§ The Order of the Day for taking into consideration the subject matter of the letter of W. Smith O'Brien, Esq., to Mr. Speaker. The entries on the Votes of April 27, April 28, and April 30, (see Debates, ante on those days) were read.
MR. O'CONNELLMy intention is to state the facts of the case, and then to submit one or two Motions resulting from what I consider the law as founded upon the facts. I mean to move that the Order of the 27th April be discharged, because it was made under misinformation and misstatement of the hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Estcourt). Of course, I do not impute designed misstatement to the hon. Member, for he is incapable of stating anything that he does not believe: but he has, in my humble opinion, grossly misinformed the House, and thereby obtained an order which otherwise never would have been agreed to. He is the Chairman of what is called the Committee of Selection, but the legal existence of which I beg leave to deny. He purported to be Chairman, acted as such, and in that capacity, and so terming himself, entered into a correspondence with the hon. Member for Limerick. The hon. Gentleman detailed the circumstances connected with that correspondence to induce the House to order Mr. Smith O'Brien to attend a particular Committee, and he obtained that order. If I am able to show that that order was made under the misapprehension of a principal fact, the House ought to amend its proceedings, and direct the discharge of the hon. Member for Limerick. There cannot be a shadow of doubt that the House, on the allegation of the existence of the Committee of Selection, and of the refusal of Mr. Smith O'Brien to comply with the request of the Chairman, directed him to attend, and on his disobedience committed him; but I deny that there was any such Committee of Selection. I admit that there were materials for it, but the 984 materials do not constitute the Committee without the Order of the House. Let us see what is to form the Committee according to the Standing Orders. The four first contain all that is important for the consideration of this matter. The first requires the appointment of a Committee of forty-two Members; the second enables the forty-two to divide themselves into Sub-Committees, but does not interfere farther: it does not say who shall appoint a Chairman, for that, I believe, is what the Committee itself decides. The next order is that a Committee shall be appointed at the commencement of every Session to be called the Select Committee on the Standing Orders. Then comes the material order—the fourth—that a Committee be appointed at the commencement of every Session, consisting of the Chairman of the different Committees named, of whom three shall form a quorum, to be denominated the Committee of Selection. If such a Committee have been appointed, I give up the case at once. I shall sit down without saying another word. But I assert distinctly that no such Committee has been appointed. No question has ever been brought before the House as to the existence of such a Committee; in short, there is a total vacancy, and want of appointment of any Committee of Selection. This brings the matter to a narrow compass. Was there such a Committee? The letter of the Gentlemen who acts as Clerk of the House seems to me decisive that there has been no such appointment; and searching the Votes I have not been able to trace it. The directions of the Standing Order are mandatory, but they have been utterly disobeyed. It has been suggested, as I hear, that the materials for such a Committee being in existence, it becomes a Committee of itself. I deny it. It would be depriving every Member of the House of the only opportunity he could take of stating his objections to any of the Chairmen. The House, be it remembered, has not the appointment of the Chairmen of the Committees, of whom the Committee of Selection consists; therefore the only opportunity a Member can have of objecting is when the Committee of Selection is appointed. But need I argue the question? The House has peremptorily declared what shall be done. Do I find any practice against the course I maintain to be regular? On the contrary, I find in the Journals this entry, on the 4th of February, 1845:—"The House moved that the Standing 985 Order No. 4 might be read." Why was not that done in 1846 which was done in 1845? I am not bound to prove that this order was absolutely necessary, in consequence of the ignorance of the House, and that an opportunity for inquiry should be given; it is enough for me that I find this in the Standing Orders. See the situation in which Mr. Smith O'Brien is placed, and by whom. No Committee of Selection was appointed; but a set of Gentlemen, highly respectable, vote themselves to be a Committee of Selection, and apply to Mr. Smith O'Brien, who takes no notice in obedience to their application. They come to the House, and state that they are a Committee of Selection, duly appointed. They misinform the House. Surely I am not to be told that Mr. Smith O'Brien is to suffer from his ignorance of the facts—when ignorance is the only excuse for bringing the matter before the House. He did not perhaps discover the objection to the Committee at the time, but he has discovered it now. I need not enter into an examination of the particular points, for I submit that I have the law expressly with me, and it is in violation of the law that the hon. Member for Limerick has been committed. It would be improper longer to trespass upon the House until I hear something to which I may reply, and I shall therefore move in the first place that the Order of the 27th of April be discharged; and, secondly, that Mr. Smith O'Brien be discharged. If I succeed in the first Motion, the second will follow of course; but if I fail in the first, I shall beg leave still to press the second, that he be discharged under all the circumstances of the case. The Motion formally put was as follows:—
That the Order made upon the 27th of April last, that William Smith O'Brien, Esq., do attend the said Committee to-morrow be discharged.
