said, he rose to move for the production of certain papers relative to the subject matter of a discussion which was to take place on the 15th of next month. He was induced to do so, because he thought it of great importance, that all documents tending to throw light on that question, should be previously before the House. The paper he would first move for was, a Copy of the information on which was grounded the committal of some persons to the Gaol of Newgate, in Dublin, on a charge of a Conspiracy to murder the Lord Lieutenant. He would state the particulars of the transaction as they took place. On the 14th of December, the transaction to which he alluded originated. On the day after, some persons were taken up, and brought before the police magistrates; two were charged with a conspiracy to riot, and committed to Newgate, on a committal specifying only the simple crime of riot or conspiracy to riot. Those two persons, named Hanbridge and Graham, were committed to Newgate on the 23rd of December. After a little time, warrants of detainer were lodged, charging them with a conspiracy "to kill and murder" the lord- 668 lieutenant. Thus it was evident, that the charge of conspiracy to murder was not hastily made. On the same day a person named James Forbes, was taken, and committed on the same charge. Now, when the right hon. gentleman came before the sessions to prosecute, he stated that he did not think it advisable to proceed on the capital charge; for it was better that government should be accused of leaning to the side of lenity, rather than that of severity. Bills of indictment for a conspiracy to riot were eventually preferred, which were thrown out by the grand jury, and the right hon. gentleman filed informations ex-officio, the result of which was well known. He (colonel B.) did not bring the subject forward before; for, until his majesty's attorney-general entered a nolle prosequi, good reasons might exist, why the information of the crown should not be, produced. But, as that had been entered, he conceived there was no longer ground to refuse the information. It might, indeed, be made an objection, that the magistrates who committed would be inconvenienced, and be liable to private actions for the committal. But, if those committals stood on the grounds of justice, the magistrates had nothing to fear, He believed, that unless malice could be brought home to magistrates, or a corrupt motive, they were not liable to pay in damages the consequences of their official acts. The charge of a capital offence, had naturally excited the public abhorrence against the prisoners; and, while particular injury was done to them, by the refusal of bail, an unjust stigma, cast upon a large body of persons in Ireland, by its being supposed that they were all capable of forming to, murder the king's representative. He did not believe there was a man in Ireland, who, after the development of the facts upon the trial of the ex-officio informations, believed there was any ground for the capital charge. It was of great moment, that this question should be understood. If the motion were resisted, it would be the means of preventing the light from being thrown upon it, which was necessary to a clear understanding of the case. He would move, for "Copies of the Informations charging James Forbes, George Graham, and Henry Hanbridge, with a Conspiracy to kill and murder his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, upon with the Commit- 669 tals of the said persons to his Majesty's Gaol of Newgate, in the City of Dublin, On the 23rd of December, last, were founded."
said, that so far as he was personally concerned in this question, he was desirous that every document should be brought before the House and the public; but whatever individual feelings he might entertain, he could not submit to the establishment of a precedent subversive of the ends of justice. He acknowledged the temper of propriety with which the right hon. member had brought forward his motion: he must suppose that he was actuated by a zeal for justice: he must suppose, that no individual object mixed itself with the subject, and that it was not brought forward from any union of views with the class of persons who were the objects of prosecution: he must, in courtesy, suppose, that it was brought forward, not with any view to embarrass the Irish government, or the humble individual now before the House. But, though he was not at liberty to find fault with the motives of the right hon. member, he must complain of the effects. It would be in the recollection of the House, that the hon. member for Armagh (Mr. Brownlow) had moved for the production of papers relative to the committal of the same persons. That hon. member had moved for copies of the bills of indictment which had been ignored by the grand jury, as well as for copies of the ex-officio informations. He must believe, that the object of such motions was to bring the conduct of the Irish government and its law advisers under the review of the House. Now, if the right hon. gentleman considered it unconstitutional to put men on their trial a second time, as it were, by ex-officio information after the decision of a grand jury, the conduct of the right hon. gentleman in the present instance afforded a strange illustration of his own doctrine; for he was not content that he (Mr. Plunkett) should be once put on his trial by the motion of the hon. member for Armagh but he would oblige him to go into another vindication of the part which he had taken in the same transaction. He believed the House would very willingly excuse him for following the right hon. gentleman into the particulars which accompanied the committal; but, in justice to the Irish government, he could not omit stating the circumstances attending 670 that transaction. He would therefore, state