§ Sir Edward Codrington
rose, pursuant to notice, to bring forward his motion for a Return, stating the period at which the names of 1185 Commander Edward Edwards, Lieut. Bryant, Lieutenant Rowland Millner, Lieut. John Bee, Dr. Thomas Williams, and Surgeon William Boyce, were removed from the list of the navy, and were deprived of their half-pay, and the reasons for such deprivation. The hon. and gallant Admiral said, that the officers in question were prepared, if a course of inquiry were afforded them, to disprove the truth of the alleged charges, and their entire innocence of any charge that could render them unworthy of the situations they had filled in his Majesty's service of one of these individuals, Mr. Millner, it was alleged that he had borrowed money of a Mr. Solomon Alexander, of Portsea, for which he had given, as security, a power of attorney for the receipt of his half-pay, and had subsequently applied for, and obtained his half-pay himself. He was not at the time entitled to half-pay at all, or if so, he was entitled to a much larger sum. Neither was he on full pay, for, if he was, the inquiry would have been by Court-martial. Soon after he did receive some half-pay, and further explanation was subsequently demanded from him by the Admiralty. This demand was made fourteen years after the events took place. He had been deranged. Very naturally, he did not wish to divulge this circumstance, and he could not be certain as to what took place while in that state; but upon inquiry he found that in point of fact he had never had any transaction with the person who claimed this debt. He offered him, however, 20l. not to proceed further, from an unwillingness that the previous state of his mind should be made known. The pretended creditor did not know what the name of the captain of the ship was at the time the debt was said to have been contracted. His ignorance upon this and other parts left no doubt on his mind that Lieutenant Miliner never knew anything of him. He would have prosecuted the Times newspaper for a libel, but he had not the means of defraying the expenses. The next case was that of Lieutenant John Bee. He was promoted in the year 1826, and struck off the list in September of that year, without inquiry, and without having been made acquainted with the charges against him. Sir George Cockburn, induced him to accept the situation of gunner. Now, if he was not fit to be a Lieutenant he was not fit to be a gunner, which 1186 was a very responsible situation. He accepted it, in the hope that he might be afterwards restored. In the next case, that of Dr. Thomas Williams, he got no copy of the case against him till five years after he was struck off the list. He totally denied the charge, and asserted that Collier himself, the solicitor who brought it against him, was also ready now to deny it. The last case was that of Surgeon William Boyce, who was declared a bankrupt in 1817. He owed his agent at the time 56l. The Commissioners said, that it was to be considered in the same light as any other debt in his schedule, and he was accordingly discharged. He was, however, deprived of his half-pay. Why were officers of inferior rank to be subjected to so severe an ordeal, while the Admiralty, as he could prove, entirely overlooked far more serious charges in a higher quarter. He did not impute the blame in these cases to the present Board of Admiralty; but why should they father the conduct of the former Board? If he should be hard driven he would prove, by cases which would astonish the House, that the rich, and the poor were not treated in the same way. He claimed the support of the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department, who, upon two occasions, when the question of Orange Associations was under consideration, said, that no man's case should be decided on without having previously given him a hearing. If the noble Lord did not support him upon this occasion he would never support the consistency of the noble Lord in that House. He might be told that it was the prerogative of the Crown in all those cases to dismiss the parties. Blackstone said, that the prerogative could not be held in communion with others—it belonged solely to the Crown. If the King devolved his prerogative upon the Admiralty, therefore it was no longer prerogative. Allusion had been made, upon a former occasion, to the case of Mr. Booth a purser, one of the most respectable men in the service. This gentleman had some reason to think that he had not received all to which ' he was entitled while serving in the Mediterranean under Lord Exmouth. He applied to that noble Lord for a certificate, who furnished him with one, signed "Exmouth." He immediately called him back, and substituted the word "Pellew." He presented it 1187 to Mr. Croker, then Secretary of the Admiralty, who called him back, and said, "This is a forgery, and you are a forger." He was going to knock the Secretary about the head, as would naturally occur to an honorable high-minded man, were it not that Sir George Cockburn came in to his assistance. He was struck off the list in consequence. Sir Matthew White Ridley threatened to bring the matter before the House, and the consequence was, that this gentleman was restored, by an Order in Council. He would also claim the support of the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham), who laid down the principle that in cases of this kind no man should be condemned without a hearing.
