§ Mr. Gullyrose for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to a circumstance which occurred in a previous debate, and said, that although an apology might be due to the House, he had none to make to the hon. and learned Member for Bradford. He hoped to be indulged for a few minutes while he adverted to a charge thrown out by the hon. and learned Member, then for Dublin, now for Kilkenny, against the hon. Member for Brad ford, on the 16th February last. He begged to read the terms of the charge as he found them in the Mirror of Parliament [Order].
§ The Speakerinterposed, and stated, that all such references were irregular, and a breach of the privileges of the House.
§ Mr. Gullywould say, then, that he heard the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny charge the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, with having paid from 31. to 201. for votes at Pontefract; adding, "and if I am not mistaken, I can prove it." On that occasion, the accusa- 708 tion was not repudiated, nor on a subsequent occasion, the 21st of February, although the hon. and learned Member for Brad ford had an opportunity of denying it. In fact, he had not come forward with any denial, until after the hon. Member for Kilkenny had been unseated for Dublin. On the 17th of May, however, the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, had said this:—" In the part he had taken respecting the Carlow Election, he had acted from a sense of public duty, and he trusted he might be excused if he availed himself of the present opportunity to allude to imputations cast upon himself."
§ The Speakerinquired whether the hon. Member intended to conclude with any motion? At present he was only referring to a former debate. Did he mean to make any complaint?
§ Mr. Gullysaid, that he meant to make a complaint of a breach of privilege. The hon. and learned Member for Bradford proceeded, on the 17th May, to assert that "the charge against him of having been guilty of bribery was most calumnious and unfounded;" and on a subsequent day he took the opportunity of stating that he had been charged with bribery, but that it was false and unfounded. On other times on the same evening, he (Mr. Gully) had heard the hon. and learned Member repeat that the accusation was false and unfounded. He (Mr. Gully) had been much surprised to hear such a declaration, and he had risen from his seat to say, that if the hon. and learned Member had been calumniated, he considered himself one of the calumniators, because at a public meeting at Hull, he had said that he had a strong antagonist to contend with at the late election for Pontefract; that he knew that a great deal of money had been spent by that party for immoral purposes —indeed, that more money had been spent at the last election than had ever been spent at Pontefract since Mr. Hardy's election. He (Mr. Gully) had also informed the House upon that occasion that within a few days he had himself received a letter from one of his constituents, stating that he felt himself so much disgusted with the conduct of the hon. and learned Member for Bradford—[Order]—He begged pardon if he was in error, but he begged leave to say, that he had received a letter from one of his constituents, stating that he felt so indignant with the hon. and learned 709 Member for Bradford, for his conduct during the investigation of the charges against Mr. O'Connell, that he had a great mind to inclose to him (Mr. Gully) a letter written by the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, in which he stated the exact sum which his election had cost him, when he came forward as a candidate for Pontefract. In answer to this statement, the hon. and learned Member for Bradford said, that he would be obliged to him if he would produce to the House any letter of his upon the subject. He had written in consequence to the gentleman who had made to him the communication respecting the hon. and learned Member for Bradford which he had just mentioned to the House; but as it happened that he was himself obliged to leave town about that time, and as the gentleman to whom he wrote happened not to be at home when his letter reached its address, he had not got the letter, for which he had written, till the present time. The letter written by the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, which his correspondent had in closed to him, he would now, with the permission of the House, read.
§ The Speakerreminded the hon. Member for Pontefract, that unless he had some specific allegation to make, he was now going into matter quite irrelevant to any matter before the House.