them; and he would do so, without having had the slightest expectation of being thus called on. On the 14th of December, the lord-lieutenant went to the theatre. Before he went, it was publicly announced, that there would be a riot at the theatre. Information was given to his excellency that his, person would be endangered. Measures were taken in consequence, which, as afterwards appeared, were ineffectual. The night of the visit arrived, and there was a considerable tumult. Immediately on the lord-lieutenant coming in, the tumult commenced. A general sentiment of approbation of his excellency was expressed by the unbought and unpacked portion of the audience; but it was attempted to be drowned in the violent hisses and groans of the rioters in different parts. But they did not confine themselves to such extemporaneous expressions of feeling as hisses and groans; they dropped down printed hand-bills, containing vulgar and illiberal attacks on the lord-lieutenant, and mottoes of "No Popery," as well as personal insults. It was observed, that between the persons in the pit and gallery, there were signals which afforded evidence of previous concert. In particular, there was a party on the left-hand side of the gallery, who made a violent uproar, by hissing and uttering expressions the most insulting and offensive; and it was remarked, that their expressions were not merely directed against the marquis Wellesley, either in his private capacity, or as lord-lieutenant of Ireland, but were directed also against the Roman Catholic population in general, The cries of "No Popery!" "Down with the Popish government!" were reiterated, and that sort of disturbance continued, until the play was over, and the tune of "God save the King" called for Now, it was of importance to know, that in the box in which his excellency sat, he was by a projection so secured against any mischief from the gallery while he sat back, that it was almost impossible to reach him by a missile from that part of the House. When the tune was called for, his excellency stood up, and advanced to the front of the box, where he became a distinct object to several parts of the house to which he was not visible before. Just then a bottle was thrown from the upper gallery, which passed over the pit, and hit the drop- 671 scene or curtain half way between the centre and the place where his excellency stood. This he could not look on as any light or trivial matter; though some persons seemed to think it a good joke. Three witnesses distinctly stated that it was thrown at the lord-lieutenant, though, when the fact was alluded to by the right hon. gentleman, he (Mr. P.) thought he heard something like merriment, some "peals of devilish laughter." But he would stand on the judgment of the House and the public, whether it was a jeu d'esprit to throw a bottle at the king's representative in the public theatre [Hear, hear!]. He hoped the forms of the House would be preserved, and that he should not be interrupted; but that hon. gentlemen would restrain themselves till he had finished, when they might reply to him. When the bottle had been thrown at the head of the lord-lieutenant, a person who had been very active with a watchman's rattle, was observed to break it in two, and to fling one of the pieces, which hit the box of the lord-lieutenant with such force as to cut the cushion, and leave a deep impression, whence it rebounded, and fell on the stage. These facts were beyond all controversy proved in evidence. It was also proved, that while this was going on, a number of persons were using whistles to create confusion, and that several persons were in the upper gallery armed with bludgeons, and a number of the audience were severely beaten by them. It was clearly proved, that a person named Hand bridge had thrown the bottle, that the rattle was flung by a man named Graham, and that a person named Forbes had been one of the a principal planners and contrivers of the whole attack. He was observed in the corner of the lattices at the left-hand side of the gallery, communicating with those persons who had discharged the missiles on the left. As to Hand bridge, his conduct was taken notice of by a person who never took his eye off him, until he saw him safely lodged in the police-office. These facts occurred on the Saturday night; and some persons were then taken up, who underwent investigation. When he (Mr. P.) was consulted, he was now free to say, that his impression on the first view, was, that the disturbance involved nothing more than a misdemeanor. The investigation continued about seven days. It appeared that Forbes, on being released, 672 had gone to a tavern in Essex-street, where he was met by others; and there he talked of the throwing of the missiles and other particulars of the riot. He spoke of himself as having been involved in the riot, and to that extent which might affect his life. He said he knew he might be transported to Botany Bay; but he had no objection to go there, provided he could raise an Orange Lodge in his place of banishment; that he had only one life, and would freely sacrifice it for the cause. He stated, that the bottle and the other instruments were badly aimed; he regretted they had not hit their object; and, what was more material, he stated his hope that the same efforts would be renewed another time, and be more effectual. Now, all this had been proved by two witnesses on oath, on whose testimony not the slightest imputation had been cast. One of them was a Mr. Farrell, an attorney, the other was a Mr. Troy, a respectable silk-mercer, and he believed their evidence was beyond all imputation. When he (Mr. P.) had heard the testimony of those persons, the whole transaction assumed a different character. Instead of an aggravated riot, in which the danger to the life of the lord-lieutenant was only consequential, it appeared a direct attack on the person and life of his excellency. He gave his advice accordingly; and, under the same circumstances, he would do so again. He had thereby discharged his duty to the crown and the public, in the most conscientious manner, and to the best of his ability. The right hon. gentleman was wrong, however, if he thought that the committal bound him as prosecutor to a particular mode of trial. He seemed to think it criminal to commit on a capital charge, and not to follow it up by a capital indictment. But, nothing was more familiar in practice, and, indeed, it would be highly injurious to the prisoner if, on further investigation, something was discovered which did not bear out the capital charge, and he was to be put on trial for his life.