§ Mr. Robinson
seconded the motion; and be would not do so were it not that the petitioners had exhausted every other means of obtaining redress, and were, therefore, driven to bring the case before the House. If the prerogative in such cases was exercised with the advice of Ministers, Ministers ought to be responsible. Though commissions were given by the King, it Was not so clear that they could be justly taken away without inquiry, after officers, had earned their half-pay by length of service. There would be no ground of complaint if officers, when charges were made against them, refused to submit to inquiry. He saw no reason for refusing inquiry except the mere technical one that these officers not being on full pay could not be tried by Court-martial. It would be easy to substitute some other tribunal of officers.
§ Mr. Charles Wood
opposed the motion. In all the cases mentioned the parties had an opportunity of stating their case before a fair tribunal. That House was not the place to adjudicate them in. He believed it was not denied that the King, by his prerogative, might dismiss officers of the navy and the army. There was this difference between the two branches of the service, that the King delegated the whole of his prerogative to the High Court of Admiralty, but did not do so as regarded the army. The House knew that there was a class of offences qualified under the designation of ungentlemanly conduct. When charges of this nature were made against officers on full pay they were tried by Court-martial. It was not the case as regarded officers on half-pay. The Admiralty had the power to dismiss officers on half-pay. He would 1188 admit, however, that in all such cases as those alluded to by the gallant Officer there would be just ground of complaint if no inquiry was made into them, and if the parties were not called upon for explanation. So far as he knew, the fullest and fairest inquiry was made into all the cases now brought before the House. He would refer only to one or two of them. The first case was that of Commander Edward. He was called upon to state his case. He did so, and the Admiralty was not satisfied. He was, therefore struck off the list. With respect to Lieutenant Millner, it was not true that he had no half-pay due to him, when he gave the power of attorney. If his offence had been known soon enough he would have been tried by a Court-martial; but he had been so long on half pay that that course could not be resorted to. As to the case of the next-mentioned officer, he had not been removed from the service without trial, and the explanation he had given had not been by any means satisfactory. With respect to the case of Dr. Williams, it was one which had been so frequently before the House, and the circumstances of it were so well known that he did not consider it necessary to go into it on the present occasion; and in the case of Mr. Bee, to whose correspondence with Sir George Cockburn allusion had been made, no satisfactory explanation had been afforded the Amiralty to induce them to act differently from the course they had pursued with regard to him. The hon. and gallant Member had alluded to the case of a Mr. Booth, but he must beg of the House not to take that for a matter of fact which they only knew from the statement of the party himself. Mr. Booth had not been hastily struck off the list. The document supposed to have been forged purported to be a letter from Lord Exmouth. Mr. Booth was dismissed on the 24th of March; on the 29th Lord Exmouth's letter in reply to a communication made to him was received by the Admiralty, and the very next day a letter was sent off to pray that his Majesty would be pleased to allow the Admiralty to repair the error and injury they had committed. Those officers who had been removed from the service had been struck off upon the strength of reports made by officers competent to judge of their cases. The House had the best security as to the com- 1189 petency of the tribunal before whom the conduct of those persons had been examined. Let them look at the case of Mr. Bryant. A material fact with regard to that gentleman's case had come to light since last year. An important witness, no other than Mr. Bryant's own brother, had come forward, and stated, that the evidence he himself had given was false. The truth of that statement had been ascertained, and on that very ground the officer in question was restored to his former rank. All the officers who had been removed had been called upon to give explanations of their conduct, and in some cases those given were not satisfactory, and in others none had been given at all; and the natural consequence was, their being struck off the list. The Admiralty, in removing officers from their rank, had a most painful duty to perform, and did not exercise it except when absolutely necessary for the honour of the service over which they presided. If there was anything in the conductor character of an officer which rendered him unfit for the service he had no right to be allowed to remain, in it or to receive his half-pay. Now, the reason why these officers had been considered unfit for the service was, that they had been guilty of conduct unbecoming officers and gentlemen. Supposing all the evidence with regard to them that could be found in the records of the Admiralty to be produced, the only purpose it could serve would be that of again trying those officers; and on the ground that the real effect of granting the motion would be a call for the production of all the evidence in the Admiralty for many years back, for the purpose of re-trying these cases, and as he thought that a fair trial could not be had before a tribunal which he now considered incompetent, he should most decidedly oppose it.