§ Mr. GullyThis letter is a letter written by the hon. Member for Bradford to a gentleman who seconded him at his election at Pontefract. The letter was dated the 5th of March, 1834, and was as follows:—
Dear Sir,—I left to Mr. Mitton the liquidation of such accounts as he thought proper, and by his decision, which I don't disapprove of, I have abided. I am surprised that any of the respectable inhabitants of Pontefract should have countenanced that to which I was subjected, knowing, as they must have done, that it was against my express desire and directions. I so wrote to Mr. Mitton more than once, and understood that my letter was communicated to my friends. I always felt bound in honour, though much against my conscience, to pay the head-money to those who voted for me, and which was in many instances taken by those who ought to have been ashamed of such a thing. One way and another I paid more than 5,000l. as the result of that contest. A Mr. Armitage is pestering me to pay 8l. odd for some tickets which it seems he has been 710 trafficking in. This is the man who got out of the way to prevent his being called upon to prove bribery, and I can only say that I wish he was a holder of ten times as many, and much good may they do him.With best wishes, yours truly,JOHN HARDY.After the broad declaration of the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, who had challenged, not only him, but also the whole country, to substantiate against him any charge of bribery—who had stated that the allegations against him of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny were "false, unfounded, and calumnious" —after all these broad declarations, he would now leave the House to judge how far those allegations were deserving of the epithets which the hon. and learned Member for Bradford had applied to them. The hon. and learned Member also admitted that he had paid 5,000l. and more as the result of his election. Having so far succeeded in laying before the House the nature of the charges which had been preferred against the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, he would now leave the House to act upon them as it thought fit. After such broad declarations had been made—declarations which were made, he firmly believed, as the last shift for calumniating another person—[" Hear" and " Order," which prevented the hon. Member from finishing the sentence].
§ The Speakerasked the hon. Member what was the point he wished to arrive at —what was the motion he intended to make?
§ Mr. Gullywould move, that the House do now take this letter into consideration. Well, he would move that the letter be laid upon the table, and that a Select Committee be appointed to take it into consideration.
§ Mr. Hardywas glad to have an opportunity of entering into an explanation and refutation of the charges which had been so unfoundedly and yet so unblushingly brought against him. What the money which he had spent in carrying an election, at Pontefract had to do with the charges which a sense of public duty had compelled him to bring against Mr. O'Connell, he could not for the life of him understand. Even if he had been convicted of bribery, it could have had no effect either in diminishing or increasing the weight of evidence, against that hon. and learned personage The hon. Member for Ponte- 711 fract had stated that the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny had twice accused him of bribery to his teeth, and that twice he had refused to repudiate the charge. This was not the fact. On the 11th of February, when the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, in the course of his speech, said that he knew some one who had paid 20l. a-head for the votes which he had received, he had not the slightest notion that the hon. and learned Member was alluding to him. On the 16th of February, the day to which the debate on the charges against the hon. and learned Member was adjourned, the hon. and learned Member had thought fit to be a little more specific. The hon. and learned Member had then stated that he (Mr. Hardy) had paid from 31. to 201. a-head to those who had voted for him at Pontefract, and that the hon. and learned Member was in a situation, if need were, to prove it. He had stated over and over again, and he was sorry that he must again repeat the statement, that the only reason why he had not met that charge then with a complete refutation and explanation was, that immediately after the hon. and learned Member had made his reply he had retired from the House, as hon. Members would all recollect, and was therefore not present to hear his vindication. On the 4th of March, however, when the hon. Member for Greenock presented a petition from certain electors of Carlow complaining of the intimidation and oppression practised upon their tenantry by the landlords of that county, he had taken the liberty of calling the attention of the House to the charge which the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny had brought against him. He was then called to order by the noble Secretary for the Home Department, who with great courtesy informed him that another and more fitting opportunity of defending himself against that charge would be afforded him, when the Report of the Committee came regularly under the consideration of the House. On the 23rd of March, the hon. Member for Greenock brought forward a petition from the tenants of the hon. and gallant Member for the county of Carlow, complaining of the manner in which he had coerced them; and on that occasion he had again endeavoured to explain the misrepresentations which had been sedulously spread abroad of his conduct as a candidate at Pontefract in the year 1826. He was 712 then interrupted by the hon. Member for Bridport, who said that his explanation had nothing to do with the matter then before the House—that it did not belong to it, and that it had therefore better be postponed; "and then, Sir, you informed me," said Mr. Hardy, addressing the Speaker, "that the time for my explanation would be at the termination of the inquiry into the circumstances of