—He would now state what had determined him to forego the capital accusation. He was as anxious as any one that the public mind should be disabused; and if he were now asked it he thought there was a conspiracy to murder, he would say he did not think there was; and, if he were on his oath, in the jury-box, he would, on such a 673 charge, have acquitted the prisoners. But the circumstance which induced him alter his opinion was, that although convinced in his conscience that the party accused entered into a conspiracy to commit crime of as deep a malignity as that with which they were Charged, yet it was not what the law exactly recognized as capital. These men were guilty of a deliberate conspiracy, not to murder, but to compels the lord-lieutenant to change the measures of his government—measures for governing all the people of Ireland by the aid of equal law, without distinction of party or opinion. Yes, against that unprecedented anomaly of equal law in Ireland, was that conspiracy formed.—He would now tell the House of what nature it was. After the king had declared his intention, in his parting letter, of discountenancing party animosities—after he had declared his wish that sentiments of irritation should no longer be encouraged, and had recommended that party toasts should no longer be given—the lord-lieutenant directed, that an anniversary which revived remembrances of their having been a conquered people should be discontinued. Some persons in the city of Dublin who had been in the habit of celebrating those days, were highly exasperated; and four or five persons, members of Orange lodges, consulted together, and it was declared, that the lord-lieutenant's visit to the theatre would be a good opportunity to insult him, and make him unpopular, and would make it also be believed by the government in England, that he was so: he was to be insulted, for the purpose of forcing him to quit the theatre, and ultimately the country. Subscriptions were raised for the purpose of packing the theatre, and filling it with persons from the Orange lodges. The money was raised in an Orange lodge of a higher description, by persons who could find money for themselves, and furnish it for the admission of others. They accordingly met, having deliberately formed this plan. Parties from a particular lodge were to go to the pit door, and seize that part of the theatre near which the lord-lieutenant was to sit. Three persons, members of this lodge, went to the theater on Saturday morning, and purchased a sufficiency of pit tickets to admit sixty or seventy persons to the one-shilling gallery; three going in on one pit ticket. Those persons went to the lodge in Ship-street, where 674 an inferior lodge met. Forbes was one of the persons, but he had not been present at the first meeting. From that place men were sent to the theatre armed with bludgeons, and infuriated with whiskey. Forbes accompanied them; and besides assisting them to the bludgeons, furnished them with instructions to compel the lord-lieutenant to leave the theatre. Could this malicious intention possibly be effected without danger to the life of the lord-lieutenant? Was in probable that the citizens of Dublin would be passive, when such and outrage was offered to their feelings, and such disgraceful violence attempted in their presence? But the rioters seemed to be perfectly in different to consequences, o long as they had a prospect of being able to counter act the king's commands. The principal object being to compel the lord-lieutenant to change his measures, or to leave the government, the danger to his life was but consequential, not direct; and that was not the case which sustained the capital charge. Bills of indictment were sent up to the grand jury, not on the capital charge, but for a conspiracy to riot. He would now ask, whether it was a violation of duty that, in the progress of the inquiry, he had given his advice conscientiously, according to what appeared on the face of the evidence, whether a capital charge, or bills of indictment for the minor offence should be preferred? It seemed, however, he was liable to be arraigned in parliament for that advice; and whether any improper motive could be attributed to the right hon. gentleman for arraigning his official conduct or not, he certainly could not blame his love of freedom, his constitutional zeal, and his anxiety lest the exercise of the prerogative should be overstrained. If the case had been opposite to what it was—if the dressing of king William's statue had been protected by the lord-lieutenant, and a popish mob had gone to the theatre and assailed his excellency, for such conduct, he (Mr. P.) was bound to believe, that the right hon. gentleman, and those who supported him, would have acted as they did on the present occasion. For his part, he could conscientiously say, that if he under such circumstances, had the honour of holding the situation he now did, he should have thought it his duty to pursue the same course. It was not, with respect