§ MR. ESTCOURTI believe it is necessary for me, without any apology to the House, to endeavour to show the grounds on which I think that the Committee of Selection was duly appointed, and has discharged its duties as Committee of Selection during the whole of the present Session. I conceive that there has been nothing irregular in the course of proceeding; but that all has been strictly conformable to the law and usage of Parliament. I should take blame to myself if I were to stand up and defend what has been done, merely because it has been done, and because I wish to establish our regularity; 986 but I beg to state, on the contrary, that we pursued the course advisedly, and because we considered it expedient and consistent with the Orders of the House. The hon. and learned Member has truly stated that, by the Standing Orders, certain Committees were appointed to execute certain duties. The first is the Committee of forty-two Members, denominated the Select Committee of Petitions for Private Bills. Another Committee consists of seven Members, and of certain other Gentlemen, which is called the Standing Orders Committee. There is a third Committee, which consists, not of any Members to be chosen by the House, but of Members fixed in their offices by the selection of the Committees. This is called the Committee of Selection. To that Committee the hon. and learned Member takes exception. He contends that, unless there is in every Session an appointment of that Committee, it cannot execute the duties confided to it. Upon that point I am at issue with him. I conceive that the Standing Orders form the law which regulates the House of Commons. It is well known and acknowledged by everybody, that the Standing Orders are not a piece of annual legislation. They are not annually confirmed by the House; but they form a code of laws published by the House, which continue in force to govern the House until they are repealed or altered. It is some years since the Committee of Selection was constituted. In the first instance, it was not constituted, as now, by the Standing Orders of the House; but for five, or six, or seven years, it has been constituted as now. I contend that, when a Standing Order has been made, and appoints a Committee, whether it be one of the Committees of Petitions for Private Bills, the Standing Orders Committee, or the Committee of Selection, that Committee continues until it is dissolved by some alteration of the Standing Order. What are technically called Sessional Orders are of a different character. They do not continue unless they are made Standing Orders; and the House has constantly taken the distinction between Sessional and Standing Orders. A Standing Order, I contend, governs the House as long as it remains a Standing Order. The Committee of Selection was appointed by the Standing Orders: the Committee on Petitions was appointed by the Standing Orders; and the Standing Order Committee was appointed in the same way. I am confirmed in this position by what the 987 hon. and learned Gentleman has had recourse to. On searching the Journals he has seen that the Committee on Petitions for Private Bills consists of forty-two Members: and when the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Strutt) comes dowa for the appointment of the Committee, he does not submit a Motion—he does not give notice that he will on a certain day move for its appointment, but he directs that the Standing Order shall be read, and he then nominates the Committee; and that nomination is entered on the Journals and on the Votes. That is his mode of supplying what is left deficient by the Standing Orders. The same thing occurs to myself: when the Standing Orders Committee is appointed, I do not come down and make a Motion—I do not give notice that it will be appointed, but I require that the Standing Order be read, and then I nominate the Committee. Now, as to the Committee of Selection, it is undoubtedly true, that at the commencement of the last Session, there was an entry in the Journals that the Committee of Selection be appointed; but I contend that it was an irregularity; it was done at a time when, as I find from my own memoranda, I was unable from indisposition to attend the House. By whom the irregularity was committed, I know not; but I contend that it is an irregularity. This is my opinion; and on conferring with the highest authority on these points, I am confirmed in it. The Committee was appointed by the Standing Order. In the present Session, I acted upon my view of the subject; and all the Committees were appointed by the Standing Orders; and I had nothing to do but to come down and nominate the Members. The nomination of the Members is not to be by the House. The Committee of Selection consists of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Standing Orders, and the Chairman of the Committees and Sub-Committees on Petitions for Private Bills, three of whom make a quorum. No question is put; and there is