election was void. On the same evening the right hon. and learned Member for Cork gave notice, that he would move for a committee to inquire into the matter, but in this first notice the right hon. and learned Gentleman had made no mention of bribery. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's motion was founded upon personation and perjury. On the Monday following a petition was presented respecting this election from a Mr. Cropper, the statements made by whom were not such as entitled him to any particular consideration. His statement was simply this, that he left Carnarvon some years ago, in consequence of pecuniary embarrassments; that he then set up a public house at Belfast, and that, at the last election, he received a bribe of 50l..; this was all that he said he was in a condition to prove. Hereupon the right hon. and learned Gentleman amended his motion, and gave notice that he would move for a Select committee to inquire into a certain corrupt compromise made in the case of the late Belfast election, for the purpose of avoiding the consequences of the committal of gross bribery. This notice he had found yesterday, printed at the bottom of the motions on an order day; and he was persuaded that there it would be allowed to remain, and the issue of a new writ might thus be suspended for an indefinite time. Under these circumstances, he had thought it a public duty to move, that the writ should issue without further delay. He did not at all understand what case the right hon. and learned Gentleman was prepared with; but the facts before the House were clear enough. As to the charges of personation and perjury, though, no doubt, these were grave offences, which deserved severe punishment, yet, even if they were established, they would show not that the bonâ fide electors were offenders who ought to be deprived of their franchise, but that they were persons sinned against, and it would be very unjust to punish them. Even if every fact stated by Cropper were true, still the case would be very many degrees better than that of Ipswich, or than that of Newcastle; in both of which cases bribery had been proved, and in both of which cases a new writ had been issued. There was no person in or out of the House who deprecated and deplored more than he did that general system of bribery which was said to have prevailed at the late elections. If it were true that it did so prevail, all he could say was, that that if persevered in, it would destroy the character of the House and morals of the country, and he should be the last man in the world to throw any obstacle in the way of a most searching inquiry into all the allegations of bribery, and of inflicting severe punishment where bribery had been committed. Up to the present Session it had been the invariable rule of Parliament never to refuse to issue a writ, except in cases where the committee had reported extensive bribery, which required to be visited with disfranchisement, or in certain other cases, none of which had an affinity with that of Belfast. He thought that the House had already gone rather too far in suspending writs on the mere allegation of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, allegations altogether unsupported by facts. He was free to confess that, in the cases brought forward by the hon. and learned Member for Bath, there was a notoriety about the circumstances of these cases, which did justify some special interference on the part of the House; but, whatever might be said as to the case of Nottingham, for example, it did not at all apply to Belfast. In the case of Nottingham, the committee, contrary to the prayer of the petitioners, declared that the sitting Members were duly elected; and the hon. and learned Member for Bath informed the House that a compromise had been made, by which one of the sitting Members was to retire, and a sum of money was to be paid to secure the election in his place of another Gentleman. The circumstance of the sitting Member's vacating his seat lent a colour to that statement. The case of Belfast, however, was quite the reverse. In this case, in pursuance of the prayer of the petitioners, the committee declared that the late election was void; the same parties as before were now in the field as candidates at the ensuing election; and he apprehended that there was no person of Parliamentary experience and knowledge who would deny, that supposing any of these parties to be re-elected, and others to be petitioners in the case, the whole matter which occurred at the last election would be inquired into by the new committee. By the law of Parliament, any such new committee would be regarded as merely in continuation of that which had just reported, and would have full power to inquire into the whole transaction throughout, the Queen's original writ not having been yet satisfied. There were now four different candidates, the two late sitting Members, one of the petitioners, and the brother of the other, that other petitioner having since become a peer; and indeed he believed that a fifth candidate was about to appear. The House had already sufficiently entangled itself with suspended writs, and he therefore hoped that it would not still further and more seriously embarrass itself by suspending the writ in a case the justice of which he conceived required that the writ should forthwith issue. He had taken up this question without connection with the Government or with Belfast. He was extremely anxious, as he said before, that the House should decide in a judicial manner, and without bias; and if any wrong had been done, that they should not punish the innocent for the guilty. The right hon. and learned Gentleman concluded with moving that a new writ be issued for the return of two burgesses to represent the borough of Belfast in this present Par-[...] Mr. Hughes seconded the motion.

