§ Sir E. Knatchbull
said, he rose to present a Petition which had very lately been put into his hands, and which related to a motion about to be brought forward that evening. As it was respectfully worded, he bad not refused to present it. The petitioner was a Mr. Sydney, who took notice of a motion which was to be brought forward by the hon. Member for Staffordshire (Mr. Littleton), in which motion the petitioner thought that his interests were involved, and he prayed to be heard at the bar respecting the said motion. He begged to move that the petition be brought up.
§ Mr. C. W. Wynn
begged to ask of the Speaker if it were consistent with the 1012 rules of the House that such a petition should be brought up. The petition, as he understood, alluded to a motion which it was intended to bring forward, and the object of which was to regulate the conduct of the Members of that House, and of no one else.
§ The Speaker
said, that there was certainly no precedent, that he knew of, in favour of receiving such a petition. He thought it well worthy the consideration of the House, whether they would allow a motion respecting the conduct of their own Members to be thus noticed.
§ The Speaker
said, that the hon. Member was putting to him an hypothetical question, which did not bear in the most remote degree upon the present case. The petition to which the hon. Member alluded, and which had been presented by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, was not against the present petitioner. It was the petition of a person who thought it derogatory to the dignity of the House that one of its Members should be engaged in partnership with others, out of the House, who were the paid agents for conducting Parliamentary business; and the petition prayed that such a practice might be put an end to. That petition, therefore, could not be said to be a petition against the present petitioner.
§ Sir E. Knatchbull
said, that if it were the wish of the House, he should certainly withdraw the petition. [Cries of "Withdraw."]
§ The Petition was then withdrawn.
§ Mr. Littleton
said, that he rose pursuant to the notice he had given, to move a resolution, declaring it to be contrary to the law and usage of Parliament for any Member to engage, either by himself or partner, in the management of private bills for pecuniary reward. He hoped he should receive credit for sincerity when he said, that it was with real pain and regret that, having presented a petition, he felt himself obliged to follow it up by a 1013 Motion which interfered with the views of any hon. Member of that House. He trusted that the hon. Member for Colchester, would do him the justice of believing he was not actuated by any personal motives. Before stating the Resolution he intended to submit, he would, in the first place, beg to remind the House of the substance of the petition on which he had founded his Motion. The petition came from Mr. T. Eyre Lee, and stated, "That having in the month of November last given notice in the newspapers of his intention to apply for a certain bill in the next Session, he received a letter, dated Great George-street, and signed William Robert Sydney, informing him that the writer had entered into partnership with Mr. Daniel Whittle Harvey, as Parliamentary Agents; and that his practice and experience for several years gave him facilities in conducting Parliamentary business which would be found very advantageous to his clients independently of the alliance which he had formed with Mr. Harvey The letter was franked by Mr. Harvey, and came under what appeared to be the common seal of the firm." When he received the petition from Mr. Lee, it certainly did appear to him an extraordinary thing that a Member of that House should undertake, for fee or reward, to employ himself in the management of private bills; and he felt still more surprised when he heard the hon. Member for Colchester declare that he would take the sense of the House as to the propriety of such conduct. He would next advert to the suspicion expressed by the hon. Member for Colchester, that this petition had emanated from the Parliamentary Agents. He could not suppose that the hon. Member had given utterance to this suspicion without having some grounds for it; but on inquiry he found that there were no grounds for making this charge. Mr. Eyre Lee denied all connexion with these Parliamentary Agents; and his petition had solely proceeded from his aversion to find himself opposed in his professional business by a person possessing the talents and advantages of the hon. Member for Colchester. He would next come to the Resolution he intended to move, first requesting the Clerk of the House to read from the Journal of the House the Resolution dated 2nd of May, 1696. The Clerk read the following-Resolution:—"That the offer of any 1014 money, or any other advantage to any Member of Parliament, as a fee or reward for him to promote the furtherance of any matter depending or to be transacted in Parliament, is a high crime and misdemeanor, and tends to the subversion of the English Constitution."
§ Mr. Littleton
, in continuation said, that the Resolution which he should propose would only follow up the declaration. It was this:—"Resolved, That it is contrary to law, and to the usages of Parliament, for any Member either by himself or partner, to engage in the management of any private bill for any fee or reward." He was at a loss to conceive any objection there could be to passing this Resolution; but he could easily conceive that there were many grounds sufficient to call for its adoption. He would direct the attention of the House to the arguments which, on a former night, had been used by the hon. Member for Colchester upon this subject, and to the answers which he should give to them. In the first place that hon. Member justified himself on the fact, that other solicitors, Members of that House, had adopted the same course of proceeding, and that they had been allowed to engage in professional practice upon bills under discussion before the House. He presumed that the hon. Member believed he had stated only circumstances that were well founded; but, after a very exact inquiry into the matter, he had not been able to discover a single instance in which a solicitor sitting in that House engaged in professional practice upon private bills. The hon. Member for Colchester had to establish two points:—First, that there were instances in which solicitors, who were Members of that House, forgetting themselves and their duty to the House, had engaged in such practice; and next, that they had done so with the cognizance of that House. Unless he could succeed in establishing these two points, his facts and his arguments were worth nothing, and on these points he might fairly be challenged to prove that any one had done so without having been visited by punishment by that House. It was not strictly his duty to offer any comment upon the conduct of his departed and lamented friend, Sir James Graham; but he felt called upon by his respect for that gentleman to do so, and he would assert his utter disbelief that that gentleman had ever practised in the way sup- 1015 posed, or that Mr. Smith, the solicitor to the East-India Company had, while a Member of that House, engaged in any such professional practice. He did not deem it absolutely necessary to call the attention of the House to the arguments drawn from the practice of the Attorney and Solicitor General; but he could not pass by the subject without declaring, that unless good proof of the fact were adduced, he never would believe that they took part in any proceedings, but in the same way as other Members, or that they ever received a fee for any clauses introduced into any bill in that House. These hon. and learned Gentlemen were, however, present, and could answer for themselves. The hon. Member for Colchester had likewise alluded to the case of every individual Member who might be liable to find his pecuniary interests or