nothing more to be said on the subject. The Standing Orders are imperative, not only in the Session in which they are passed, but in every Session until they are repealed. I beg to say, also, that supposing my place as Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee were now vacant, it would not be supplied by any Order of the House, but my Colleagues of the Committee would select some Member from among themselves to be Chairman; and he would not come 988 to the House for the confirmation of his appointment. I therefore conceive it is not to be disputed that the Standing Order appoints the Committee. The hon. and learned Member has arraigned the propriety of our conduct, and says that our impropriety has brought the hon. Member for Limerick into his present situation. I must deny it. It was necessary for me to advert to what passed in 1845; and it was in 1845 that the hon. Member refused to attend the Committee, and wrote his reasons for refusal to me as Chairman of the Committee of Selection. To that letter he recently appealed, and upon the arguments there used he relied. I may be allowed to remind the House that the Committee has been repeatedly recognised in the course of the present Session; on hundreds of occasions references of business have been made to it. I do not apprehend that it is necessary for me to say more. I was prepared to expect that the hon. and learned Member would have made some observations on the letter of the hon. Member for Limerick; for it appears to me that his case should be rested upon anything rather than informality; and whatever may be the opinion of the hon. and learned Member, I can state distinctly that the subject has been well considered—that whatever was done was done advisedly. It was the opinion of my Colleagues, as well as of myself, that it would not merely be a work of supererogation, but of impropriety, to have asked the House to interfere at all in the construction of the Committee of Selection. I trust, therefore, that the House will support its Committee in the view it has taken, and negative the Motion before it.
§ MR. WARBURTONthought they should argue this question quite irrespective of the consequence it might have on the case of Mr. S. O'Brien. The plain question was this, whether the Committee of Selection had been appointed or not? The hon. Member for Oxford had stated that the House had in various instances recognized the existence of the Committee during the present Session: that was true; but "a blot is not a blot till it is hit." It was not so clear that the House would have been perfectly satisfied with the Committee of Selection if it was believed to sit unsupported by any vote of that House. If the construction which the hon. Member for Oxfordshire contended for was the true one, that no appointment at the commencement of the Session was necessary, then 989 the language used in the Standing Order would not have been what it was, viz., "that a Committee be appointed at the commencement of every Session;" but the language would have been this, "that the Chairman of the Select Committee of Standing Orders, and the Chairman of the Sub-Committees on Petitions for Private Bills, &c., be a Committee for such and such a purpose." Such would have been the words of the Standing Order, if no appointment by the House was necessary at the commencement of the Session. He would ask the House who had appointed the Committee of Selection? There could be no appointment unless it had been made by some one; but there was, in fact, no appointment. If the Committee, once constituted, was to be continued from Session to Session, the Standing Order would have said so; but it contained no such statement. If it was said that the Committee was to be decided upon in the way set down by the Standing Orders, and that the names were simply to be reported to the House, then, he asked again, who was to do this? It was, to all intents and purposes, an appointment, and must be made by some one. The question came seriously before the House, whether a lawful constitution had been given to this Committee or not; and if it was objected that to overthrow the Committee would nullify the proceedings in which they had been engaged, he would observe that it would be easy, by a retrospective Act, to give authority to all that had been done in reference to railways. He held that it was of the greatest importance, in a case of this kind, in judging of a Standing Order, that they should have no difficulty of interpretation, but should take the plain and obvious meaning of the words. He thought there never had been any appointment made; and, therefore, it would be much better to confess that there had been gross negligence somewhere, or at least ignorance of their duties by some parties or other, and that the House should rectify any mistake or any illegality that had occurred. It was most important that the plain sense of the words should be adhered to in their interpretation of the Standing Orders.