Viscount Sandon

begged to trespass on the House for a few minutes. He had received a note yesterday from one of the late Members for Belfast, whose conduct was called in question, requesting that he would state, on behalf of Mr. E. Tennent and Mr. Johnson, in reference to an alleged compromise of the questions before the Belfast election committee, that if any such arrangement had ever been made, it was made without their authority or participation, and without any concert or understanding with either of them.

Mr. O'Connell:

I rise, Sir, to move, by way of amendment, the appointment of a select committee, in the terms of the notice, to inquire into a corrupt compromise made in the matter of the Belfast election petition. The House will at once perceive that there is not the least intention to deny the existence of a compromise; on the contrary, the inference to be drawn from the statement which the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool has communicated to the House is, that the late Members for Belfast know that a compromise has taken place, though they disclaim being any parties to it. To what do they deny being parties? To a compromise: you have already decided that a corrupt compromise is a breach of the privileges of this House. In several cases, you have acted on that decision, and sent questions of compromise to inquiry. You have done this in cases much less strong than the present, and if the rule be that there is not to be one law of compromise for England, and another for Ireland, you are bound to grant my motion, or to declare that you were wrong in all the other cases, and to rescind your former decisions. My motion is for a committee to inquire into a corrupt compromise. The hon. and learned recorder tells me that every question that can be now raised may be raised before a future election committee. The question of compromise cannot be so raised. Nothing is more plain than that it cannot. A future committee may go into the circumstances which rendered that compromise advisable, but they cannot possibly inquire into the compromise itself. The accusation which I make, which I have made already, is this—that there took place during the last election for the town of Belfast extensive and gross bribery. From the facts that have been communicated to me, I am bound to say, and I say it readily, that that bribery was not confined to one side, but that it was committed by both parties; with this distinction, however, according to my information, that while the bribery on one side is not traced to the defeated candidates, on the other side it has been intimated by inference, but pretty clearly, that there was guilty knowledge of bribery on the part of the late sitting Members for Belfast. My statement, then, on authority to which it is impossible to refuse credence, is, that gross and extensive bribery took place at the last election for Belfast, that it was organised, systematically enanating from the committee rooms. I have the names of more than one of the persons who were bribed; one who received 40l., and others who received various sums from 50l. down to 10l. I am also informed, and am able to prove, that a system of personation of the most corrupt kind took place. A list of those who had voted at a former election for the Conservative candidates, and who died, left the country, or lost their qualifications, was stereotyped by a person who formerly voted for the Liberal candidates. That person having been paid for the document three times the proper amount of his bill, was prevailed upon not to vote at all at the last election. The list of those dead and disqualified voters being obtained, arrangements were made to bring in persons from a distance to personate those who were no longer entitled to vote. Those persons were brought in chiefly from the neighbourhood of Monagham. They were kept in a house by themselves. Suits of clothes were purchased for the purpose of disguising them, and in particular, there were purchased a number of suits of Quaker's apparel. Those persons went up to the booths, took the identity and bribery oaths, and voted for the late sitting Members. One of them voted three times. Another twice. I have been furnished with the names of fourteen of these personators, and of thirteen others, by most respectable witnesses, who are prepared to prove the existence and extent of this system. Witnesses to prove these facts were brought over to London, and it was found necessary to keep them as much as possible out of the way of influence which would have been exerted to prevent them from giving evidence. Attempts were made at Belfast to effect a compromise, but those attempts were unsuccessful. I am now enabled to prove that a compromise was made subsequently in these terms. First, the Members were to be unseated by the co-operation of counsel on both sides, upon matters of form. Next the entire of the expenses of the Liberal party before the committee, and the expense of their witnesses, was to foe forthwith paid. I am able to prove that those expenses were either actually paid or perfectly secured. Look at the report of the committee. They did not report that the petition or the return was frivolous and vexatious, and therefore so costs were given. They decided against the