the Car low election." At last, upon the 18th of May, he had had an opportunity of explaining, and he had explained everything relating to the transactions which had been referred to by the hon. Member for Pontefract. He had stated the circumstances under which he had become a candidate for that borough, and under which he had prosecuted his petition against the return then made, and he had then stated that any charge of bribery having been practised by him was false, unfounded, and calumnious, and so he stated now. It was stated in the debate of the 21st of April last, that he understood pretty well what bribery was, and now the hon. Member for Pontefract came forward and asserted that twice he (Mr. Hardy) had been charged with bribery, and twice he had not dared to contradict it. Why, the reason was that he had not even had an opportunity of contradicting it afforded him; for twice had he been stopped and called to order by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. He admitted, that as soon as he had said on the 18th of May that the charge was "false, unfounded, and calumnious," the hon. Member for Pontefract had risen in his place and said, that if it were so, he had been to a certain extent a party to the calumny; for he had stated at a public dinner given at Hull to the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, that more money had been spent at the last election for Pontefract, in consequence of the immoral practices of his opponents, than had ever been spent at any election for Pontefract since the time of Mr. Hardy's. He (Mr. Hardy) believed that on that point the hon. Member for Pontefract was mistaken—he believed also that great expense had been incurred at elections at Pontefract since that time—ay, and that, too, very lately. The hon. Member for Pontefract had also said, that he had received a letter from a constituent of his residing at Pontefract, in which the writer said that he had a great mind to send to the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny a 713 letter written by the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, to show that he had spent 5,000l. and upwards to carry an election at Pontefract, although he now complained of 2,000l. being spent at an election for the county of Carlow. Immediately on hearing that statement, he had challenged the hon. Member for Pontefract to produce the letter to which he referred; but the hon. Member was unable to produce it. The hon. Member then told him the name of the gentleman from whom he had received that letter; and immediately on learning it, he wrote to that gentleman the following letter;—
I have no objection whatever to your sending Mr. Gully any letter of mine to you, conscious as I am that it will contain no confirmation of the charge of bribery on the occasion of my being a candidate for Pontefract. You, at that time, as my friend and supporter, generally accompanied me in my canvass. No one is better able to speak to my conduct in the course of it, &c. I call upon you, as an act of justice to me, to state whether, upon any occasion, you witnessed an attempt or wish on my part to hold out corrupt inducements of any kind to those whose votes I solicited.—I remain, &c.May 30. "JOHN HARDY.The answer which he obtained to that letter was this:—Dear Sir,—In reply to your letter I should not do justice to my own feelings, or your conduct during the canvass, if I did not declare, in the most decided terms, that I never witnessed a wish or an attempt on your part to hold out corrupt inducements of any kind to those whose votes you solicited. Our town was ridden roughshod by a system which, I must say, you disdained to follow; for rather than have recourse to it on the day of polling, you declared to me on the hustings, that you would abandon your election at a period when all seemed favourable, and the sudden reverse would only be satisfactorily accounted for from the reason I have assigned.Now, in order to explain part of that letter, he must inform the House, that before the election he had ascertained that there were about 800 electors, more or less. He had received from 700 of them promises of support. It somehow or other happened, that at the poll, not more than 429 voted for him. He certainly had been invited to let some hundred pounds be spent upon the day of election, among the electors. The gentleman, whose letter he had just read, had spoken to him on the subject. That gentleman knew that he had refused to do any such thing, and that he had said that be would rather lose his election than con- 714 sent to it. Some hon. Gentleman would perhaps recollect, that in the year 1826, a dissolution was expected about the middle of the month of February. It did not, however, take place till the month of June. In the month of May, he found that public houses had been opened in Pontefract, by the friends of the other candidates, and that his friends had followed their example. Though the opening of these public houses was not a violation of any existing statute, he determined that the system should be put a stop to, and accordingly it was put a stop to. "But then," said the hon. Member, "the letter which I have just read proves that a large sum of money, a larger sum than the legal expenses required, was expended by you on your election at Pontefract." Now he begged that the House would attend to the phraseology of that letter. His words were "one way and another I paid more than 5,000l. as the result of that contest. Now, if the House would consider that the public-houses had been kept open in Pontefract from February till the middle of May, when he shut them; if it would also consider that he had prosecuted an expensive petition, in which, as his nominee, the right hon. Member for Cumber band would recollect, fifty witnesses were examined on his behalf—they would see that, even if he had had no other expenses to meet, they could not have fallen very short of that sum. But he had other expenses to meet. An action was brought against him by a little attorney at Pontefract. He had paid that attorney 60l., but he had thought fit