§ SIR G. GREYcould only agree with the hon. Member who had just spoken to this extent, that the words of the three Standing Orders were precisely the same. In each case the words were, "that a Committee be appointed;" but the practice of 990 the House had distinctly recognized the construction of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Estcourt); and if this objection to the regularity of the appointment of the Committee of Selection were to prevail, the same must apply to the interpretation of the two other Standing Orders. He was quite ready to admit that the words of these Standing Orders were not the happiest that could be devised. In 1845, as appeared from the Votes, with reference to the nomination of Members on Committees on Petitions for Private Bills, the House was moved that Standing Order No. 1 be read, viz., "That a Committee be appointed, to consist of forty-two Members, of whom five should be a quorum," &c., and that Standing Order was read, but the reading of it was not followed up by any Motion. The House was not called on to exercise any discretion in the matter; the only order made by the House being that Mr. Strutt and the other forty-one Members named be the Committee. The same thing had taken place with respect to the Committee to which the hon. and learned Member for Cork had referred, with the exception of the inadvertence which had been taken notice of by the hon. Member (Mr. Estcourt), and which occurred in his absence. The Standing Orders prescribed that the Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee and the Chairmen of the Sub-Committees on Petitions for Private Bills, should constitute the Committee of Selection. The Standing Orders, therefore, nominated as well as appointed that Committee. The House had no discretion in the matter. The question had been urged with reference to the authority exercised by the Standing Orders Committee; but that was not material to the real question; for Mr. Smith O'Brien was not confined for violating any order of any Committee of the House, but simply because he refused to obey an order made by the House, that he should attend a Committee, that Committee being a Railway Committee which had been appointed by the House. If there had been no Committee of Selection in existence, and the House had made an order which an hon. Member refused to obey, he apprehended no one would contend that that was not a contempt; and it was in fact for that offence, and not for disobeying the orders of the Committee of Selection, that the hon. Gentleman had been confined. Whatever the House might decide on the particular question now before them, that would not affect the question 991 raised by Mr. Smith O'Brien in his letter to the right hon. Gentleman in the chair, because he claimed his immediate discharge from custody.
§ MR. STRUTTthought that there was some difficulty in the words of the Standing Order, "be appointed." But, looking to those words, the general sense and intention of the Standing Order, and the invariable practice of the House, he could not think the House would have any difficulty in deciding this question. He could confirm what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Grey); the words were precisely the same in the orders relating to each of the three Committees. When he, as Chairman of the Committee on Private Bills, came down in 1845 to put the Motion that the Private Bills Committee be appointed, he was told by the proper authority that the only Motion was that the Standing Order relative to the appointment of that Committee be read. That was done; and, the order having been read, the Committee was considered as appointed, it being his duty to read to the House the names of the Members of the Committee. No other course could be taken, because it was not competent to the Speaker to put a question which the House had not the power to negative. The proper Motion would be that the Standing Order be repealed; and, that being carried, then the House would have had the power to negative the appointment of the Committee on Private Bills. The only way of making sense of the Standing Order in question was to proceed as the House had proceeded in this case. Nor was any alteration in the order required, because the Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee and the Chairmen of the Sub-Committees on Petitions for Private Bills constituted, ex officio, the Committee of Selection. This was manifest from what occurred in the present Session, when, owing to pressure of business, the number of Sub-Committees was increased from four to six, on which the two additional Chairmen took their seats on the Committee of Selection at once, in virtue of the Standing Order. The practice of the House had recognized this interpretation of the Standing Order. He did not place so much importance on the use of the words "be appointed" as the hon. Member (Mr. Warburton); for he had had too much experience in the interpretation of the Standing Orders not to know that they were not drawn with the accuracy of an indictment. If they were to be con- 992 strued with the rigour usually applied to an indictment, it would not be possible to transact the public business of the country. He must oppose the Motion of the hon. and learned Member.