liability of either party to the costs of the other side. By a corrupt compromise, however, the entire of the costs of one party were paid by the other. I believe I can prove this fact. I have before me the petition of one person who was bribed,—but it is said that this man owed money at Carnarvon. It seems that a man is not to be believed, because he owed money at Carnarvon. It is alleged that he executed some deed of an improper kind in reference to his creditors. These accusations are now made against this man, but I ask, is he not the same man to whom the late sitting Member for Belfast wrote in very affectionate terms, concluding with., "Most truly your's," an expression which he would hardly use to any one who was not a respectable person. But the character of this man is a matter for the committee to decide upon. That committee I ask for upon allegations quite as strong as any which you had in the cases brought forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bath. The evidence in those cases was simply this:—"I was told—I have been informed, and I believe I can prove; "you have infinitely more here. I have lists of the witnesses who can prove the facts I have stated. I have a distinct allegation from Mr. Cropper of the existence of the compromise. He states, that the sitting Members engaged to defray all the expenses of the House of Commons' committee, on condition, that the inquiry into bribery and personation should be abandoned, the return made void on the ground of illegal conduct at the poll, and that the two local parties in Belfast should return one Member each, the new Tory Member to be the said "James Emmerson Tennent." Mr. Tennent now comes forward with a declaration, separating himself from the compromise; but does he deny, that there has been an arrangement to ensure his own return? Does he deny that it has been agreed upon, that a Member of opposite sentiments shall be returned? Has he attempted to deny that such an arrangement has been made? The hon. and learned Recorder tells me, that there are four or five candidates in the field, amongst others Mr. Johnson, who is excluded by the compromise from being returned; but this is a mockery and insult to the House, while the existence of the compromise is not denied. You have these facts put dis- tinctly before you by a man against whom there is no disparagement, but that he was in debt, and looking for a place. The electors of Belfast are most anxious to have the case investigated. I have had letters from the most respectable quarters, expressing the general feeling in Belfast, that the crimes of the last election should be hunted out, and those concerned in them punished. The fact of this hideous personation and multitudinous perjury, requires to be investigated. All I want is a committee; of whom it is to consist is an ulterior question. I also wish to leave it to the House, whether this should be referred to the committee on the other cases, or to a new committee. Taking for granted, that the committee in the English cases will be successful in attaining its object, I ask you to adopt the same principle with regard to Irish cases. What will be said if you refuse this? Why, perhaps, that it was Belfast's turn to have a writ. It is said, that writs are issued and refused alternately, and people may think, that the Nottingham writ having been refused, it came to the turn of Belfast to have the writ issued. Something worse may possibly be said. In the Nottingham case, the person accused was a Member of the late Administration. The person now accused is a Member of the present Administration. Both belonged to the same office. Shall it be said, that the writ was refused where the Whig President of the Board of Control was concerned, but granted when the Tory Gentleman of the same board was affected by it? Or, perhaps it will be said, that you felt it necessary to patronise this Gentleman in return for his condescension in patronizing the present Administration. In his address to his constituents he tells them, that the best proof he can give of his entire confidence in the present Administration is, that he has accepted office under them. [Laughter.] Yes, he has honoured you with his patronage. Will you patronise him in return? That is the question. I bring forward a stronger case than any that has come before you. I have information, not barren and general, but the names of parties. I can prove pecuniary corruption, the payment of expenses where a single penny need not have been paid for the purpose of shutting out investigation, and the agreement to have two Members of different politics returned to represent the borough. Under these circumstances I respectfully submit that I have made out a stronger case than any of the English cases. I wish to say nothing implying that this gentleman will be protected because he is a Member of the present Administration—that is a conviction which 1 will postpone for the present. I shall therefore move, by way of amendment, for A select committee, to inquire whether a corrupt compromise has been entered into, for the purpose of avoiding investigation into gross and extensive bribery, and gross and corrupt personation of voters, and consequent perjury, alleged to have been practised at the late election for Belfast.