to claim 250l. The action was tried at York, and he had obtained a verdict. He had never called upon that attorney to pay the costs, which he was entitled to recover. Then there were the subscriptions to the local charities, which every gentleman whom he was then addressing knew, that it was a Member's business- to support. After this statement, he called upon the hon. Member for Pontefract to say, whether he thought that his legal expenses could have fallen short of 5,000l. Why, what had the hon. Member for Pontefract himself just said? That his legal expenses at the last election, without a contest, had cost him more than his legal expenses when he had had to sustain a contest? How had that happened? It was not for him to surmise, but perhaps the hon. Member would himself explain it. Considering that there 715 had been three candidates in the field from February to June; considering that they had been one, and all obliged to employ agents during all that time; considering that the public houses had been open for the greater part of that time; considering, also, that he had prosecuted an expensive petition, had defended an action in which he had not exacted the cost to which he was entitled, and had subscribed to the different local charities—considering all this, he thought that he was well off in finding that the result of the contest had not cost him more than 5,000l. The charge which the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had preferred against him was this —that on corrupt practices in the borough of Pontefract, he had spent 7,040l, and that he could prove it. Where the hon. and learned Member gained his information as to the odd 40l,, which seemed to clinch the truth of his story, he did not know. He supposed that he had gained it from the same quarter from which he had obtained his information about the other 7,000l.; he had, however, challenged him to the proof, and he now stated, that if either the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, or the hon. Member for Pontefract, would Come forward as his accusers, he would not plead against them the statute of limitations. If either of those hon. Members, either by action or indictment, or in any other way, would proceed against him, he would be ready to meet them. These were the short facts of the case, and he left them to the judgment of the House.
§ Lord John Russellput to the House whether this debate ought to be allowed to proceed any further. The hon. Member for Pontefract, and the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, had both made those statements which they deemed necessary to the vindication of their characters. It was not necessary, in his opinion, for the House to come to any decision upon their conflicting statements. The hon. and learned Member for Bradford had said, that he was quite ready to meet any accusation that might be brought against him, but the question for the House to consider was, whether it would enter, further into the consideration of the matter, with which it bad no immediate concern. He hoped that the House would not.
§ Mr. Humesaid, that the question could not be so easily got rid of as the noble Lord supposed, for a motion had been re- 716 gularly made and seconded, that this letter be laid on the table of the House. The hon. and learned Member for Bradford had given what he considered to be an explanation of that letter; but he would read one sentence from it, which was quite inconsistent with that explanation, but before he did so he would call the particular attention of the House to the fact, that the hon. and learned Member for Bradford had not given any denial to the charge brought against him by the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny until that Member had vacated his seat. The hon. and learned Member had come for ward as the prosecutor of a charge against the hon. and learned Member, which he had described to be most heinous and disgraceful. To look at the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, bribery had never on any previous occasion been carried to such an extent as it had been carried at Carlow by the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny. He should have expected that a person who had brought such charges forward against another would have been perfectly free from them himself. The hon. and learned Member had sat down saying, that he had a complete defence, and that he had not violated any Act of Parliament, and yet there occurred in his letter this sentence:— "I always felt bound in honour, though much against my conscience, to pay the head-money to those who have voted for me, and which was, in many instances, taken by those who ought to have been ashamed of such a thing." There was also another remarkable sentence, which showed the extent to which this head money had been paid—" One way and another I paid more than 5,0001., as the result of that contest." The hon. And learned Member had challenged them to prove that this 5,0001. was paid in head-money. Now, no person could answer that challenge but the hon. and learned Member himself; and he now called upon the hon. Member to lay upon the table of the House an account of the head-money which he admitted himself to have paid to his voters. He submitted to the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, with all deference to his opinions on matters of law, that head-money was bribery. If so, the hon. Member had been guilty of bribery, and if so, he had not been in a condition to make the denial which he had made. Moreover, if he had been guilty of bribery, he had done injustice to 717 those whom he had accused, and stood at present in a position not the pleasantest in the world.
§ Mr. Gullyobserved, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had asked him whether or not he had paid any head-money. He would answer the hon. and learned Gentle man, that if he had paid head-money, and had afterwards declared that he never had been guilty of bribery in any shape whatsoever, he should consider him self unworthy of a seat in that House.
§ The letter to be laid on the table.