to one part of the subject, quite 675 so great a novelty to commit for the capital offence, and afterwards to prosecute for the minor, as the right hon. gentleman scented to suppose. He might recollect a case of that sort which occurred at no distant period. Did the right hon gentleman forget that, within less than twelve months, a number of Ribbonmen were arrested in Ireland, and committed on a charge of high treason, but were never since prosecuted at all? He (Mr. P.) did not remember that this circumstance had wrung the conscience of the right hon. gentleman, or he was bound to suppose it would have been brought before parliament, as well as the subject of the present motion. If the House asked why he rose to oppose the production of the documents demanded? he would answer, because it would be a violation of the constitution to grant them—because it would be a proceeding without precedent, to supply the informations upon which persons had been committed under such circumstances. He would say further, that it would be unjust to the magistrates who acted in the case, and who were liable to be prosecuted by the accused parties for having committed them, to put into the hands of the latter beforehand the grounds upon which the magistrates had proceeded. He had never heard of an instance where such a step had been taken. It would be a dangerous precedent to adopt at any time, for no man would come forward and give information against others, if the seal of secrecy, under which he gave it, were to be broken before the whole case underwent the investigation in a court of justice. He could not therefore but regret that the right hon. gentleman, in his zeal to support the laws and constitution, had not chosen a better occasion for the experiment. Some excuse, of course, must be made for a first attempt to preserve the constitution and limit the prerogative; nor did he despair, that in future the right hon. gentleman's efforts might be better directed. For himself, he thought it would be neither fair, nor honourable, nor constitutional, to consent to the motion before the House; but while he resisted it, he was desirous to show, that the power which the Irish government possessed had not been influenced by malice or party spirit.
denied the correctness of the opinion which had been just expressed by the attorney-general for Ire- 676 land, that informations before a magistrate were given under the seal of secrecy. So far was this from being the case, that he considered secrecy of that sort incompatible with justice to the public. If the principle were adopted, it would give rise to a system of espionage, under which the freedom of the people might be annihilated. The lives of British subjects might be assailed by those who dared not avow the evidence on which they acted; and despotism might be thus established. Much as he reverenced the character of the right hon. and learned gentleman, he must say, that his doctrine struck at the root of the administration of justice. He did not say but cases might arise, in which it would be proper to withhold informations. But they must be peculiar cases, and at peculiar periods; such as those in which the Habeas Corpus act would be suspended. In short, he thought the attorney-general for Ireland had totally failed in answering the right hon. member for Cavan, and he should therefore support the motion. He was unwilling, however, that any misconception of his opinions should go abroad. He sincerely wished, that a fair and full opportunity should be given to the Irish government to justify its conduct during the late prosecutions. God knew all his feelings were in favour of the right hon. and learned gentleman, and against the right hon. member for Cavan. But, if the House were deprived of a knowledge of the grounds on which the Irish administration had proceeded, and the informations on which the commitments had taken place, how was parliament to decide the question at issue? Taking the statement which had been made that night as true, it was easy for the attorney-general for Ireland to come to a decision; but it was hardly fair in hint to refuse the other party the same evidence upon which his own judgment was founded. No magistrate should commit to prison, unless he was satisfied that the informations would fully justify the committal. Was a man to be put in gaol at the will of a magistrate? Was no security to be left for the lives and happiness of individuals? Having now heard the statement of the attorney-general for Ireland, he had strong doubts of the justice of the late proceedings in that country. It was said, the lord-lieutenant was attacked with missiles; but it, was added, that his excellency was at the-time in a situation of perfect safety. 677 It was rather strange, if the intention was to murder the lord-lieutenant, that such were the circumstances under which it was attempted. What, too, were the weapons employed? Was it possible, that, in the whole city of Dublin, a pistol could not be found, which would at once have effected the purpose of the conspirators? A bottle, indeed, was thrown, and half a rattle was sent after it; but no injury was done. The first and best opinion of the right hon. and learned gentleman was, that the conspiracy was only one to commit a riot; and he certainly had not informed the House of any thin, which could warrant the change of sentiment that had afterwards taken place. There was nothing in the previous meetings of the Orangemen, which showed an intention to murder. That there was a conspiracy to riot, appeared evident; and those concerned in it, deserved the severest penalty which the law could inflict on them. What, after nine days deliberation, led the attorney-general to change his opinion, he did not know; nor what afterwards caused him to change that opinion back again. First, he considered the crime a conspiracy to riot; then, a conspiracy to murder; and lastly, a conspiracy to riot. Was it not, then, a little too much, when the evidence was such as to excite so many doubts in the mind of the learned gentleman, as to the right judgment which he ought to form of the case, to ask that House to come to a decision, without opening to it every source of knowledge within the power of parliament, and the law of the land? It was essential to the welfare of the country, that the present motion should be carried. The question was, whether the critical circumstances in which Ireland was placed, justified the exercise of a right which had not been used since the Revolution; and which, in his opinion, nothing less than the strongest case, the dearest evidence, and the utmost necessity could justify.