HC Deb 27 February 1838 vol 41 cc207-37

On the Order of the Day for resuming the debate on the Breach of Privilege,

Mr. Pendarves

felt so strongly for the honour and dignity of the House, that he ventured to put himself forward on the present occasion to endeavour, if possible, to avert from the House the evils which were likely to result from the debate last night, and the course it was then resolved to take. He never recollected in that House so great excitement as prevailed on that occasion, and he trusted that hon. Members now in cooler moments, would see the expediency of not pursuing the course which was likely to lead to protracted debates for several nights, more especially when they saw many hon. Members rise in their places, and avow the same sentiments which they had censured in the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. They might depend upon it that the country out of doors did not wish to see such a course pursued as was proposed in the matter, on which public opinion was almost universal throughout the kingdom. Many persons had expressed opinions similar to those of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, and he was sure the general feeling of the public was, that the matter should not be proceeded further with. It was with this view, though little accustomed to speak in that House, that he had ventured to come forward to propose his amendment. It would be much better for the House to take up the subject of the amendment of the election law, instead of pursuing the course which was last night entered on. There was already before the House a Bill of his hon. Friend, the Member for Liskeard, for the amendment of the law of elections, and he really believed, that it would be more satisfactory to the country if the House at once proceeded with it, rather than occupy further time on the subject. He should, therefore, propose, as an amendment to the motion of the noble Lord (Lord Maidstone), that "the House, taking into consideration that several Members of that House had avowed their belief that the decisions of Election Committees, sworn well and truly to try the matters before them, were biassed by party interests and feelings, and considering that such decisions have, since the late elections, been impugned in the strongest terms by the public press, and considering also, that the House had ordered a Bill to be read a second time to regulate and alter the mode of trial of contested elections, is determined to proceed no further in this matter."

Amendment put.

Mr. Cresswell

wished shortly to state his reasons for preferring the original motion to the amendment which had just been proposed. He was the more anxious to do that because the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, had thought it becoming in him last night to impute to hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House, that in supporting the resolution submitted by the noble Member for North Northamptonshire, they were taking part in a very shabby motion or proceeding. In his humble judgment it did not very well become the noble Lord to charge Members on that side of the House with any shabbiness in the transaction. He must take the liberty on this subject to call the attention of the House to the conduct of the noble Lord with respect to this matter, since the noble Lord, the Member for North Northamptonshire, first gave notice of his motion in that House. On that occasion, the noble Secretary for the Home Department thought it becoming him to give a conditional notice, that if the House entertained the motion of the noble Lord, the Member for North Northamptonshire, that he (Lord John Russell) would bring forward a motion respecting a right rev. Prelate. Now, if the noble Lord, when he gave this conditional notice, did not intend to bring it forward provided the condition was fulfilled, but to offer it merely as a diversion to help a political ally, to say the least of it, it was not a very dignified course of proceeding. Or, if the noble Lord upon that condition being fulfilled, intended to prosecute his notice, and to call the attention of the House to some supposed offence in the conduct of the right rev. Prelate against the privileges of that House, at a time long gone by, and which was then well known to the noble Lord, and which he had not thought it to be his duty to bring forward at the time; if it was his intention to bring forward this subject, not in discharge of what he owed to his public duty, but in a spirit of retaliation, then the conduct of the noble Lord was something worse than undignified. The motion before the House was, that the censure of the House should be passed on the hon. and learned Member for Dublin by the Speaker. Some objections had been stated to this course, and. among others by the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, who proposed that they should let the matter drop. He was not most anxious for the infliction of punishment, as he thought that the honour of the House had been vindicated by the course that had been taken. He entertained great respect for the votes of that House; and, if he wished for a testimony to his character, where could he find one more satisfactory to himself than from among those with whom he then sat and acted? But, according to all Parliamentary usage, they were bound to proceed with the matter, in the way proposed by his noble Friend. The House last night contained upwards of five hundred Members, and they came to a determination, by a solemn vote, that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, by giving utterance to the language complained of, had cast a false and scandalous imputation on the honour and conduct of Members of that House. All the Ministerial power and authority was exerted last night to get Members together who would vote for proceeding with the order of the day; but, notwithstanding all that could be done, the motion of the noble Lord was carried by a majority, and immediately the motion was carried that the expressions used by the hon. and learned Member involved a false and scandalous imputation on the honour and conduct of the Members of the House, it was followed up by the motion, which was also carried, that Mr. O'Connell, having avowed that he had used the said expressions, had been guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House, and he thought that they were bound to adopt the subsequent motion, that the hon. and learned Member be reprimanded in his place by the Speaker. It was said that the proposed punishment was trifling, and they had been taunted by hon. Members opposite because they did not go much farther with their punishment; but he would ask, if hon. Gentlemen were dissatisfied, why they did not propose something further themselves? It was said that their honour was not vindicated by the course taken, but he thought that the verdict of the House was a sufficient vindication. What was the case in the proceedings in a court of justice? In a case of libel, or other matter of this kind, where the verdict of a jury was in favour of a party, his honour was considered to be vindicated. With such an accusation against those who were the jury that was to try them, they came to the House, and the noble Lord and his colleagues said, that they did not believe that the Opposition were guilty of what was imputed to them, but for reasons which affected them, they did not think it was necessary that the Members on that side of the House should be vindicated. It was proposed that they should take as the measure of punishment to be inflicted, the quantity and nature which was consistent with the former usages of Parliament, and if any Member on the Ministerial side of the House thought that a greater degree of punishment should be inflicted he might move for it. But what was the nature of the punishment to be inflicted? Was it of so light or trivial a nature as hon. Members stated? All punishment was light or heavy according to the impression it made upon the minds of those subjected to it. He had had some experience in the criminal courts, and he had seen some persons who had been sentenced to slight punishment who appeared to feel most intensely the situation in which they were placed, while others had been sentenced to capital punishment, and appeared almost indifferent about the matter. He had seen some completely overpowered by the sentence of one month's imprisonment, while others regarded six months' imprisonment, accompanied with hard labour on the tread mill, as a matter of perfect indifference. He knew not what the feelings of others might be, but he should have felt his conduct and character deeply involved, if he considered that such resolutions as those which he had described had been carried against himself, and that in consequence of having been found guilty of a breach of the high privileges of that House, he had been ordered to be reprimanded in his place, aggravated as this punishment would be by such observations as the Speaker might deem becoming his high office in passing this censure. He did not know what were the feelings of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin on this subject, but he knew that he should have ever reflected with shame and sorrow at being subject to the rebuke of that House. He trusted that in entertaining such an opinion he was actuated by the feelings of a gentleman and a man of honour; and if he thought those feelings would be lessened by remaining among the Members of that House he would take the earliest opportunity of retiring from public life.