MR. O'CONNELLwould offer only a few words in reply. The order disobeyed was to attend a Committee, which Committee had been constituted by a body which had no right to constitute it. Hon. Members had spoken of the "unfortunate" and "unhappy" words in the Standing Order; but these words were the cause of the confinement of his hon. Friend the Member for Limerick. If such a Standing Order had been drawn up by an Irish Parliament, there would have been no end to the taunts that the Members did not understand the use of the English language. "What a Parliament!" would be the exclamation. "What a Parliament, that does not know that the words 'every Session' does not mean once! What a set of blundering, tipsy fellows!" However, there was an easy method of getting over the difficulty, if hon. Gentlemen were permitted to say that the words meant nothing, and that they were to pass for nothing. He could not be satisfied with this mode of escaping from a violation of the commonest rules of grammar; and Mr. Smith O'Brien was to be detained in custody by virtue of the decision of a tribunal that depended upon a direct contradiction for its justification. According to some, the hon. Member for Oxford was a kind of autocrat, who was to do as he liked, and to say, "You cannot do this, and you cannot do that," and would not allow the exercise of discretion or choice by the House. Supposing Chairmen were appointed who were interested in railways, was it not to be allowed that others should take objection to them? Was not a Member to be allowed to urge the postponement of the nomination, in order that due inquiry might be made before it was completed? He meant to move, whatever became of this Motion, that Mr. Smith O'Brien be unconditionally discharged from custody.
§ MR. WAKLEYthought that this was a question which ought not to be decided without a part in the debate being taken by the law officers of the Crown. If the question were not discussed and decided according to the principles of common sense, and the ordinary construction of the words of the Standing Order, great dissatisfaction would be the result in this country, and still greater in Ireland. 993 Could anything be plainer than the words of the Order? It meant, that at the commencement of every Session a Committee "shall" be appointed. [Several hon. MEMBERS: No, the words are, "be appointed" only.] The hon. Member for Kendal had, as it struck him, given the correct interpretation. The meaning was exceedingly plain to his perception. But what had been the practice in preceding Sessions? Were there precedents for the course they were now taking? Why were they to put the harshest interpretation possible on the law? Was it not better for the House to say at once, "Well, you, Mr. Smith O'Brien, are not very wise; but it will be just as well not to discuss our own wisdom, therefore we release you, and let us shake hands." This was the honest, the manly course. A mistake had been committed, and surely it was most unjust to make another party the victim of the error.
§ MR. AGLIONBYdid not agree with the hon. Gentleman that it was particularly the duty of the law officers of the Crown to take part in the discussion. It was not a mere question of law. In a case of this sort, the law officers were of no higher authority than any of the other Members of the House. The forms of the House were drawn up by the House, and the law Members were not responsible for them. He wished, however, to advert to a point arising upon the interpretation of the words, "be appointed." The observation of the hon. Member for Derby with respect to this part of the subject, had much weight; but as the hon. Member for Kendal interpreted the phrase, the conclusion to be naturally deduced was, that the proceedings of every Committee appointed under the Standing Orders were null and void. If the Committee of Selection had no legitimate authority, every Committee emanating from it was equally deficient. It had nominated Committees on all the groups, and consequently all the Railway Committee proceedings of the Session were irregular. Now, certainly, he might be told that a remedy was at hand—that all this might be set to rights by a rule of the House, by a special Bill. But that did not affect the principle of the argument. If the hon. Member for Kendal was right, all the Committees had acted without having power to act. So far as the verbal argument on the words "be appointed" went, he conceived that the Committee had been legally and constitutionally appointed according to the mean- 994 ing of the Standing Orders—a meaning which did not make it necessary that every Session the Committee should be formally appointed by the House. It was not to be appointed annually by the House, but was appointed virtually and continuously by something which had taken place antecedently.