those of his constituents affected by bills passing through that House, but who would not be prevented on that account from voting against a bill. The latter of these cases often happened, and he would assert that there was no county Member of any standing whose constituents were not often affected by bills in that House, and who were not, under such circumstances, always called on to support or oppose them. If they were prevented from doing this, their constituents would be robbed of the services of those in whom they had thought fit to place their confidence, and who were there to protect and assert their interests whenever they happened to be made the subject of discussion. The usages of the House were perfectly clear and satisfactory in this respect, for, though they admitted a Member to speak and vote on the subjects affecting the interests of his constituents, whom he was there to represent, yet, whenever there was reason to believe that he had made his power of voting subservient to the promotion of his own interests, the House was not backward in disallowing the vote, and thus destroying the means of any abuse of his rights and privileges. For the confirmation of this, he appealed to the knowledge of all the Members. In 1825 and in 1826, when bills relating to Joint Stock Companies and other speculations were before the House, this was constantly done; and a great variety of votes were disallowed, and very properly disallowed, on that account. In consequence of frequent occurrences of this kind, the House 1016 (and upon his motion) appointed a select committee, who, in their report, expressed their disgust at the practice; and what was the result? Why that the House, with a view of providing a remedy for such a practice, declared there should be an appeal from any committee to the House itself, grounded upon the objection, that a Member interested in the result had given his vote upon it. This resolution continued to be a part of the Sessional Orders. If, after this, there were any case in which such a vote was given, and no appeal was made, the party had no right to complain; since, upon the report made by that committee, an effectual remedy had been provided. He would say nothing further upon that part of the subject, but reserve himself for the reply to which he should be entitled.—The hon. Member for Aberdeen, on a former occasion, called the attention of the House to the subject by proposing a resolution, that a party who had an interest of any description in any bill should take no part in it during its passage through the House. That resolution was rejected in 1824, upon the opposition of Mr. Canning, and afterwards upon an opposition made by him (Mr. Littleton), upon this ground, that a general rule was unnecessary and improper, as the House, by the resolution recommended by the Committee, had reserved to itself the right of examining into every individual case that might be brought before it. Having said thus much upon the general question, he would proceed to the Motion more immediately under discussion—namely, as to the right of any Member to act, either by himself, or his partner, in the matter of a petition for a private bill. It had been said that such had before been the usage of Parliament. He denied the usage; first, because there was no proof of its existence, either by evidence of a Member having acted in the manner described, or of any punishment having been inflicted on him for so doing. But he would go further. He had a right to argue from analogy; and on that ground he should be able to show that Solicitors, who were Members of that House, could not possibly be allowed to forward bills through its Committees, since gentlemen of the long robe, who were Members of the House were not allowed the privilege of appearing for parties, either in Committees or at the Bar. There was no difference in the prin- 1017 ciple and spirit of the Resolution between the two classes of professional men, both of whom stood in that respect in precisely the same situation. But the House went still further, for it prevented barristers having a seat in Parliament from practising in either House upon matters relating to private bills. The Resolutions to that effect were passed in 1666 and 1669. The former was made a Standing Order, and was directed to prevent barristers, who were Members of that House, from practising at any time in the other House. As that order was rather too general, the gentlemen of the long robe obtained a modification of it within three years afterwards, and the order then adopted was, that no gentleman of the long robe, a Member of that House, should, during the Session of Parliament, practise at the Bar of either House without leave asked and granted by that. House. The House saw no impropriety in permitting such of its Members as were barristers to plead before the House of Lords sitting as a Court of Appeal, but bills were entirely a different question, as the same subjects on which they pleaded before the House of Lords as advocates might afterwards come before that House, when they would have to decide on them as legislators. The House therefore refused to sanction their pleading in such matters, in order to keep their minds pure and unbiassed on questions in which they might have finally to exercise their legislative judgment. This principle had been acknowledged upon a recent and very celebrated occasion. At the time of the late Queen's trial, it was most important that her Majesty should receive the assistance of the hon. and learned Gentleman, the then Member for Winchelsea, and of another hon. and learned Member, then one of the Members for Nottingham. An application was, in consequence, made to that House by the first of these Gentlemen, bearing in his mind the two Standing Orders already referred to, for its express permission to be heard at the Bar of the other House against the Bill of Pains and Penalties then in progress through it. So jealous were the Members of that House of conceding such a privilege, that they took time to consider of the application, and refused to give for some days the required permission. Some days afterwards, either on the motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, or on that of Lord Castlereagh, 1018 the application was granted, under condition, "provided always that this permission shall not be drawn into a precedent." In that permission Dr. Lushington was afterwards included. He thought he need not urge more arguments in support of this Resolution. He should merely state the course he meant to pursue. When he presented the petition he thought that the matter ought, to be referred to a Committee of Privileges, but on consideration of the duties of such a Committee, and in consequence of communications with other Members of the House, he determined upon pursuing a different course. There was nothing that required the labours of a committee—nothing to inquire into. The question was one of first principles, in which that House, and that alone, ought to be the judge. It was a mere question of moral propriety. He thought he had said enough to show that it was against the tenor and spirit, if not against the letter, of the Resolutions of that House, for its Members to interfere with the management of private bills in their passage through that or the other House of Parliament. As it was so entirely a question of moral propriety, he should ask for no committee, but should submit it to the House at large; and he called on every Member to assert the dignity of their practice, and agree with him in carrying the Resolution he proposed for the furtherance of that object. The hon. Member concluded by proposing the Resolution he had already stated.
§ Colonel Dalrymple
said, he had made the fullest inquiry into the subject, and could declare that Sir James Graham had retired from Parliamentary business before he became a Member of that House, and never engaged in any business from which he could derive profit while he continued a Member.