§ Mr. Robinsonsaid, that so long as any question involving the personal character of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Hardy), or that of the hon. Members opposite, was before the House, there might have been some ground for departing from the usual practice, in order to afford hon. Gentlemen an opportunity of setting themselves right with the House; but he would ask what object could be gained by having this letter printed? The only appearance or ground of charge against the hon. and learned Member was, that he had paid head-money. He should be very sorry to justify anything like bribery in any hon. Member; if, however, the hon. Member for Bradford had discouraged bribery in the borough of Pontefract, but had fell, on finding that some of his friends and partisans had made engagements in his name, that he could not conscientiously decline to fulfil them, and he had afterwards, in consequence, paid money though that might in the literal sense of the word be called bribery, yet he thought it could not in foro conscientiœ be so termed. He was of opinion that enough had been said upon the question on both sides, and as he did not consider it would become the dignity of that House to accede to the hon. Member for Middlesex's motion, he should divide the House upon it.
§ Mr. Sheilsaid, that the facts of this case depended entirely upon documentary evidence. The hon. and learned Member for Bradford had read a letter which he had written to a gentleman, a friend of his own, in which he had distinctly stated, that it was with extreme repugnance he had recourse to means therein adverted to. Now, the hon. and learned Gentleman, after having read his own letter, had not read the reply to it. Supposing he had read that answer—he, (Mr. Sheil) however, did not want to press that letter. 718 But what defence had the hon. and learned Gentleman made? By his own admission 5,000l. had been spent by him in some way or other, and yet it appeared that but 429 voters had been polled in his favour. How was it possible that 429 voters could cause such an expense as 5,000l. The hon. and learned Gentleman in that sum had certainly included his own costs in an action which had been brought against him by an attorney, the amount of which he had not demanded from the plaintiff— but that would make but a slight reduction in 5,000l. There were two points arising out of this question for con sideration—first, what was the meaning of the words "head-money?" And, secondly, what was the amount paid per head? Now would any Gentleman on the other side of the House assert that head-money was not bribery? Would the hon. and learned Gentleman himself say that it was not? If he would, why was it that he so reluctantly, and so much against his conscience, yielded to what he considered the necessity of the case? He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman, at any rate, would introduce a clause in his Bill on the subject of bribery at elections, to prevent the payment of head-money, to which he entertained so conscientious an objection.
§ The House divided on Mr. Hume's motion:—Ayes 97; Noes 136:—Majority 39.
| List of the AYES. | |
| Ainsworth, P. | Crawford, W. |
| Angerstein, J. | Curteis, E. B. |
| Attwood, T. | Dundas, hon. T. |
| Bagshaw, J. | Dundas, J. D. |
| Baines, E. | Edwards, J. |
| Baldwin, Dr. | Elphinstone, H. |
| Ball, N. | Ewart, W. |
| Barry, G. S. | Fergus, J. |
| Bellew, R. M. | Ferguson, R. |
| Bentinck, Lord W. | Fitzsimon, C. |
| Bewes, T. | Fitzsimon, N. |
| Blake, M. J. | Fort, J. |
| Blamire, W. | Gillon, W. D, |
| Blunt, Sir C. | Grattan, H. |
| Bodkin, J. J. | Hardy, J. |
| Bridgeman, H. | Harvey, D. W. |