§ Mr. Aglionby
said, he had heard nothing in the arguments of the hon. Secretary to the Admiralty to warrant his refusal to produce the Returns moved for. The real state of the case was, that there had never been any trial at all—at least nothing worthy the name of one. There never was a case of greater hardship and injustice than that of Mr. Rowland Millner. Talk of the honour of the service! Was it for the honour of the service that the evidence taken before a harsh tribunal like the Admiralty was never laid before the parties accused? The hon. Gentle- 1190 man the Secretary to the Admiralty said, there had been in all these cases the fullest investigation, and that they had had every opportunity of clearing themselves. He would assert, that the investigation had been a secret one—and before a tribunal that exercised the power with which they were invested most harshly. With respect to Mr. Millner, the first notice he ever received from the Admiralty was in a letter from Sir John Barrow. He was accused of having borrowed 12l. from one Solomon Alexander, on the security of his half-pay, having already drawn that half-pay. If that was really the case, then the sentence which had been passed upon him was a just one. But the allegation was made, let it be remembered, in 1810,, and the investigation only took place in 1831. It was proved, that Solomon Alexander was a money-lender of the lowest description, and had gone under false names. Did the hon. Secretary mean to say that Mr. Millner had ever been personally examined, or that he had ever so much as seen the letter in which he was accused to the Admiralty? Had Alexander been personally examined? If so, then his (Mr. Aglionby's) obervations at once fell to the ground; but, if not, then he would say, was it just that an officer should on such weak grounds as these he removed from the service? Mr. Millner denied having received his half-pay at the time, and wrote to the Admiralty to that effect. The reply he received from Sir J. Barrow was, that he had laid his letter before the Lords Commissioners, and that they had authorised him to say, that they could not comply with the request contained in it. He wrote again to Sir J. Barrow, requesting, at least, to see the documents which it was stated had been, produced against him, in order that he might say whether the signatures to them were in his own hand writing or forgeries. The answer was, that his request could not be complied with. He presented a petition to the King, and Sir Herbert Taylor's reply was, that, in compliance with his Majesty's order, he had referred the petition to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, who finally referred Mr. Millner to their former answer to his communications. The statements of the hon. Secretary for the Admiralty appeared to him (Mr. Aglionby) inconsistent in the extreme, as to whether Mr. Millner had, or had not, any half-pay due to him at the time of the 1191 alleged fraud? Under all these circumstances he hoped the House would consider that a sufficient case was made out for a further inquiry into the matter. He considered it was the duty of that House to exercise a control over every Court where it could be shown that harshness and injustice had taken place.
§ Mr. Charles Wood
said, he had the necessary papers with him upon the point of the half pay alluded to, but he was sure Mr. Millner was, at the time, on half pay, and, that being afterwards appointed to the Diadem, on full pay, and wishing to raise a little money to fit himself out, he applied to Alexander for a loan, to whom he gave an order to draw his half pay. Alexander sent the order to his agents in town, and up to the day of his death he swore that the signature was that of Mr. Millner; in addition to which, his (Alexander's) wife had since corroborated his testimony by stating that she remembered the circumstance. Mr. Millner, on his return home, kept out of the way so long, that the time within which he could have been brought to a courtmartial passed away before recourse could be had to such a trial.
was somewhat surprised, that the hon. Secretary for the Admiralty should call on the House to disbelieve these gentlemen because they had been accused, and to believe him who was their accuser. The Board of Admiralty had been designated a tribunal, when, in fact, it was no tribunal at all. He did not think that the Admiralty ought to shelter itself under the prerogative; if the facts were as the hon. Secretary stated, no objection ought to be made to the inquiry; he therefore should support the motion.