§ Mr. D. W. Harvey
said, if, Sir, at the time of my engaging in the partnership which is now the subject of discussion, I had had the slightest impression that what I was doing was contrary either to law, or to the usages of Parliament—had I even thought that it would have occupied so much of the valuable, the very valuable time of this House, as I now find it has done, I should not have engaged in it; that thought alone would have deterred me from forming such a connection, and I do most sincerely regret the time that has been consumed in hearing a discussion on 1019 such a trifling subject. The hon. Member, I must say, has placed an ungenerous construction on the arguments I have adverted to. I imputed no blame to the hon. Members whom I supposed to have engaged in the same practice as myself. When I mentioned their names, I did so from the belief which is generally entertained among the members of the legal profession, that the late Sir James Graham was extensively and advantageously employed in passing bills through Parliament. After the positive statement of the hon. Member who is connected with the house of which Sir James Graham was at the head, I am, of course, ready to acknowledge my error in the opinion I entertained. When, too, I stated that bills were submitted to the law officers of the Crown, Members of this House, I did not, and do not believe, that the time, the important time, of these distinguished and learned individuals was gratuitously devoted and given to the public. I did not allude to the case of the Queen's Counsel, though it was suggested to me, and though I was not prepared at that time to believe that the law officers of the Crown and the Queen's Counsel had given their services for nothing, which I was little inclined to believe, from knowing the enormous sum voted by this House to defray the expenses of that proceeding. But if that money was given for the expenses of witnesses, and for them alone, and none of it was allotted to the Counsel, then must I acknowledge that that is more than I was prepared to believe. The hon. Member has paid a great compliment to the members of that branch of the profession to which he belonged at the expense of the other, when he said no precedent was to be found of solicitors having contravened what he stated to be the Standing Orders of the House, while at the same time he admitted there had been a period when Attorneys and Solicitors General had been so greedy of fees that a positive rule had been made to restrain them from indulging in such practices. [No, no.] This is the true result of the hon. Member's statement as to this House; and in the House of Lords there was a Resolution once passed of a still stronger nature. I come now to the Question itself. Is the statement of the hon. Member entitled to support from the Members of this House, either from the evidence afforded by the records of our Journals, of our 1020 officers, or of you, Sir, who are so profoundly acquainted with the rules and practice of this House? I do not speak of any strained or liberal construction of those Orders—if there be any clear and intelligible declaration in them which is opposed to what I have done, I shall bow obediently to it, whatever may be the personal effect upon myself. I said on the former occasion what I repeat now—that the Committees of this House cannot be too pure in their motives or actions; but I would ask if it be not a hypocritical regard for purity to declare that a solicitor receiving a fee for his services in promoting a private bill, is liable to have his mind biassed, while Gentlemen are not even suspected whose whole property has been involved in bills in which they have interfered. If the House support the Resolution now proposed, no man can vote on a bill when he has a direct interest in the result. I should be ready to agree to the proposition, and no one would more cordially support the Resolution, or embrace it in practice, than myself, did it go the length of declaring that no Member should vote in any case in which he had a direct interest: but the hon. Member has gone further, and has said "indirect" as well as "direct"—at least he has said so in effect. I would agree even to this, if I thought it could be practically effected, but I scarcely think it possible for any Committee of gentlemen to be formed who are not directly or indirectly influenced in the result of any measure that has to pass through this House. I am sometimes solicited by persons coining from Glasgow or Dundee to support or oppose a bill in its progress through the House, or to attend the Committee upon it. I should have thought that I could have had no direct or indirect interest in such a bill; but such is the extraordinary activity of these agents, that they discover what I never could have imagined; that in some way or other the interests of my own constituents are concerned in the bill, and some of these are always found to urge me to attend the discussions on the bill. Attending or not to their wishes may influence my return for Colchester, and thus I may have an interest in measures which nobody would suspect. I question, Sir, whether there are six Members in this House who are not subject to this sort of indirect influence. To the Resolution now proposed by the hon. 1021 Member I shall move an Amendment—a substantive Amendment; for as to the common form of moving the previous Question, it requires all the ingenuity of the practised Members to understand what it means. I shall, therefore, propose a Resolution, that no Member who has a direct interest in any bill shall vote in the Committee upon it. I do not say that they shall not sit in the Committee, for it is frequently necessary that they should do so, in order to give that information on the subject which they, best of all others, perhaps, are able to afford. I will only say of myself, that I never sat and voted in any canal or road-bill committee in which I had half a farthing's interest. I think I have been treated harshly, because I have been treated as if this petition had arisen out of my misconduct. I am willing, however, if others will follow me in that respect, to set an example of absolute disinterestedness; and as I never have been, so I am ready to say that I never will be a member of any committee on a bill in which I am directly or indirectly interested. I must say, however, that the rewards of the kind alluded to by the Resolution of the hon. Member are so far from being a bribe, that they are but payments for services, and the person receiving the services is, in such a case, just as much bribed as the person receiving the money. But if you are resolved on reducing the conduct of the Members of the House to such a sublimated degree of purity that they shall not be subject to the influence even of 13s. 4d., or 1l. 1s., or 6s. 8d. as an hon. Member reminds me (and these sums, by-the-bye, subject to taxation by your officers); I say, if the House is determined that its Members shall be so pure, that the purity of their minds shall not be borne down by the influence of such a sum, I will even support a motion to that extreme. But Gentlemen have an interest in almost all the votes which they give in Parliament. I take it for granted, that the hon. Gentleman, to be consistent, will oppose any East-India Directors from sitting on the Committee on India Affairs. Are not these hon. Gentlemen interested in that question? If that Committee should report that it was expedient to abolish the Company's monopoly, it would be the abolition of enormous patronage. I understand, I may be misinformed, but I do understand, that the advantage of the 1022 East-India Directors is, beyond that of all other persons, bound up in the existence of the Company. If so, I ask, Sir, whether any Director can fairly tell me that should he feel the Company's monopoly, the source of his power and patronage, crumbling beneath his feet, that he would not feel a paramount degree of interest in endeavouring to preserve it from ruin. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given notice of a motion for a Committee on the Licensing System. Of course, he will not have any great brewers on that Committee. He will not ask men to vote against their interest, or put their delicate sense of honour in jeopardy. The other night there was a motion for the Reduction of the Salaries of the Great Officers of State, when one of them rose up and implored our sympathy, because having only 3,500l. a-year, he thought' himself in a bad state, because legs of mutton were now 7d. instead of 5d. per pound; while another right hon. Gentleman, connected with the Navy, thought 5,000l. a-year not enough to pay his weekly bills with, and would no doubt on a division have given a conscientious vote for the preservation of his salary. Much is now said against attorneys and solicitors, after they have been robbed of all the places they formerly occupied under the Government, and the duties of which they discharged both well and cheaply, but from which they were turned out because barristers were found more efficient in this House. Are these, or any of these, instances of that delicate purity in Members sufficient to justify the present Motion? I must also remind you, Sir, that I am not the only person concerned in this question, and that you are, by this Resolution, using the iron hand of your power in a fearful manner. You are about to take upon yourselves to dissolve engagements of a binding nature on the parties themselves. My partner has applied to be heard at your bar, and his prayer has been refused, I do not say improperly refused, consistently with the forms of the House, but as he is concerned your Resolution ought to be well weighed. I admit, however, that if it is clear that the laws and usages of Parliament are, that not only no Member of this House, but no solicitor out of it connected with any Member, is allowed to engage in the management of private bills—I say if this be the case, I admit that he has come into the lion's mouth, and he 1023 must get out of it with as little mutilation as possible. The right hon. Gentleman who has given notice of a Committee of Inquiry into the fees of the Courts of Law, has often talked of vested rights. I say, let him consider mine. But, Sir, if all others are to be in the same manner given up, I have such a contempt for these claims, that I do not care how low mine are estimated. There is now a bill in this House in which I believe the hon. Member is somewhat interested; and there is a circular with one hundred and two names subscribed as opponents of it. Among these I find the names of Hertford, Cornwallis, Willoughby de Broke, and other gentlemen of great importance, who declare their intention of opposing the bill. Now, suppose, for we must go on mere hypothesis here, suppose, I say, that the Marquis of Hertford had any Member or Members in this House, I am sure, of course, that he has not, but suppose he had, and that that Member, instead of paying 5,000l. for his seat, as described by an hon. Baronet the other night, had taken it on the condition or the understanding that he was to do the public and private business of the noble Marquis, and that he would be on the alert as to any thing that might pass in this House affecting the noble Marquis's estate. If he were required to come down to oppose this bill—if he were driven, nolens volens, against his own feelings here, I should like to know to what degree of influence he could be said to be subject. Then, Sir, there are such persons as stewards and receivers to very wealthy noblemen—to the Duke of Devonshire for instance. Have we no such gentlemen Members of this House? I am sure I respect one gentleman of that class very much, and I think no promotion ever did greater credit to the Government than his, and I would rather receive, like him, 5,000l. a-year, than a few shilling fees, piecemeal, as an attorney. If such a Gentleman were told that he must oppose a bill for opening a canal that was to run through the domains at Chatsworth, he would possibly answer, "But I believe that bill will be a public benefit;" if he did, and his noble patron should reply, "Yes, but I disapprove of it;" oppose it he must, and what influence would he be under? In the course of last Session, a noble Lord near me, for whom I have the greatest respect, introduced a bill which was to be productive of advantage to his 1024 family. I believe I was almost the only man on this side of the House who staid here to oppose it [cries of no, no; it was thrown out]. Yes, it was thrown out by those who staid to throw it out; a powerful stream, however, of disinterested supporters left the House, and it was opposed by the hon. Members opposite. I only mention this to show that there are infinitely greater dangers in these things than in the open and avowed practice I have adopted. If this House come to a prospective Resolution, denouncing practices of this sort, there is no one more cordially inclined to support it than myself. But I have already protested against a Resolution being passed in personal unkindness to myself. The House will be acting more consistently if it passes a Resolution, embracing themselves as well as me. With that I shall be perfectly satisfied. I shall, therefore, move the following Resolution:—"That it is destructive of the ends of public and private justice, and inconsistent with the duty of any Member of this House to vote in a Committee on any Bill in which he is directly personally interested."
§ Mr. Hume
said, he should willingly second the hon. Member for Colchester, as he had already testified his opinions upon the subject by proposing two resolutions in a former Session, precisely of a similar nature to the Resolution proposed as an Amendment by the hon. Member. He was by no means favourable to the principle of selecting particular cases for the interference of the House while the grosser and more important evil remained entirely unnoticed. The House would assuredly do honour to itself and add materially to the dignity of its character, if it uniformly made it a practice to challenge any of its Members who should take a part in the proceedings on a bill in which he was found to be in any degree individually interested. For several successive years he had endeavoured to impress upon the House the necessity of adopting such a course, but he had been invariably answered that it was better to leave the whole matter to the sense of honour entertained by the Members themselves, trusting to their feelings and perception of propriety. He was not a friend, however, to any measure which tended to cast blame where no blame could be justly imputed. How could a solicitor exercise an undue or sinister influence over the conduct of a Committee, when he was not a Member of 1025 that committee? He protested against an inference which there was no reason whatever, in his opinion, to deduce. It was not befitting their notions of equity and justice to pass a resolution condemnatory of solicitors, where it was not possible that they could have the influence which alone might warrant such a proceeding on the part of the House. It would never be in their power to influence a committee on any bill in the manner suggested, but the case was widely different when an interested Member was permitted to sit in a committee. On the whole, he would much rather support the Amendment as a general measure, than the original Resolution. It would apply a general remedy to an extensive evil, whereas the Resolution of the hon. Mover would only apply to an individual case.