The ATTORNEY GENERALonly wished to make one remark upon the speech of the hon. Member for Finsbury. He would have risen to express his opinions had it not been for the speech of the right hon. Member for Devonport (Sir G. Grey), and that of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Strutt). But they had exhausted the subject; they had taken a view of it in which he completely completely concurred. They had used every argument which he could urge, and he should have thought it an unpardonable waste of the time of the House had he risen, again to go over the ground they had preceded him in, and most probably to weaken the impression which they had made.
VISCOUNT POLLINGTONthought, that as even the right hon. Member for Devonport admitted that the matter involved considerable doubt, the benefit of that doubt ought to be given to Mr. Smith O'Brien. He could not approve of an hon. Member being imprisoned under such circumstances.
MR. M. J. O'CONNELLobserved, that the matter should be viewed as a technical question, and looking at it in that light, he was far from satisfied, that their proceedings were right, or that the Committee of which he was a Member was legally and constitutionally constituted. He did not see how the objections of the hon. Member for Kendal had been answered as to the form of the Order. He would go further and say, that in his mind that Order, as at present worded, was perfectly illusory. At all events, let the most liberal construction be placed upon it.
§ SIR R. PEELI think that the noble Lord (Viscount Pollington) has mistaken the purport of the observations of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Devonport. I do not think that that right hon. Baronet stated that the point involved considerable doubt. On the contrary, I think that what he said was, that as to the merits of the case, there existed no doubt, although he admitted that better terms than the words "be appointed" might have been advantageously used in the Standing Orders. Now, the real difficulty is as to these words, "be 995 appointed." In ordinary Parliamentary parlance, the words "be appointed" mean of course the commission of an act by which we "appoint" a Committee. But here their meaning—their virtual signification is, that a Committee be constituted, that it exist. The House of Commons, for the purpose of ensuring regularity in its proceedings, voluntarily consents to an abdication of part of its power, and places matters dependant upon the Standing Orders out of its discretion. For instance, a Standing Order requires that no petition for a grant of public money shall be entertained unless there shall have been previously obtained the consent of the Crown. That is an instance in which the House of Commons, depriving itself of power, refers it to the code of Standing Orders, and defers to their authority so long as they exist. Now, let us take a case which appears to bear a close analogy to the present one. It is that of an ancient Standing Order, providing that "every Private Bill, not a Divorce Bill, after having been read a second time and committed, shall be referred to the Committee of Selection." Now, here is a distinct act to be done. How then is it to be done? Here is an active part to be taken. How do we proceed? By question in the House? I apprehend not. The House never puts the question that the Bill be referred to the Select Committee. You, Sir, as a matter of course, refer the Bill to that Committee, without the sense of the House having been taken on the subject. Hon. Gentlemen may therefore demand by whom a Bill has been thus referred, just as they do now by whom the Committee was appointed. Sir, it was appointed by the authority of the Standing Orders Committee; and I apprehend that the House could not refuse yielding to it without violating every precedent on which it has hitherto acted. The words of the Standing Orders mean that the Committee "be" constituted. They do not mean that we should go through the technical form we generally proceed with in appointing a Committee. The hon. Member for Finsbury says, "let us take advantage of the mistake or misapprehension to release Mr. O'Brien." Now, if you think the punishment he has undergone sufficient, then release him, stating at the same time that you think the authority of the House has been sufficiently vindicated, and that the time is come when it can afford to discontinue the punishment it has seen fit to inflict. But to shrink from doing your 996 duty—to be afraid of performing it—to say, "Here is a doubt," and under its cover to sneak out of a difficulty and shake hands with Mr. O'Brien—why, Sir, I think were that course to be taken, that he would not accept the favour; that he would say, "You do not believe that there has been a mistake, but you imagine one in order to find an excuse for releasing me." That, Sir, would be, in my opinion, the very worst course which the House could adopt.
MR. O'CONNELLI shall give the House an opportunity of acting on the previous suggestion of the right hon. Baronet.