§ Sir Love Parry
said, it was evident that there was an anomaly at the Admiralty between the cases of officers on half-pay and those on full, for the former could not, like the latter, have the opportunity of clearing themselves by a Court Martial from charges brought against them, while the latter could do so. He considered, that the individuals in question, as well as any others, had a right to call for investigation into their conduct, and not to be thrown upon the world as paupers, without having had a satisfactory trial. Such, he was happy to say, was not the case in the profession to which he belonged. The returns moved for, could not, with any show of justice be refused.
§ Sir Thomas Troubridge
denied that' injustice, if any had been done, had been inflicted by the present Admiralty. It was a case of almost thirty years standing. He had himself investigated the case, and was satisfied that no injustice had been done. What interest could the Admiralty possibly have in breaking an officer unless he had committed some offence? If this interference were established, the service would be ruined, for it would infringe upon the due observance of those rules which had for their origin the necessity that every man in such a profession should be a gentleman, and wholly untainted by the least suspicion of dishonourable conduct.
thought, that some investigation was necessary. The practice of striking officers off the Half Pay List without trial was not right, how honourable soever the persons to whom the power of doing so might be committed. The hon. Secretary had mentioned the case in which the Admiralty had, in consequence of subsequent inquiry, redressed the grievance committed by its having relied on the sworn testimony of one brother against another; he (Mr. O'Connell) thought, that it would be better to investigate previously to dismissal. The House would observe, that Mr. Millner had declared the power of attorney produced by Alexander to be a forgery, and he could not but think it suspicious that during the whole of Mr. Millner's absence on service, that power of attorney had remained unused. The House, in voting for the inquiry, would not pass a vote of censure on the Admiralty, but simply vote for the production of papers; he, therefore, should support the motion.
§ Mr. Cumming Bruce
considered, that it would be a dangerous proceeding to transfer the functions of the Admiralty to a Committee of the House of Commons, and he should therefore oppose the motion.
§ Mr. Arthur Trevor
stated, that a sense of justice would compel him to vote for the motion. The circumstances under which the parties were placed, made it only fair to grant an inquiry.
thought, that without questioning the decisions of the naval or military departments, motions such as this, ought to be acceded to as a means of satisfying the public. The course adopted by these departments would not be 1193 sanctioned by the public if followed by criminal courts; and he did not think that the people would be content with it if practised by other authorities. As a matter of wisdom then, of prudence and policy, he should support the motion.
§ Mr. Harvey
said, the present was not a gratuitous proposition of some Member who was ever found ready to bring forward cases which had something to redress in them. The Board had been stated to possess constitutional responsibility. They claimed the power of cashiering at will, naval officers, and having done so, he would ask, to whom was that Board amenable? It had also been said, that the House ought to place confidence in the correctness of the inquiry which had already taken place; but was the House prepared to place such confidence in any Member of his Majesty's Government as to receive his statement without calling for evidence? Why, he would ask, having admitted the right of the House to make the inquiry, did Government refuse to grant the Return required? A constitutional House of Commons could never recognise the dictum that the House ought to be satisfied with the inquiry which the Board had made; on the contrary, the House ought to say they were willing to believe the motives of the Board had been beyond suspicion, but they would take leave to judge for themselves.
§ Admiral Adam
could not find fault with the hon. and gallant Member for bringing forward this motion, if he really felt that justice required it; but he could not, at the same time, avoid congratulating him on the able supporters he had in the hon. Members for Durham and Knaresborough. He, however, called on the House to beware how it interfered with the prerogative of the Crown, which had been given for the benefit of the country. In the absence of any other constitutional tribunal, the Admiralty had investigated this case, and had come to an honest decision upon it; and until some other tribunal was appointed, they would continue to exercise the functions of judgment reposed in them, with, he hoped, as much honour to themselves as benefit to the service, and to the country.
said, that if he understood the question right, the object of the motion was, to interfere with the prerogative of the Crown; and, in his opinion, 1194 it was absolutely necessary, for the good regulation of the service, that the Crown, and the Admiralty as its representative, should have the power of dispensing with, the services of officers, and on that ground alone he objected to the production of the papers.
§ Mr. Phillip Howard
declared, that resting on the authority of the gallant Admiral (Sir E. Codrington) who had brought forward the motion, he should give his vote in favour of it.