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that the question was, whether certain informations, upon which the magistrates had committed some persons, accused, in those informations, of a conspiracy to murder the king's representative, should be placed before the House? He must say, that he did consider a great part of the hon. and learned gentleman's speech had been completely beside this question. These were ex-officio informations, the 678 House would observe; and, surely, it was most extraordinary, that the hon. member for Armagh, who had given notice of a similar motion to the present, had not included in his notice these informations. It was not less extraordinary in his right hon. friend, the member for Cavan, to have moved for these papers immediately after the hon. member for Armagh had gone out of town, and the hon. secretary for Ireland had returned to his discharge of his official duties in that country. The question was, whether the magistrates in this case had, or had not, exercised a proper discretion in committing the parties? If so, it was contended, these informations might be produced. But he answered, that they were not necessary for the purposes of the present motion. If they were not, was it desirable, on any other grounds, that this information should be laid before the House? It was admitted, that if the parties had been improperly committed, they might have their actions against the magistrates. Now, was it consonant to practice, that in such a case the House should interfere, the remedy being admitted to reside in a court of law? And if this remedy was so to be administered in a court of law, such a court would be the proper place for the production of these papers. To produce them now, would be extremely unjust towards the parties who might be thus put on their trial. It was impossible that these informations, were they even furnished, could give as much information upon the matter as the evidence adduced by the parties when put upon their trial. On these sound and parliamentary principles, he could not concur in the present motion.
§ Mr. Abercromby
agreed with the right hon. secretary, that the real question was confined in a narrow compass, but differed from him in the opinion, that the present motion was not connected with that of the hon. member for Armagh. They both referred to the same subject. The motion of the hon. member for Armagh did not turn upon the legality of the act, which the attorney-general for Ireland had done, but upon the constitutional exercise of the power which he possessed. This being the case, the whole of the proceedings connected with the exercise of that power in filing of the ex-officio information, ought to be laid before parliament. At present, but a portion of them was in the possession of the 679 House; and this arose from the error which had been fallen into when the sub ct was first introduced. By granting the papers demanded by the hon. member for Armagh, parliament had admitted, that a case existed for investigation, and could only do justice, by granting all the documents relative to that case.
§ Sir J. Newport
was of opinion, that the papers ought not to be produced, because their production might tend to obstruct the course of justice. He did not think them necessary to enable the House to come to a just decision upon the question. The reasoning of his learned friend who had just sat down, amounted to nothing more than this—that the House having already embarked in error, ought to proceed in that course. The motion was liable to a strong objection, which did not apply to the former motion; namely, that by the production of the papers, third parties would be liable to have actions brought against them, and to the infliction of penalties. He should vote against it.
§ Lord A. Hamilton
could not see why the production of the documents should be opposed by the friends of the magistrates, unless it was because those individuals had acted improperly.
§ Mr. Spring Rice
said, that the question involved in the present motion was, whether Ireland should continue to be governed by law, or be thrown hack again into the arms of that detestable faction from which it had been recently delivered. If the House wished to rescue that country from the unfortunate state of division in which it had been placed, it ought not, directly or indirectly, to countenance that party in Ireland which considered itself aggrieved, not by the particular transaction to which the motion referred, but by the whole conduct of the existing Irish government, and by the principle of conciliation on which it proceeded. He was sorry to hear the manner in which the intentions of the rioters in the Dublin theatre had been spoken of. Much ridicule had been attempted to be thrown on their proceedings, by a recurrence to the words "rattle" and "bottle." He hoped that the object of the parties would not he lost sight of, in consequence of the attempt which was made to attach ridicule to the instruments which they had employed.