thought, that the hon. Member for Staffordshire placed his Motion on a considerably lower ground than it ought to occupy, when he founded it upon the Resolution of 1696. He marvelled to hear it made a matter of doubt whether an individual, being a Judge of one of the Courts at Westminster, a Justice of Quarter Sessions, or even a member of any inferior judicature, exercising deliberate functions, could practise in those Courts, Sessions, or Judicatures, as Counsel, Agent, or Solicitor. It was a proposition utterly repugnant in itself, and which required no argument to establish its absurdity. The same rule must apply to the Members of the House of Commons. But the hon. Member for Aberdeen had expressed himself of opinion, that no abuse could result from a Member of that House acting as a solicitor in cases of bills, provided he did not sit on the committee. He had inquired how a Member under such circumstances could possibly exercise undue influence to promote the success of the bill in which he was professionally interested. This question, he apprehended, would be best answered by propounding another, which he would thus put to that hon. Gentleman. Suppose he were himself personally concerned in the fate of a private bill, and that he was given the option between two solicitors, Mr. A. and Mr. B., whose services were respectively suggested. Mr. A. happens to be merely a professional man, but Mr. B. is a Member; and he now put it to him, as a sound man of business, whether he would hesitate a single moment in his choice—whether 1026 he would not decide in less time than it had taken to propose the question? In the case he supposed, there was to be an equality in the claims of both parties; and this point being conceded, ceteris paribus, he asked whether it would require a second moment's consideration? Would he not reply, "Do you take me for a fool; am I an idiot that you should insult my understanding by asking such a question? The Member certainly shall be my solicitor." It might be answered, then, that a standing order had been moved on the 26th of February, 1830, which required that no member should sit on the committee where he was an interested party. But the rejoinder still would be—"I care not for that; may be not have private access to other Members who will be on the committee? although the bill is to be discussed in committee, will it end there?" All Members would have the privilege of voting, however they might be restricted with respect to the committee; but even if they were tied up in the House and prevented from voting altogether, he still did not entertain any doubt that the circumstance of his being a Member would give him a very great advantage over others of the same profession. The assertion to the contrary had been made in the heat of argument, but the speaker, he was confident, on further consideration, would not" hesitate to retract it. Those reasons which might be most potent in inducing him to employ a Member to whom the House was likely to give a preference, ought to weigh equally with them as motives for putting a stop to the whole system for the future. He felt unwilling to use harsh names, but the advantage which any Member had so enjoyed could result only from the perversion and the abuse, not to say prostitution, of his privileges. It was universally acknowledged every where else, that the characters of a judge and a party concerned ought never to unite in the same person. Not long since, in a cause before the Privy Council, a Member who was interested personally attempted to obtain a hearing, but was instantly informed that he could not be listened to in his character of privy councillor, that it was competent for him to address that tribunal as a party, and that he would not be recognized for the time in any other character. Nor was there any thing to prevent a Member of that House from acting in a 1027 private capacity as party to a petition, but by a standing order he was very justly disqualified from voting. With respect to the emoluments of the Crown-officers, the hon. Member for Colchester laboured under a misconception, as they were not remunerated for any services which they might render to Government in their character as Members of Parliament. He wished also to explain another misconception, affecting himself personally as counsel in a celebrated case, which had been that evening alluded to, though he would first notice the present restrictions on barristers who happened to be Members of Parliament. They never attempted to come before the House as counsel in any department of their profession, nor were they suffered to be employed at an election, or before a committee on an election, although in the former case it was impossible that their professional engagement could interfere with their legislative duties, unless they happened to be ballotted for the committee. In his own case, he had carried the principle further, for after having been for three years a Member of Parliament, he was without a seat for three years succeeding, during which period he had made it a rule (from which he never in any instance departed) that he would not take a brief either in a private bill or a parliamentary committee, or, in short, upon any parliamentary business of any kind or sort whatever. And why had he done so? His connection with Parliament was then done away, and, for aught he knew, might never be renewed. But he acted from this feeling—he thought that, in delicacy to the members of his profession, he was bound to decline such practice. If any Gentleman wanted any satisfaction on this subject, it could easily be ascertained in the Court of King's Bench, where it was universally known that that was the ground upon which he acted. He felt that it might be said, "Here is a man who is one day in Parliament, and another day out of it. He has acquired a certain weight or standing in Parliament. He has formed connections there, and, consequently, he has a better chance of being favourably heard by committees, and, if any question should arise, he will possess advantages giving him a pre-eminence over other men of perhaps much greater merit." He had, therefore, a stained from all parliamentary practice, although the nature of his connections at 1028 the time would have rendered such practice by no means inconvenient for him. If such a principle were proper in his case, it must apply, a fortiori, to the circumstances to which the attention of the House was directed. But he felt it necessary to explain a matter upon which considerable misconception seemed to exist, and it was chiefly for that object that he had risen, he meant the supposed emoluments of the Queen's Counsel on that celebrated trial which had been alluded to. He desired to remove what he believed to be an erroneous impression as to the restriction upon Members of that House from being concerned in proceedings of that nature having been removed at the instance of the Queen's Counsel. His decided belief was, that it was not the Queen's Counsel, but the late Lord Londonderry, who desired to have that impediment removed, because he felt the great inconvenience which must result from the Crown not being able to employ, in furtherance of that bill, the services of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General. His impression on this point was strong and confident, because he had a distinct recollection of feeling much satisfaction that the impossibility, as he supposed, of his being employed in the House of Lords while a Member of this House, would afford him an opportunity of quitting for a season the laborious duties of a Member of Parliament. At that time he felt the pressure of those duties severely, and he was gratified at the prospect of obtaining a temporary release from them. Acting upon that feeling, he took measures with a view to quitting his place in Parliament. He brought forward the Education bills greatly to his own discomfiture, because he was obliged to bring them forward under the disadvantage of having to contend with other engrossing and overwhelming business; and indeed he believed he mentioned at the time that he did so, because he understood that it would be necessary for him soon to quit his place in that House. Whether it were Lord Castlereagh who made the motion to remove the restriction, or whether it proceeded from him (Mr. Brougham) and his friends, he could not take upon himself positively to assert, but it was his belief that it came from the Government. That he himself did not suggest the plan or encourage it, but, on the contrary, that he wished the matter to proceed upon the common law of 1029 Parliament, and that he made arrangements with that view, and brought some particular business before the House to forward those arrangements he was certain. This he was able to say, not merely from impression, but from a confident, distinct and precise recollection. He believed the measure originated with Lord Castlereagh, because his Lordship required the aid of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General, who could not quit Parliament as other advocates could do. He would beg the House to recollect that there was the greatest possible difference between counselor solicitors acting or soliciting bills in the House of Lords, and doing business of a similar nature in this House. But he admitted that, except upon extraordinary occasions, the rule to which he had referred ought not to be deviated from. It had been said, that the Queen's Counsel enjoyed enormous emoluments on the occasion of those proceedings. He would beg the attention of the House to the observations which he was about to offer on this point. The Queen's Counsel, during the whole time while that measure was under the consideration of Parliament, never, in any way, or in any form or shape whatever, exercised their professional capacity in that House. He himself appeared on the occasion solely in the character of a Member of Parliament; and he could assert that an hon. and learned friend, whom he lamented not to be able to appeal to on that occasion, as he