§ Sir Edward Codrington
observed, that the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Graham) had on a former occasion stated, that if he (Sir E. Codrington) should act in any way unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, the right hon. Baronet should feel it his duty, if he were at the Board of Admiralty, to recommend his dismissal from the service. Now, he should be glad to learn from the right hon. Baronet what he considered to be conduct unworthy of an officer and a gentleman. Did he think that a naval officer who employed his Majesty's ships in carrying materials for building houses would be acting in a manner unworthy of an officer and a gentleman? Would he consider that the officer in command of a ship, who fished up brass guns which had been blown up, and distributed the proceeds of their sale as prize-money among men who had never been in the action, at the rate of two French dollars a-man—would he consider that a naval commander, who had thus conducted himself, had been guilty of behaviour unworthy of an officer and a gentleman? He should be glad to hear the right hon. Baronet's opinion on this point, because he knew that such circumstances had taken place.
§ Sir James Graham
said, that if the object of the division was to ascertain who were the friends, and who were the enemies of the navy, he for one gladly accepted the hon. and gallant Admiral's challenge. Nothing, he thought, could be less conducive to the interest of the service, than to have persons whose honour had been tainted, in connexion with it; and he was persuaded, that if the sense of the navy were taken, it would be found that they were not unfavourable to the power exercised by the Board of Admiralty, or desirous of an appeal from its decisions to the authority of that House. He must deny that he had ever contended that the power vested in the Board of 1195 Admiralty should be exercised in all cases: but he had said, that where the officers of the navy or army—who were not on full pay, were not amenable to the tribunal of a Court-martial—were guilty of conduct that tainted their honour, it was the paramount duty of the Government to strike them off the lists of the service. This power was, of course, exercised under responsibility, and never called into action unless the case brought against the individual was fully established against him, to the satisfaction of those in whose hands the power was placed. The hon. and gallant Officer had called upon him to define what the conduct was that he considered would be unworthy of an officer and a gentleman. Had the hon. and gallant Officer ever presided at a Court-martial? If he had, was it for him to tell the hon. and gallant Officer what the conduct was that would be unworthy of an officer and a gentleman? Every man who heard him was as competent to answer the hon. and gallant Officer's question as he was, and therefore, he must express his surprise at finding that the hon. and gallant Officer was so uninformed as to render a definition on the subject necessary. He was most unwillingly drawn into the present discussion; but he could not, at the same time help saying, that he was surprised at the reference which the hon. and gallant Officer had made to the conduct of a brother officer, who was not present to defend himself against such insinuations as the hon. and gallant Officer had thrown out. He was aware of the name of the gallant Officer to whom the hon. and gallant Officer alluded, and it was but right that the House should know that he was an officer not on half but on full pay. Now, would the hon. and gallant Officer have had him exercise the authority of the Board of Admiralty in such a case? [Sir E. Codrington—No, no.] If the gallant Officer referred to had done anything wrong, if he had been guilty of conduct that was unworthy of an officer and a gentleman, he was amenable to a Court-martial—to that tribunal on which the hon. and gallant Officer so strongly relied, and from an investigation by which the gallant Officer in question would not have shrunk, had those charges now imputed been preferred against him. He must say, that it was unworthy of the hon. and gallant Officer thus, without notice, and behind his back, to pronounce such a 1196 censure on the conduct of a brother officer, without at the same time mentioning his name. This matter might not be perfectly understood in that House, but it would be understood elsewhere—it would be understood in the service to which the hon. and gallant Officer alluded to belonged; and yet the hon. and gallant Officer, knowing this, took that occasion to question him as to the conduct which was becoming in an officer, and a gentleman.