§ MR. J. O'CONNELLthought, that the argument of the right hon. Baronet would go to establish the Standing Orders Committee as a more powerful tribunal than had ever before been imagined. He thought that this debate would excite an unfortunate impression in Ireland. He was not going to use words of idle bluster, but he submitted that it might be well to consider feelings — he did not say rightly — but which were certainly exceedingly excited and exasperated. The matter was one of grave doubt, and the hon. Member concerned ought to be allowed the benefit of it.
§ SIR R. H. INGLISstated that he quite agreed with the views of the right hon. Baronet, and with those of the hon. Member for Derby. The hon. Gentleman who had spoken last talked of a doubt being entertained on the subject; but the fact was, that with two or three exceptions, every hon. Member who had spoken had agreed upon the point. As to the legal Members, the hon. Member for Cork stood alone in his view of the subject. No doubt the construction of the Standing Order was capable of improvement; but was there any hon. Gentleman who would maintain that its common sense interpretation, as demonstrated by the practice of the House, was such as to justify the sense in which it was attempted to be construed by the hon. Member for Cork.
§ MR. WATSONobserved, that it might be true that the practice had gradually grown up without observation; but in proceeding criminally in the matter, it behoved them to look carefully into the wording of the Standing Order; and for his own part he entertained some doubts as to whether in this case the true construction had been put upon it. He found that it laid down as the rule that a Committee "be appointed" each Session—meaning, as he took it, an 997 appointment by some person at the beginning of the Session, either by the House, by the Speaker, or by some competent power. This was the light in which he viewed the question. He could assure the right hon. Baronet opposite that he was never inclined to sneak from the performance of a duty, but he repeated that, in proceeding criminally, they could not proceed too carefully.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 36; Noes 180: Majority 140.
| List of the AYES. | |
| Archbold, R. | Milnes, R. M. |
| Attwood, M. | Muntz, G. F. |
| Barron, Sir H. W. | Norreys, Sir D. J. |
| Bridgeman, H. | O'Connell, D. |
| Browne, R. D. | O'Connell, J. |
| Carew, hon. R. S. | O'Conor Don |
| Collett, J. | Paget, Col. |
| Crawford, W. S. | Pollington, Visct. |
| Dawson, hon. T. V. | Powell, C. |
| Escott, B. | Sheil, rt. hon. R. L. |
| Esmonde, Sir T. | Somers, J. P. |
| Evans, Sir De Lacy | Somerville, Sir W. M. |
| Fielden, J. | Strickland, Sir G. |
| Ferrand, W. B. | Wakley, T. |
| Fleetwood, Sir P. H. | Warburton, H. |
| Hindley, C. | Watson, W. |
| James, Sir W. C. | |
| Johnson, Gen. | TELLERS. |
| M'Carthy, A. | French, F. |
| M'Donnell, J. M. | O'Connell, M. J. |
| List of the NOES. | |
| Ackers, J. | Chichester, Lord J. L. |
| Acland, Sir T. D. | Clayton, R. R. |
| Adare, Visct. | Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G. |
| Adderley, C. B. | Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G. |