was no longer a Member of Parliament—he meant Mr. Denman—and other hon. friends did with him act in that House without the interference of their client; that they acted upon their own responsibility as Members of Parliament; and that they refused, when occasion arose, to follow the instructions of their client. They acted as Members of Parliament, and not as Counsel for the Queen. As to their receiving any emoluments for any thing that they did in that House, such an idea never before crossed the mind of any man. It was never for a moment imagined that they received a single farthing, or any remuneration of whatever shape or sort, for the performance of any professional duties in that House, because there they could have no such duties to perform. Now, a word or two with respect to the large emoluments which the Queen's Counsel were supposed to have received for their services in another place. He could assure those who took any con- 1030 cern in the subject, that the Queen, or the individuals acting on her behalf, never paid any portion of the remuneration to the Counsel employed to conduct her case in the other House of Parliament. They were employed by the express and especial permission of the House of Commons, and under a protest against the case being made a precedent for future practice; but they never received from her Majesty any remuneration of any kind or sort for the performance of their professional duties in the House of Lords, from the beginning of those proceedings to the end. The whole expenses of that branch of the proceedings, as well as the rest of the expenses of the trial, were defrayed by the public. In making this statement he was anxious to be understood as saying nothing and. meaning nothing which could strengthen the prejudices he knew existed against the unfortunate but high-minded lady who was the object of these proceedings, and which prejudices ought at length to rest in the grave with her. He meant to say nothing that could be at all capable of being construed into any imputation upon the justice or the generosity of that illustrious personage. He could add that so little disposed was her Majesty to regard unfavourably the zealous and strenuous exertions made in her behalf, and the success of those exertions, however little share he personally might have had in that success—so little was her Majesty inclined to undervalue those strenuous, and so far as regarded his colleagues, able exertions, that no sooner by such efforts of her servants, and by the merits and justice of her own cause, was her defence accomplished, than her Majesty, on the very next morning, directed that the whole balance in her banker's hands, amounting at the time to 7,000l., should be distributed between his colleagues and himself. They had, however, received their remuneration, and he repeated, that in fact her Majesty did not, for these reasons, directly or indirectly, pay any portion of the expenses of the trial. Another point had been touched upon, to which he would offer one word of reply. It was said that the fees of a solicitor were small as compared with those of counsel, being generally only 6s. 8d. or 13s. 4d., even on most important business. Now certainly it was not for him to defend one branch of the profession at the expense of another; but he must remind the Gentlemen that the emoluments of solicitors 1031 did not consist of one fee of 6s. 8d. merely. He could be borne out by any hon. Member who had ever had the good fortune of paying a solicitor for his skill and assiduity in their favour—[a laugh], that solicitors were not at all confined to one fee of 6s. 8d., or 13s. 4d. or 1l. 1s. Those fees were received by them frequently, and almost daily, in the course of their proceedings, and they had other emoluments arising from drawing deeds—so much a sheet for the draft. They also derived other emoluments indirectly from the copies and engrossments of pleadings, which made the 6s. 8d., or the 13s. 4d. or the 1l. 1s. sink into insignificance as to the proportion which they formed of the total amount appearing at the bottom of the bill. He stated this the more confidently because the hon. Member for Colchester himself had, on a former occasion, exhibited a bill, in which, although there were fees for counsel included, yet no one counsel, or two counsel, received any thing approaching in amount the sum paid to the skilful attorney. He had felt it necessary to say this much because it was very much the custom to attack a profession, the members of which seldom made it a practice to defend themselves from such attacks, content to rest upon their own merits. Allusion had been made to a former Member of that House (Sir James Graham), who was said, while occupying a seat in Parliament, and after he had professed to have withdrawn from his profession, still to have occupied himself in soliciting private bills. He certainly had often heard this said as a jest, but had never heard any man attempt to utter it seriously as an imputation actually incurred by the gentleman to whom it was applied. In all the instances in which he had heard the remark made it was as a joke, encouraged and occasioned by his own good nature. This was what he had always understood to be the nature of that allusion; and he repeated that he had never heard any man apply it seriously as a merited censure; but this he could say from his own knowledge, and he felt bound to state it in justice to the hon. Baronet, and in vindication of the honour of Parliament—he had been once or twice in company with the hon. Baronet when he had heard him twitted—not with this charge, but with still carrying on his profession after he had appeared to quit it, and which was before he came into that House; and he never saw greater indig- 1032 nation, not to say violence, exhibited in rebutting any accusation, than was displayed by him; and in all such instances, after the explanation given by that hon. Baronet, the charge was always retracted by those who had made it, as was said, rather in jest than seriously.
The Attorney General
said, that he could bear testimony to the correctness of the explanation of his hon. and learned friend of the circumstances relative to the late Sir James Graham. With regard to the fees supposed to be received by the law officers of the Crown for their professional duties in that House, all he could say was, that he had devoted much of his time to one particular bill, and it had never entered his head that he was to be compensated for his labours in that instance. He had never heard of any of the emoluments of the law officers being connected with or arising out of any bill in that House.
§ Sir Charles Wetherell
said, that, so far as he was informed, and having been a law officer of the Crown, he was enabled to state the practice to the House, the fact was beyond dispute, that no law officer of the Crown ever received from the Government any fee for preparing, or for supporting in that House, any measure which it was found expedient to bring before Parliament. He was satisfied that the hon. Member for Colchester did not mean any indelicacy, but it really was not altogether delicate to suppose that because the law advisers of the Crown were called upon to support particular bills—a call to which they were sometimes obedient, and sometimes disobedient—to think that they were such servile characters that they received a fee upon every bill which the Government brought in. Now, he said not only that they took no such fees, but further, if any measures were proposed which might be contradictory to duty, to honour, or to principle, a man to whom those considerations were valuable would reject not only the fee but the office too. He was not offering these remarks on behalf of himself, but on behalf of his predecessors in office, and of those who might be their successors; and he repeated, that a man of honour, under such circumstances, would reject not only the fee, but the office too, which was something more valuable. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member for Colchester would not cast upon Gentlemen 1033 filling those high stations, the scandalous and degrading predicament which he attached to them; namely, that, when a bill was brought in by Government, the law officers who might support it were paid for such support; and he hoped that those who had heard the statement, and those who might hereafter read what had passed, would not carry away the conception so degrading to the law officers of the Crown, that when they acted in their legislative capacity they were paid for framing a bill, or for advocating it in its progress through that House. If the hon. Gentleman who mixed up the law officers so much with disgrace and corruption would take the trouble of reading the Debates in that House at the time when Lord North was Minister, and Mr. Thurlow Attorney General, he would find that when Lord North was sitting there (on the Treasury Bench), and Mr. Thurlow sitting there, the Attorney General voted in opposition to the Ministry. This, therefore, might be taken as a proof, that the law officers of the Crown were not always so subservient or obsequious to the Crown, or so susceptible to the sort of influence which the hon. Member supposed to be their governing principle.
said, the hon. Member for Colchester had been quite mistaken in the whole of his statement respecting Sir James Graham, who, from the moment of entering the House, disclaimed all participation in the profits of the partnership alluded to. The same he knew was the case with Mr. Smith, who, though Solicitor to the East-India Company had never been concerned as a parliamentary agent in any business whatever. It was the less necessary, he thought, to enter into a resolution of the nature then before the House, as it had all along been distinctly understood, that whenever any Member had a direct interest in any thing coming before a committee, he immediately withdrew from it. On that ground he did not see the necessity of the House coming to any resolution such as that which had been proposed.