Captain Polhill

said, that having been a Member of the Belfast election committee, he hoped the House would bear with a few observations from him on the matter. He most readily and cordially supported the motion of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Shaw). The evidence that came before them on that occasion was, in his opinion, clear, lucid, and free from anything like proving bribery. The grounds put forward by the learned counsel, and on which the committee decided, were, first, the minority of certain of the deputy relieving officers, that they had administered the bribery oath, they being under age. That circumstance was of itself, both in his opinion and that of the committee, fatal to the claim of the sitting-Members. The second ground counted upon by the learned counsel was, that in a certain booth, marked letter M., great delays were occasioned in bringing the tallies up; the bribery oath was administered to almost every person that presented himself to vote, except to a few respectable persons; and in this latter case, where the oath was not administered, a certain compromise was entered into, of granting a delay of three minutes, so as to equalize the position of the contending parties. Upon those counts his mind had been made up, and they formed the grounds for the decision come to by the committee. He hoped, then, that the right hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government would support the motion of his right hon. Friend.

Sir H. W. Barron

was enabled to state to the House the names of the parties who made the compromise, and the amount of money agreed to be paid. The person who acted on behalf of the Tory candidates was Mr. John M'Neile, of Belfast; and the gentleman who acted for the peti- tioners was Mr. Campbell, of the same borough. The money agreed to be paid to prevent anything from going before the committee—to keep back the evidence, and prevent Members of the committee from knowing anything of the kind was, 600l. paid down, and a further sum of 400l. agreed to be paid according to the arbitration of a gentleman resident in Belfast. That gentleman the parties agreed to fix on to determine whether the additional 400l. should be paid or not. He need not give that gentleman's name, as he was not mixed up in the transaction. But if any Gentleman denied what he now stated, he was prepared to give the name. That Gentleman had not compromised his character or the rights and privileges of that House; but the other Gentlemen had. They had acted so as to stultify the committee on which the hon. and gallant Officer sat, and he wondered the hon. and gallant Officer did not perceive it. The proceedings before the committee were a solemn and ridiculous, but a very thin-veiled farce. The whole facts had come before the public, and were notorious to every club in London. He had heard the names and facts stated by several parties. One of the agents was now living at the Birmingham hotel. Let him be called to the Bar of the House and examined upon oath. Let them call to the Bar of the House John M'Neile, who had acted for the Tory candidates, and see whether he would deny that he was a party to that compromise, that the money was paid, or promised to be paid, and that he acted for those candidates. If, after suspending the writ in the case of Nottingham, they refused to suspend it here, there would be an end of justice, an end of common sense, and they would be attempting the grossest delusion, but a delusion which would not pass current with the most thickheaded dolt who read their proceedings.