§ Sir Edward Codrington
was understood, in explanation, to speak to the following effect:— "Sir, I mentioned the subject because I had complained to the right hon. Baronet himself, that men who were not at the battle of Navarino, had received two dollars each as prize money, for guns fished up after the battle from the Bay of Navarino. I made the complaint because the right hon. Baronet resisted giving to my men the gratuity I claimed for them for that battle. But, Sir, what did the right hon. Baronet do? Why, he appointed that very officer who did this, to supersede me in the command of the Mediterranean fleet. Sir, the right hon. Baronet has taunted me with not having named the officer to whom I alluded, but as I should be incapable to speak that of a gentleman behind his back, which I would not say before his face, I have no hesitation whatever in stating, that the officer to whom I alluded is Sir Pulteney Malcolm. I, for one, Sir, disapproved of Sir Pulteney Malcolm's conduct, and I think that marry men would have subjected themselves to be tried by a Court-martial, if they had acted in the same way. If any other officer had been tried upon the charge, and it had been proved against him, I am convinced that this would have been the case. Now, Sir, I hope I have spoken explicitly. Sir Palteney Malcolm spoke freely of me, and in doing so he did not speak fairly. I state this, Sir, as a fact. I think I have spoken explicitly now."
§ Sir James Graham
The hon. and gallant Officer has spoken explicitly enough. The hon. and gallant Officer alluded to this subject on two or three former occasions, but this is the first time that he has ever mentioned the name of the officer to whom he referred. Sir, I entertain the highest opinion possible of Sir Pulteney Malcolm, and I do not believe that there is a more honourable or gallant officer in the profession to which he belongs, it 1197 is perfectly true that the hon. and gallant Officer was superseded in the command of the Mediterranean fleet, and that Sir Pulteney Malcolm succeeded him in that command. I admit that I am responsible for having superseded the hon. and pliant Officer, and that I did so, because I would not listen to insinuations and charges which were made in such a manlier as the insinuations and charges made to me were made. Those who were fully competent to form a correct opinion of the conduct of Sir Pulteney Malcolm, I consulted, and I now feel it my bounden duty to declare, that I totally disbelieve the charges brought against him. Sir, had there been any foundation for those charges, might not Sir Pulteney Malcolm have been called upon to answer them before that tribunal to which he was at that time amenable? He never was, and I therefore think it rather hard that the hon. and gallant Officer should have attempted for years to whisper away the character of Sir Pulteney, without mentioning his name, until the hon. and gallant Officer found himself driven into a corner.
§ Admiral Adam
Sir, I must Say that I also was surprised to hear the hon. and gallant Admiral behind me prefer such charges against my old and gallant Friend, Sir Pulteney Malcolm. If the hon. and gallant Admiral had had charges to bring against my old and esteemed Friend, why did he not make them in an open and manly manner, and net by Way of insinuation?
§ Mr. Hume
said; he was anxious to bring the House back to the real question before them. He must say that a secret inquisition was highly objectionable; and as he thought it unfair that the characters of officers should be whispered away by a dozen individuals, on, perhaps, incorrect information, he was Opposed to the power which was placed in the hands of the Board of Admiralty. It was true, that they had an appeal to the Crown, but of what advantage was that appeal, when the only thing to be gained from it was, a reference back to the same authority by whom the matter was decided in the first instance.