| Aglionby, H. A. | Colebrooke, Sir T. E. |
| Ainsworth, P. | Collett, W. R. |
| Alexander, N. | Conolly, Col. |
| Anson, hon. Col. | Corry, rt. hon. H. |
| Arundel and Surrey, Earl of | Courtenay, Lord |
| Craig, W. G. | |
| Austen, Col. | Cripps, W. |
| Baillie, Col. | Dalmeny, Lord |
| Baine, W. | Dalrymple, Capt. |
| Bankes, G. | Davies, D. A. S. |
| Baring, H. B. | Deedes, W. |
| Baring, rt. hon. F. T. | Denison, E. B. |
| Barnard, E. G. | Dickinson, F. H. |
| Barrington, Visct. | Divett, E. |
| Benbow, J. | Douglas, Sir C. E. |
| Berkeley, hon. C. | Drummond, H. H. |
| Bernal, R. | Duckworth, Sir J. T. B. |
| Bernard, Visct. | Duncan, G. |
| Boldero, H. G. | Duncombe, T. |
| Borthwick, P. | Dundas, F. |
| Bowles, Adm. | Dundas, D. |
| Bowring, Dr. | Dundas, hon. J. C. |
| Bramston, T. W. | East, J. B. |
| Broadwood, H. | Easthope, Sir J. |
| Bruce, Lord E. | Ebrington, Visct. |
| Buller, C. | Entwisle, W. |
| Burroughes, H. N. | Evans, W. |
| Busfeild, W. | Fellowes, E. |
| Cardwell, E. | Fitzroy, Lord C. |
| Carew, W. H. P. | Forman, T. S. |
| Forster, M. | Newport, Visct. |
| Frewen, C. H. | Northland, Visct. |
| Fuller, A. E. | Ogle, S. C. H. |
| Gaskell, J. M. | Ord, W. |
| Gill, T. | Owen, Sir J. |
| Glynne, Sir S. R. | Pakington, J. S. |
| Goulburn, rt. hon. H. | Palmerston, Visct. |
| Graham, rt. hon. Sir J. | Peel, rt. hon. Sir R. |
| Granger, T. C. | Peel, J. |
| Greene, T. | Pennant, hon. Col. |
| Gregory, W. H. | Plumridge, Capt. |
| Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. | Polhill, F. |
| Grimsditch, T. | Price, Sir R. |
| Grosvenor, Lord R. | Prothoroe, E. |
| Hallyburton, Lord J. F. G. | Rashleigh, W. |
| Hamilton, W. | Reid, Sir J. R. |
| Hamilton, Lord C. | Reid, Col. |
| Hanmer, Sir J. | Richards, R. |
| Harcourt, G. G. | Round, J. |
| Hawes, B. | Russell, Lord J. |
| Hay, Sir A. L. | Russell, J. D. W. |
| Hayes, Sir E. | Sandon, Visct. |
| Heathcoat, J. | Scott, R. |
| Henley, J. W. | Seymour, Lord |
| Herbert, rt. hon. S. | Shaw, rt. hon. F. |
| Hill, Lord M. | Sheppard, T. |
| Hodgson, R. | Shirley, E. J. |
| Holmes, hon. W. A'C. | Smith, rt. hon. R. V. |
| Hope, Sir J. | Smollett, A. |
| Horsman, E. | Somerset, Lord G. |
| Howard, hon. C. W. G. | Sotheron, T. H. S. |
| Howard, hon. E. G. G. | Spooner, R. |
| Hume, J. | Stansfield, W. R. C. |
| Inglis, Sir R. H. | Stanton, W. H. |
| James, W. | Staunton, Sir G. T. |
| Jermyn, Earl | Sutton, hon. H. M. |
| Jocelyn, Visct. | Thesiger, Sir F. |
| Jones, Capt. | Thornely, T. |
| Kelly, Sir F. | Thornhill, G. |
| Ker, D. S. | Tower, C. |
| Lambton, H. | Towneley, J. |
| Langston, J. H. | Trevor, hon. G. R. |
| Lemon, Sir C. | Troubridge, Sir E. T. |
| Lindsay, hon. Capt. | Verner, Col. |
| Loch, J. | Vyse, R. H. R. H. |
| Lockhart, A. E. | Waddington, H. S. |
| Lygon, hon. Gen. | Ward, H. G. |
| Macaulay, rt. hon. T. B. | Wawn, J. T. |
| Mackinnon, W. A. | Wellesley, Lord C. |
| M'Neill, D. | Wodehouse, E. |
| Mainwaring, T. | Wood, C. |
| Marshall, W. | Wortley, hon. J. S. |
| Marsland, H. | Wynn, rt. hn. C. W. W. |
| Martin, J. | Yorke, H. R. |
| Masterman, J. | Young, J. |
| Maule, rt. hon. F. | |
| Meynell, Capt. | TELLERS. |
| Morpeth, Visct. | Estcourt, T. G. B. |
| Morris, D. | Strutt, E. |