Sir R. Peel

quite agreed with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin, that the House had got into a state of great embarrassment in consequence of these allegations. But why had they got into that embarrassment? Why had they been compelled to adopt a course, novel he admitted, and not warranted by the precedents of former Parliaments? It was because they had passed an act of Parliament to dispense with the necessity of proving agency, as a preliminary to the proof of bribery, and be- cause they had appointed committees, which, notwithstanding the imputations thrown out against them, he believed had in all their proceedings shown a disposition to perform their duties without reference to party considerations. The embarrassment, he believed, was the consequence of these two acts—the act for the amendment of the election tribunals, and the act dispensing with the necessity of bribery. The proceedings before some of the election committees had been paralysed, because evidence had been withdrawn from them, and this had produced embarrassment. As he had said before, he did not think the House of Commons, by appointing tribunals to adjudicate on questions of individual right, ever intended to deprive themselves of the general jurisdiction over cases of bribery. He did not think that the House ever intended that the decision of an election committee, without sufficient evidence before them, should protect bribery from any farther investigation. He did not believe that that was the intention of the House, or that it would be consistent with its credit. The present case was one on which he must decide for himself on judicial grounds. He did not see any distinction between this case and that of the hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for Penryn; that hon. and gallant Officer stated that a compromise had been entered into, but at the same time made a positive declaration on his honour that he was no party to it, or cognizant of it. Notwithstanding that, the House of Commons instituted an inquiry, and subjected those proceedings to investigation before a select committee. Now, with respect to the paper read by his noble Friend the Member for Liverpool, it appeared to him that while it contained a declaration on the part of the late sitting Member that he was not a party to any compromise, it not only did not negative the fact of a compromise having been made, but from its terms it was almost tantamount to an admission that there had been a compromise. In his opinion the House was bound to act in these matters in such a way as to convince the country that it was in earnest. The House must show that it desired to prevent, as far as it had power—that power might be limited, but as far as it extended—the growing system of bribery, and the system of compromise to prevent its exposure. After the statement of the right hon. Member opposite, so explicit and specific with regard to names and sums, he thought that this was a case as strong as that of the hon. and gallant Officer to whom he had referred. The case of Belfast was not exactly the case of Nottingham. Here the seat was declared vacant, and there was no allegation of a sum of money paid to have the return of there was a distinct allegation of a compromise, which, though the sitting Member was not a party, might have been effected by persons acting on his behalf. This required investigation, but to prevent future embarrassment, he thought that they ought, as quickly as possible, to apply themselves to the bill of the noble Lord, for the purpose of laying a foundation which would prevent the necessity of deciding on individual cases, and enable them to base their legislation on some principle. Seeing that the House had been driven to the necessity, by frequent compromises, of adopting a new course— that they had determined, in four or five cases of alleged compromise, to appoint a committee for the purpose of conducting an inquiry—he could not see that the analogy of those cases did not extend to the present, In his opinion, the character of the parties themselves required that an inquiry should be instituted on the same ground on which it had been instituted in other cases. He would therefore vote, in the first place, that an inquiry of some kind should be instituted. He would also vote for the suspension of the writ for a limited time, until that inquiry should have made some progress. At the same time, he thought it would be better that, both in the case of Belfast and Southampton, the writ should not be postponed indefinitely, but for a determinate period. In the appointment of the select committee, he simply wished that it should be such as to secure general confidence in its proceedings. If the committee were so constituted, he did not think that it would be advantageous to the parties themselves, and it would not be creditable to the House itself, to seek out for technical reasons against the inquiry. As he was for inquiry, so was he also for not issuing the writ for a limited time.

Sir R. Inglis

did not see why, if they were to have an inquiry, they were to be prevented from issuing the writ. He could understand the course they were about to adopt, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman declared that he proposed the inquiry with the intention to disfranchise the borough. In that case it would be perfectly intelligible not to issue the writ. As it was a constitutional right, he was in favour of issuing the writ.

Mr. Redington

remarked, that the ground of the compromise was, that there was to be no contest; and if they did not now suspend the writ, they could not have the opportunity of inquiry. He thought that the manner in which the right hon. Baronet had acted was highly creditable to him. It proved that the House was prepared to show it was in earnest in its inquiries.