| Brodie, W. B. | Hawes, B. |
| Brotherton, J. | Hector, C. J. |
| Browne, R. D. | Howard, P. H. |
| Bailer, C. | Kemp, T. R. |
| Butler, hon. P. | Lambton, H. |
| Callaghan, D. | Leader, J. T. |
| Chalmers, P. | Lennox, Lord G. |
| Childers, J. W. | Lennox, Lord A. |
| Clive, E. B. | Loch, J. |
| Codrington, Admiral | Lynch, A. H. |
| Crawford, W. S, | M'Namara, Major |
| Mangles, J. | Ruthven, E. |
| Marjoribanks, S. | Sandford, E. A. |
| Maule, hon. F. | Sheil, R. L. |
| Musgrave, Sir R. | Stanley, E. J. |
| O'Connell, J. | Steuart, R. |
| O'Connell, M. J. | Talbot, J. H. |
| O'Connell, Morgan | Thompson, Colonel |
| O'Ferrall, R. M. | Thornely, T. |
| O'Loghlen, M. | Tooke, W. |
| Oswald, J. | Trelawney, Sir W. |
| Palmer, General | Tulk, C. A. |
| Parrott, J. | Villiers, C. P. |
| Pattison, J. | Wakley, T. |
| Pease, J. | Walker, R. |
| Pechell, Captain | Wallace, R. |
| Philips, M. | Warburton, H. |
| Potter, R. | Wason, R. |
| Power, J. | Wigney, I. N. |
| Price, Sir R. | Wilbraham, G. |
| Pryme, G. | Williams, W. A. |
| Robarts, A. W. | TELLERS. |
| Roche, D. | Gully, J. |
| Bundle, J. | Hume, J. |
| List of the NOES. | |
| Agnew, Sir A. | Forster, C. S. |
| Alsager, Captain | Fremantle, Sir T. |
| Arbuthnot, hon. H. | Gladstone, T. |
| Ashley, Lord | Gladstone, W. E. |
| Bailey, J. | Gordon, hon. W. |
| Baillie, H. D. | Goulburn, rt. hon. H. |
| Balfour, T. | Goulburn, Sergeant |
| Barclay, D. | Graham, rt. hn. Sir J. |
| Barclay, C. | Grey, Sir G. |
| Baring, W. B. | Grimston, Lord |
| Baring, T. | Hale, R. B. |
| Bateson, Sir R. | Halford, H. |
| Beckett, rt. hon. sir J. | Halse, J. |
| Bentinck, Lord G. | Hamilton, Lord G. |
| Bethell, R. | Hanmer, Sir J. |
| Bruce, Lord E. | Harcourt, G. G. |
| Buller, Sir J. Y. | Hawkes, T. |
| Cartwright, W. R. | Hay, Sir J. |
| Chandos, Marquess of | Henniker, Lord |
| Chichester, A. | Herries, rt. hon. J. C. |
| Clerk, Sir G. | Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J. |
| Clive, hon. R. H. | Hogg, J. W. |
| Colborne, N. W. R. | Houldsworth, T. |
| Cole, hon. A. | Howard, R. |
| Cole, Lord | Howick, Lord |
| Cooper, E. J. | Hoy, J. B. |
| Corbett, T. G. | Johnstone, J. J. H. |
| Cripps, J. | Jones, W. |
| Dalbiac, Sir C. | Irton, S. |
| Dalmeny, Lord | Kirk, P. |
| Dottin, A. R. | Knight, H. G. |
| Eastnor, Lord | Knightley, Sir C. |
| Egerton, Sir P. | Labouchere, rt. hn. H. |
| Elley, Sir J. | Lincoln, Earl of |
| Elwes, J. P. | Long, W. |
| Estcourt, T. | Lucas, E. |
| Estconrt, T. | Lushington, hn. S. R. |
| Fazakerley, J. N. | Lygon, hon. Colonel |
| Fector, J. M. | Maclean, D. |
| Ferguson, G. | Mahon, Lord |
| Fleetwood, P. H. | Manners, Lord C. S. |
| Forbes, W. | Morgan, C. M. R. |
| Morpeth, Lord | Smith, J. A. |
| Nicholl, Dr. | Smith, A. |
| North, F. | Somerset, Lord G. |
| Packe, C. W, | Stanley, E. |
| Palmer, R. | Stanley, Lord |
| Palmer, G. | Stewart, P. M. |
| Parker, M. | Sturt, H. C. |
| Patten, J. W. | Tennent, J. E. |
| Peel, rt. hon. Sir R. | Thomson, rt. hn. C. P. |
| Pemberton, T. | Thompson, P. B. |
| Perceval, Colonel | Thompson, Alderman |
| Plumptre, J. P. | Trench, Sir F. |
| Pollen, Sir J. W. | Trevor, hon. A. |
| Pollington, Lord | Vernon, G. H. |
| Poulter, J. S. | Vesey, hon. T. |
| Price, R. | Wall, C. B. |
| Pringle, A. | Weyland, Major |
| Pusey, P. | Wilbraham, hon. B. |
| Rae, rt. hon. Sir W. | Wilmot, Sir J. E. |
| Rice, rt. hon. T. S. | Wortley, hon. J. S. |
| Ross, C. | Wrightston, W. B. |
| Russell, Lord J. | Wynn, rt. hon. C. W. |
| Sandon, Lord | Young, G. F. |
| Scott, Sir E. D. | Young, J. |
| Shaw, rt. hon. F. | TELLERS. |
| Sheppard T. | Robinson, G. R. |
| Sibthorp, Colonel | Baring, — |