could not see how there could be two opinions on the subject of the Resolution. He confessed that he thought the House was indebted to the hon. Member for Colchester for bringing the question to such a form, as that it resolved itself into this—Was the practice alluded to carried on openly or otherwise? 1034 He was ready to admit that the minds of some persons might be so constituted as not to consider it objectionable to pursue the practice in question, though it certainly was such a practice as he could by no means reconcile it to his mind to follow. There had been an old adage, "that every man had a right to do what he liked with his own."—Though true, in most other instances, it was clear it was not so as respected the use which a Member of Parliament might make of his abilities or influence, as in the case of the hon. Member for Colchester. The explanation of his conduct given by that hon. Member was certainly ingenious, and though not satisfactory to his (Mr. H.'s) mind, yet might be perfectly so to the hon. Member himself: for it was to be presumed that there was that in the constitution of his mind which led him to think there was nothing wrong in the practice. He wished to preserve his hon. friend, the Member for Montrose, from having it imputed to him that he defended the conduct of the Member for Colchester. He certainly did not think it right that any Member, directly or indirectly interested in a question coming before any committee, should serve upon that committee. The hon. Member for Colchester said, that he had done nothing more than had been done by many others as well as himself; and contended, with some appearance of reason, that he should not be turned out into the wilderness as the scape goat, with all the sins of the House of Commons upon his head; and no doubt the practice of hon. Gentlemen voting upon questions in which they had an interest was too common to justify any very severe visitation upon the hon. Member for Colchester. As to the question then before the House, he should vote for the Resolution of the hon. Member for Staffordshire; and he thought the House much indebted to that hon. Gentleman for having brought it forward. As it had been submitted to the House, they must come to a vote upon it; and having the Question put, they could not do otherwise than decide in its favour. At the same time the practice against which the present Amendment was directed was a practice contrary to the dignity of Parliament; nay, it was opposed to the feelings, not only of a gentleman, but of a man, to do anything so obviously contrary to the first principles of justice as to sit on a 1035 committee which was to decide a question wherein he had a direct interest. Admiting all that, however, he would recommend the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Amendment for the purpose of making it a substantive motion, and should that be done, he should have no objection to vote in its favour. He could not join in the exculpatory account which had been given of the conduct of committees above stairs; and for the purpose of justifying his dissent from those accounts, he should state literally some facts which came under his observation. There were some facts he would not state, from delicacy to the parties; but he should lay before the House such a statement as would leave no doubt that his views on the subject were well founded.—Not long ago a committee was appointed, of which he was a member, and the question at issue involved a very large amount of money. The chairman was deeply interested. On the occasion to which he particularly referred, five members were in attendance, of whom two, in addition to the chairman, were deeply interested in having the measure under consideration passed. Previous to going to the vote, he (Mr. H.) rose in the committee, and stated that he did not think it by any means proper that persons so deeply interested should take a part in its proceedings. The chairman replied, that many of his (Mr. H.'s) constituents, the electors of Westminster, were also interested in the result, and that the member for Westminster, was as much disqualified from acting and voting in that committee as any hon. Member in that House. However, the question was discussed and decided, and three carried it against two, in favour of the bill.—He would now mention another case: early in the last Session, a committee was appointed, of which a very influential gentleman was appointed chairman, and on one occasion he came to him (Mr. H.) and asked him to preside one day in the committee—he learned subsequently that that chairman was most deeply interested in the question which that committee had to decide; and certainly, if he had not been ignorant of the whole matter, he should not have undertaken to preside in the room of any chairman so circumstanced. In fact, he since learned that that chairman had interests at stake, amounting to thousands and tens of thousands. With such facts before them, 1036 they could not doubt that it behaved them (the question being once brought before them) to remove the blot upon their character which the practice in question seemed to leave; for they could not shut their eyes to the statements of facts which had been made. The practice was one which they were bound to put down.—He should now call the attention of the House to a circumstance which happened to the hon. Member for Knaresborough (Mr. Brougham). He had undertaken, in his capacity of a Member of that House, to bring forward certain charges against the governor of a distant colony, who was accused of malversation in his conduct of the affairs of that colony. Those were serious charges; and any charge could not fail to be serious in the hands of the Member for Knaresborough. God forbid that any friend of his should fall under the chastisement of that hon. and learned Gentleman! On the occasion in question, instead of following up those charges, he came down to the House, and said that he was employed as counsel in the causes arising out of those accusations, and that therefore, as a Member of Parliament, he could not take any share in such measures as the Legislature might think proper to adopt with respect to them. He would not state for which of the parties the hon. and learned Gentleman was employed; it was enough that he had, in his professional capacity, access to the information possessed by one of them. He considered it such as unfitted him for the discharge of the duties of a legislator on the particular question at issue. If such a feeling was approved of in a most distinguished Member of Parliament, it could not be borne that any Member of that House should act in his legislative capacity to promote his private interests. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member for Colchester would bring forward his Amendment as a substantive proposition, when it should have his earnest support; for nothing could be more contrary to common justice and common sense, than for hon. Members to sit up stairs in one capacity, and come down to the House in another.
§ Sir M. W. Ridley
observed, that the question was not whether hon. Members having a direct or an indirect interest in questions before committees ought or ought not to sit upon them; the question was, whether the House should or should 1037 not express its reprobation of the practice of Members of that House employed professionally using the influence they possessed to promote the objects of their clients. It was their duty, if possible, to devise means for preventing Members of that House voting in committees in which they were interested; but it was perhaps a still more important duty for them to prevent professional persons from using the privileges and facilities which belonged to them as such for the purposes of private interest. It might be said, that it would be rather a hard case to require the dissolution of connections formed with parties concerned in proceedings before that House; but he thought that where such alliances did exist they ought to be broken through; such alliances were most unparliamentary alliances, and the sooner they were dissolved the better.
The Solicitor General
repeated that the question was as had been stated by the last speaker, and expressed his strong disapprobation of the circular letter which had been mentioned—he never read anything more objectionable. The conduct of all professional men ought to be above reproach, and he considered that it was extremely unfair in Members of that House, by themselves or by their partners, to become solicitors or agents for one party or the other.