§ Mr. Grattan
professed himself such a lover of publicity, in all cases where the 680 liberty of the subject was concerned, that he would vote for the present motion. There seemed to have been a good deal of confusion as to the commitments, but every one knew the nature of the Irish government. The lord-lieutenant held one opinion and the chief secretary another; the attorney-general held one opinion and the solicitor-general another; so that the only wonder was, how any person happened to be committed at all. But, while he felt himself bound to support the present motion from principle he was anxious to express his approbation of the conduct of the attorney-general for Ireland, who had done an act more calculated to benefit Ireland than any that, had taken place during the last fifty years. The attempt by ex-officio informations to put down the spirit of party, was one that, under the circumstances, called for his warmest applause.
§ Dr. Phillimore
complained, that his right hon. friend had been unfairly dealt with by the clandestine manner in which this serious charge had been brought forward. The real question before the House was, whether the king's benevolent intention to promote peace and conciliation was to be carried into effect, bonâ fide, or not. The production of the papers could not possible promote that object.
§ Mr. Lambton
said, that if he could persuade himself that only object of the present motion was to afford a triumph to a faction in Ireland, he would give a different vote to that which he intended to give. But he could not understand how that could in any way be construed to be the object and end of the motion. Was the House to be told; that because faction existed to a lamentable extent in Ireland, they were not to inquire into a particular case of abuse in the administration of justice in that country, when it was brought under their notice? If that doctrine were recognized, there would be and end to all law—there would be an end to the confidence which the people placed in the House of Commons as the ultimate tribunal of justice. In his opinion, a primà facie case of injustice and unconstitutional conduct had been made out against the attorney-general for Ireland. He trusted that that learned gentleman would be able to clear his conduct for the honour of the laws and of those principles of justice which he had once so eloquently sup- 681 ported; but he also trusted, that the learned gentleman would excuse him for saying, that he did not anticipate, from what he had heard that night, that he would be able to do so. Without meaning to excite ideas of ridicule, he must be allowed to express his opinion, that if it had been the intention of the rioters to murder the lord-lieutenant, they would have employed more efficient weapons than a bottle or a rattle. He had been given to understand, that some persons had taken the trouble to ascertain whether it was possible to throw a bottle in the direction in which it had been stated that the bottle was thrown at the lord-lieutenant. In the prosecution of that inquiry, no bottle which had been cast had failed to be broken to pieces; but it appeared that the bottle which was thrown at the lord-lieutenant with a murderous intention was still unbroken. He mentioned that circumstance to show the improbability of the whole story. He regretted the existence of faction in Ireland as much as any man could. He disapproved as strongly of the Orange party, which the right hon. mover was supposed to favour; but still he thought he had a right to call for the papers which referred to an act of greater constitutional injustice than had ever taken place since the time of the Revolution.
§ Lord Hotham
said, he would vote for the motion, as it did not appear that any inconvenience would arise from the production of the papers.
§ Colonel Trench
declared himself in favour of the motion, but not as an Orangeman. Those societies he considered destructive of the public tranquillity.
in reply, defended himself from the charge of having taken the attorney-general by surprise, as he had submitted the motion to hint on Wednesday, as well as to the secretary for Ireland, before his departure. He disclaimed all wish of governing Ireland, by dividing its inhabitants into factions. He was as sincere a friend to conciliation as any man; but he was, nevertheless, of opinion, that Ireland could not be conciliated without justice being administered equally to all parties. He could wish that there were neither Orangemen nor United Irishmen Ireland; but, as those associations had been mentioned, be must beg leave to say, that the Orange societies were founded upon principles which partook much more of the na- 682 ture of defensive, than offensive associations.
§ The House divided: Ayes, 32; Noes, 48.
|List of the Minority.|
|Abercromby, hon. J.||Lambton, J. G.|
|Baring, sir T.||Marjoribanks, S.|
|Bright, H.||O'Neil, hon. J.|
|Boughey, sir J. F.||Pares, T.|
|Bennet, hon. H. G.||Philips, G. sen.|
|Claughton, T.||Pakenham, hon. R.|
|Colborne, N. R.||Robarts, G.|
|Creevey, T.||Sefton, earl of|
|Downie, R.||Tulk, C. A.|
|Duncannon, visc.||Thompson, ald.|
|Fergusson, sir R.||Trench, F.|
|Fane, J.||Wilson, sir R.|
|Grattan, J.||Wells, J.|
|Hart, G.||Williams, W.|
|Hamilton, lord A.||Barry, right hon. J.|
|Hume, T.||Lushington, Dr.|