Lord John Russell

observed that the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford had made an objection that they could not take the course now proposed unless they were prepared to disfranchise the borough. This did seem to him a very extraordinary argument; for, according to it, they must be prepared to say what the result of the proposed inquiry must be, and to determine on that result, before they suspended the writ, and before they determined on the inquiry. He thought it was quite sufficient for them that they found the seats vacant, and that they thought it necessary to have an inquiry. The remedy that might be applied, in consequence of the inquiry, might be such as that they would have a purer election in Belfast. They might find that some fifty or a hundred persons were constantly in the habit of receiving bribes. Those persons might be disfranchised. There might, too, be a particular class constantly in the habit of receiving bribes. Now, they might purge the constituency of that corrupt portion of the electoral body, and thus restore it to its purity. They might, too, find that the arrangement of the polling places was such as to require amendment; that where there was a great number of persons whose names began with the same letter of the alphabet, and that there were not sufficient facilities for their giving their votes, they might find a remedy. This and other things might be the result of an inquiry. Let the hon. Baronet and the House but consider what would be the effect of this argument. Let them suppose a place that was very small, where there were not more than 250 votes. If these votes were corrupt, they might be all disfranchised. But if the same thing occurred in a very large city or town, they would not propose that remedy. In fact, the hon. Baronet said, let there be perfect impunity in large towns—that large towns might be as full of corruption and bribery as they might be. The only thing proposed to be done in large towns was, that those guilty of bribery should lose their seats, while small boroughs might be disfranchised. He was sure the House must perceive that there could not be anything correct in such a course of proceeding. Whether the town were large or small, they ought to apply a remedy. With respect to the cases that had been already before the House, he had on two of them the misfortune to differ from the majority. Without saying whether he thought the majority were in the right, still he could not refrain from declaring that he thought it would have been a much better course if they had delayed issuing the writs until they had considered all these cases, until they had compared the merits of the different cases, and then see what might be the result of all. He thought that greater satisfaction would have been afforded if the whole matter could have been decided at the same time, than have its time now taken up by isolated and different proceedings. In the present case he was perfectly satisfied with the course which the right hon. Gentleman had taken, and he certainly meant to vote in favour of a motion for an inquiry.

Mr. Shaw

replied, that the late Members had nothing to do with the compromise. A mere compromise to avoid litigation was commendable, but a corrupt compromise, to avoid investigation into bribery, he admitted to be a great breach of their privileges if committed by a Member of the House. It was not alleged that such had been entered into by the late Members. The late Members knew nothing of it. So far was that from being the case, that Mr. Johnson, he was sure, was a bond fide candidate, and that there would be a severe contest. He must say that his feelings were in favour of the constitutional rights of the electors; still if it were the wish of the House he would withdraw his motion. ["No, no."] Then, if he must give a vote, that vote should be, of course, in accordance with his convictions.

The House divided on the motion for issuing the writ.—Ayes 73; Noes 170:— Mjority 97.