§ The House divided —Ayes 46; Noes 153; Majority 107.
|List of the AYES.|
|Bannerman, A.||Bowles, G. R.|
|Bish, T.||Brady, D. C.|
|Blake, M. J.||Brotherton, J.|
|Brownrigg, S.||Robinson, G. R.|
|Chapman, L.||Rundle, J.|
|Crawford, W.||Stuart, V.|
|Duncombe, T.||Strickland, Sir G.|
|Ewart, W.||Talbot, C. R. M.|
|Fector, J. M.||Tancred, H. W.|
|Fielden, J.||Thompson, Colonel|
|Grattan, H.||Trelawney, Sir W.|
|Hall, B.||Trevor, hon. A.|
|Harvey, D. W.||Tulk, C. A.|
|Hindley, C.||Wakley, T.|
|Howard, P.M.||Wallaoe, R.|
|Hume, J.||Wason, R.|
|Lushington, C.||Whalley, Sir S.|
|Mainland, H.||Wilbraham, G.|
|O'Connell, D.||Williams, W. A.|
|O'Connell, J.||Williams, Sir J.|
|O'Connell, M.||Wood, Alderman|
|Parry, Sir L. P. J.||TELLERS.|
|Pattison, J.||Aglionby, H. A.|
|Richards, J.||Codrington, Sir E.|
|List of the NOES.|
|Agnew, Sir A.||East, J. B.|
|Arbuthnot, hon. H.||Eastnor, Viscount|
|Bailey, J.||Eaton, R. J.|
|Baillie, H. D.||Ebrington, Viscount|
|Bainbridge, E. T.||Egerton, Sir P.|
|Baines, E.||Elley, Sir J.|
|Balfour, T.||Estcourt, T.|
|Baring, F. T.||Farrand, R.|
|Baring, H. B.||Ferguson, rt. hon. R. C.|
|Baring, T.||Finch, G.|
|Barneby, J.||Forbes, W.|
|Barron, H. W.||Forster, C. S.|
|Benett, J.||French, F.|
|Berkeley, hon. C.||Geary, Sit W|
|Bethell, R.||Gladstone, T.|
|Biddulph, R.||Gladstone, W. E.|
|Blackburne, I.||Gordon, R.|
|Blackstone, W. S.||Gordon, hon. Captain|
|Boiling, W.||Goulburn, rt. hon. H.|
|Bonham, R. F.||Goulburn, Sergeant|
|Borthwick, P.||Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.|
|Bradshaw, J.||Hale R. B.|
|Bramston, T. W.||Hamilton, Lord C.|
|Bruce, C. L. C.||Harcourt, G. S.|
|Bruen, F.||Hardy, J.|
|Byng, G.||Harland, W. C.|
|Campbell, Sir H.||Hastie, A.|
|Charlton, E. L.||Hawes, B.|
|Chichester, A.||Hawkins, J. H.|
|Clayton, Sir W.||Hinde, J. H.|
|Clive, Viscount||Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.|
|Clive, hon. R. H.||Hodges, T. L.|
|Colborne, N. W. R.||Hogg, J. W.|
|Cole, hon. A. H.||Hope, J.|
|Cole, Viscount||Houstoun, G.|
|Coote, Sir C.||Howard, R.|
|Cripps, J.||Howick, Viscount|
|Damer, G. L. D.||Humphery, J.|
|Darlington, Earl of||James, W.|
|Dillwyn, L, W.||Johnston, Andrew|
|Divett, E.||Irton, S.|
|Dottin, A. R.||Kearsley, J. H.|
|Dowdeswell, W.||Knight, H. G.|
|Duffield, Thomas||Labouchere, rt. hn. H.|
|Law, hon. C. E.||Rice, rt. hon. T. S.|
|Lefevre, C. S.||Richards, R.|
|Lennox, Lord George||Rickford, W.|
|Lennox, Lord A.||Ross, C.|
|Leveson, Lord||Russell, Charles|
|Lewis, D.||Russell, Lord J.|
|Lister, E. C.||Russell, Lord C.|
|Long, W.||Ryle, J.|
|Lowther, J. H.||Scarlett, hon. R.|
|Marsland, T.||Scott, Sir E. D.|
|Maule, hon. F.||Scott, J. W.|
|Maunsell, T. P.||Scourfield, W. H.|
|Miles, William||Seymour, Lord|
|Morpeth, Viscount||Sharpe, General|
|Morrison, J.||Shirley, E. J.|
|Murray, rt. hon. J. A.||Stanley, E. J.|
|Neeld, J.||Stewart, J.|
|Nicholl, Dr.||Surrey, Earl of|
|O'Neil, hon. J. B. R.||Tennent, J. E.|
|Packe, C. W.||Trevor, hon. G. R.|
|Palmer, R.||Twiss, H.|
|Palmer, G.||Tyrell, Sir J. T.|
|Palmerston, Viscount||Vere, Sir C. B.|
|Parker, M.||Vesey, hon. T.|
|Parker, John||Ward, H. G.|
|Parrott, J.||Weyland, Major|
|Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.||White, S.|
|Pendarves, E. W. W.||Whitmore, T. C.|
|Perceval, Colonel||Wood, C.|
|Pigot, R.||Woulfe, Sergeant|
|Ponsonby, hon. J.||Wrightson, W. B.|
|Poulter, J. S.||TELLERS.|
|Rae, right hon. Sir W.||Adam, Sir C.|
|Reid, Sir J. R.||Troubridge, Sir E. T.|