§ Sir C. Burrell
pressed the hon. Member for Westminster to explain the allusions to members of the committees and chairmen of committees, contained in his speech. He was perfectly aware that it would not be consistent with the forms and the usages of that House for him to mention the names of the parties to whom he alluded, but he could state the occasion, the period, and such other particulars as could leave no doubt who were meant. It was only right that the House should receive some explanation, and it was only fair that the parties should have an opportunity of defending themselves, if any defence they had.
§ Mr. C. W. Wynn
said, that the rule was perfectly clear, that parties interested should not sit upon committees, and there were more abuses of a similar description which called for the interference of the House. Let those cases be brought forward separately, and he, for one, would most readily lend his assistance in abolishing the evil. Nothing could be more distinct and explicit than the proceedings 1038 of Parliament on all occasions with respect to questions of that nature. On the Queen's trial, her Attorney and Solicitor General, being Members of that House, applied for permission to attend at the Bar of the House of Lords, in order to their being there heard as her Counsel. That permission was granted, with express condition that they should, pledge themselves, in the event of the Bill of Pains and Penalties proposed against her Majesty, coming down to that House, not to take any part in the proceedings on that measure. Upon that the permission was granted.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he had listened with great attention to the present discussion, and he had come to the decision of voting with the hon. Member for Staffordshire, for which he should give three reasons—and in a sentence; first, because it was consistent with the uniform practice of the House, that lawyers should not take any part, as members of Parliament, in any proceedings wherein they were professionally engaged, and he thought the same rule should apply to Solicitors.—Secondly, that any Member taking pecuniary rewards for his services, did that which was incompatible with the discharge of any parliamentary duty. Thirdly, the practice referred to gave Members of Parliament an undue preference over the other members of their own profession, and thereby it should not be sanctioned by that House. And here he was bound to say, that the hon. Member for Colchester had made what he thought an undue use of the privilege of franking, in sending his circulars, under the sanction of his parliamentary privilege, free of postage. He did not conceive that voting for the proposition of his hon. friend, the Member for Staffordshire, conveyed any blame upon the conduct of the hon. Member for Colchester, for he might certainly have taken a different view of the subject from that which other hon. Members were in the habit of taking. As to the other Resolution, he thought it ought not to be taken in connection with that of his hon. friend; each ought to stand on its own merits, and be decided after a separate discussion. The utmost difficulty, he apprehended, would be found in any attempt to exclude from committees Members having indirect interests in the matters at issue [Mr. D. W. Harvey said, the object 1039 of his Motion was to exclude those who had direct interests].—If it merely applied to persons having a direct interest, it was unnecessary, since that was already sufficiently well provided against. The indirect interests that hon. Members had were most numerous: for example, every Member of that House had an interest in the Corn Laws, or the commutation of Taxes. For the reasons he had given, he should vote for the Motion of his hon. friend the Member for Staffordshire; and from the explanation given by the hon. Member opposite, he did not feel called upon to pronounce any opinion upon his Amendment.
§ Mr. D. W. Harvey
said, not wishing to disturb the unanimity of the House, he would vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for Staffordshire. What he complained of was, that that Motion did not go far enough; and the object of his Amendment would be, to carry it to the extent which he thought the necessity of the case required. With that view, he proposed to add it in the form of another Resolution. He had, at no time, the least idea that he was acting in any manner contrary to the laws or usages of Parliament; indeed, the very manner in which he proceeded was an evidence that he did not conceive he was doing anything wrong. To that he had only to add, that, so soon as he became aware of his error, no one could be more ready to yield than he had been; and, as a proof of the sincerity of his declaration, the next Gazette should announce the dissolution of the partnership which had given rise to the present complaint. The law officers of the Crown received fees for professional advice on matters on which they might be called upon to vote in that House; and the hon. Member for Knaresborough (Mr. Brougham), after making the whole House expect a motion little short of impeachment against a noble Lord who had held office in a distant part of the world, had appeared before the Privy Council as that noble Lord's advocate! after which circumstance, he stated that he was bound to say that his opinion on the noble Lord's conduct was altered. Allusion has been made to the use of franks; but before any charge was made against him, it should be remembered, that bankers, who were Members, made use of the privilege in their business to the saving 1040 of 900l. a year; and as there were frequently three or four Members in one banking concern, this extended to no less a sum than 3,600l. His intention was to withdraw his Amendment till the original Motion was disposed of, and then to propose it in the shape of an original motion.
said, he had been disposed to congratulate the House on the temper in which the discussion had been carried on, but the last speech of the hon. Member for Colchester had taken away all reason for congratulation. He had severely arraigned the conduct of the hon. Member for Knaresborough, though he had done well for himself to defer his attack till that hon. Gentleman had quitted the House.
§ The Amendment was withdrawn, and the original Motion carried nem. con.
§ Mr. Harvey
then proposed his Amendment as an original Motion. He said he had not intended to make any attack on the hon. Member for Knaresborough; but had only cited that case to show what was the usage of Parliament.
Mr. Alderman Waithman
supported the Motion, because he thought the Resolutions of that House on such a subject could not be too strong and too comprehensive.
§ Mr. O'Connell
hoped, that it would not go forth to the public that they had been two hours by the clock straining at a gnat, after so often swallowing, not only a camel, but a whole caravan of camels.
§ Mr. Sadler
supported the Amendment, on the ground that the Journals of the House were already over-loaded with rules.
§ Mr. Croker
said, that the law of Parliament always was, that a Member interested could not vote; and, therefore, the hon. Gentleman's Motion was worse than nothing, because it restricted that non-voting to committees up stairs only.
§ The House then divided, when there appeared for Mr. Harvey's Motion 26; against it 174. Majority against the Motion 148.
|List of the Minority.|
|Baring, Sir T||Stewart, J.|
|Blake, Sir F.||Sebright, Sir J.|
|Bernal, R.||Taylor, M. A.|
|Cave, O.||Tennyson, C.|
|Duncombe, T.||Trant, W. H.|
|Denison, W. J.||Thomson, Powlett|
|Dawson, A.||Waithman, Ald.|
|Grant, R.||Whitbread, H.|
|Hobhouse, J. C.||Warburton, H.|
|Howard, H.||Wood, J.|
|Maberly, J.||Wood, Ald.|
|O'Connell, D.||D. W. Harvey|
|Sykes, D.||Joseph Hume.|