List of the AYE
Allix, J. P. Henley, J. W.
Antrobus, E. Hinde, J. H.
Archdall, Capt. Hodgson, F.
Arkwright, G. Hornby, J.
Astell, W. Hughes, W. B.
Baillie, Col. Hussey, T.
Bateson, R. Jocelyn, Visct.
Blackstone, W. S. Kemble, H.
Buckley, E. Lefroy, A.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Litton, E.
Burrell, Sir C. M. Lowther, J. H.
Carnegie, hon. Capt. Lowther, hon. Col.
Christopher, R. A. Lygon, hon. Gen.
Chute, W. L. W. Mackenzie, W. F.
Cochrane, A. Mackinnon, W. A.
Colvile, C. R. M'Geachy, F. A.
Connolly, Col. Manners, Lord J.
Cresswell, B. Marton, G.
Darby, G. Paget, Col.
Dick, Q. Pigot, Sir R.
Douglas, J. D. S. Polhill, F.
Du Pre, C. G. Pollington, Visct.
Eaton, R. J. Praed, W. T.
Escott, B. Rashleigh, W.
Fellowes, E. Repton, G. W. J.
Feilden, W. Round, C. G.
Ferrand, W. B. Rous, hon. Capt.
Filmer, Sir E. Scott, R.
Fleming, J. W. Scott, hon. F.
Ffolliott, J. Sheppard, T.
Forbes, W. Stuart, H.
Glynne, Sir S. R. Taylor, T. E.
Godson, R. Vere, Sir C. B.
Grimsditch, T. Waddington, H. S
Grogan, E. Williams, T. P.
Hamilton, W. J. TELLERS.
Hampden, R. Inglis, Sir R. H.
Hawkes, T. Shaw, H.
List of the NOES.
Acland, Sir T. D. Carew, hon. R. S.
Adare, Visct. Cave, hon, R. O.
Barclay, D. Chapman, B.
Baring, rt. hn. F. T. Christie, W. D.
Barnard, E. G. Clive, E. B.
Barneby, J. Copeland, Alderman
Beckett, W. Corry, rt. hn. H.
Bell, M. Craig, W. G.
Bellew, R. M. Crawford, W. S.
Bentinck, Lord G. Damer, hon. Col.
Bernal, R. Denison, E. B.
Blake, M. J. Dennistoun, J.
Bodkin, J. J. D'Israeli, B.
Bowring, Dr. Douglas, Sir H.
Browne, hon. W. Douglas, Sir C. E.
Buller, C. Duncan, Visct.
Busfeild, W. Dundas, Admiral
Butler, hon. Col. Dundas, D.
Byng, G. Egerton, W. T.
Byng, rt. hn. G. S. Egerton, Sir P.
Callaghan, D. Ellice, rt. hn. E.
Campbell, A. Ellice, E.
Eliot, Lord Ord, W.
Elphinstone, H. Oswald, J.
Esmonde, Sir T. Packe, C. W.
Estcourt, T. G. B. Pakington, J. S.
Evans, W. Palmer, R.
Ewart, W. Parker, J.
Ferguson, Col. Pechell, Capt.
Fremantle, Sir T. Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.
Gaskell, J. Milnes Peel, J.
Gibson, T. M. Pendarves, E. W. W.
Gill, T. Philips, G. R.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E. Philips, M.
Gordon, Lord F. Plumridge, Capt.
Gore, M. Ponsonby, hn. C. F. A.C
Gore, W. R. O. Ponsonby, hon. J. G.
Gore, hon. R. Protheroe, E.
Goulburn, rt. hn. H. Ramsbottom, J.
Granger, T. C. Redington, T. N.
Greene, T. Richards, R.
Grey, rt. hn. Sir G. Roche, E. B.
Grosvenor, Lord R. Rundle, J.
Guest, Sir J. Rushbrooke, Col.
Hanmer, Sir J. Russell, Lord J.
Hastie, A. Russell, Lord E.
Hawes, B. Scholefield, J.
Hay, Sir A. L. Seale, Sir J. H.
Heathcoat, J. Seymour, Lord
Heathcote, G. J. Sheil, rt. hn. R. L.
Hervey, Lord A. Somerset, Lord G.
Hill, Lord M. Stanley, Lord
Hindley, C. Stanley, E.
Hodgson, R. Stanley, hon. W. O.
Hollond, R. Stansfield, W. R. C.
Hope, hon. C. Stuart, W. V.
Howard, hn. C. W, G. Stuart, Lord J.
Howick, Visct. Strickland, Sir G.
Hume, J. Strutt, E.
Hutt, W. Sutton, hon. H. M.
James, W. Thornely, T.
Johnston, A. Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Johnstone, Sir J. Tufnell, H.
Labouchere, rt. hn. H. Tuite, H. M.
Lambton, H. Turnor, C.
Langston, J. H. Vane, Lord H.
Layard, Capt. Villiers, hon. C.
Legh, G. C. Vivian, J. H.
Lemon, Sir C. Wall, C. B.
Liddell, hon. H. T. Wallace, R.
Lincoln, Earl of Watson, W. H.
Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B. Wawn, J. T.
Marsland, H. Wemyss, Capt.
Martin, J. White, H.
Maule, rt. hn. F. Whitemore, T.
Miles, P. W. S. Williams, W.
Mitcalfe, H. Wilshere, W.
Mitchell, T. A. Winnington, Sir T. E.
Morris, D. Wood, B.
Nicholl, rt. hn. J. Wood, G. W.
O'Brien, C. Worsley, Lord
O'Brien, J. Wyse, T.
O'Brien, W. S. Young, J.
O'Connell, M.J.
O'Connell, J. TELLERS.
O'Ferrall, R. M. O'Connell, D.
Ogle, S. C. H. Barron, Sir H.

Motion for a select committee agreed to.

Back to