Mr. Williams Wynn

said, that the course proposed to be pursued was warranted by all the precedents of the best times, and was sanctioned by the opinions of Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox, Mr. Burke, Mr. Wyndham, and Lord Grey, namely, that in cases of breach of privilege like the present the Members should be reprimanded in their places. It was now, however, for the first time proposed that after the House had voted a person guilty of a high misde- meanour they should pass the matter by as undeserving of notice; and for the adoption of this course three reasons were assigned in the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Cornwall. The first was, that several Members of that House had avowed their belief that the decisions of Election Committees, sworn well and truly to try the matters before them, were biassed by party feelings and attachments. The charge against the hon. Member was, that he imputed foul perjury to Members on that side the House. Was this accusation of such a trivial nature, or were the words in which it was couched, reasons for passing it without notice. This was not a party vote. If it had been a party proceeding it would not have received the sanction of a majority of that House, for the motion was supported by the honourable feelings which actuated many of the supporters of her Majesty's Ministers. These hon. Gentlemen, however, last night considered that they could not support the course that the Government had pursued in this matter without submitting to disgrace. The orders and rules of the House had been set at defiance in that case, and the hon. and learned Member had been declared guilty of a breach of the privileges of that House. The Minister deemed it to be incumbent on him to support the privileges and orders of that House, yet last night the noble Lord and his colleagues gave their votes in support of those who had charged Members on both sides of the House with perjury; nor could he admit that such a charge, which the House had already voted to be false and scandalous, and a breach of its privilege, was to be passed over, because the Member who had been guilty of this offence had sufficient power over certain other Members to induce them to repeat and participate in his offence. The next ground urged for not proceeding with this case was, that such decisions since the late elections had been impugned in the strongest terms by the public daily press, He would ask, was the idea to be borne that the House should frame its proceedings from the orders of the daily newspapers? No such reason had ever before been alleged in the journals or votes of that House, and he trusted that it never would be allowed. No Member in that House had ever, he trusted, been influenced in his vote by such an allegation. The third reason assigned for not proceeding was, that the House had ordered a bill to be read a second time for the amendment of the law relating to the trial of controverted elections. But what had the second reading of a measure to do with the present proceeding? That Bill, indeed, proposed to reduce the number of Members on each Committee from eleven to five—but he who would perjure himself as one of eleven, would equally do so as one of five, and if that bill passed into a law, the power of punishment would equally be required for those who imputed perjury to the tribunal under the new bill as it was under the existing law. He was satisfied the House could come to no other course consistent with what it had already done, or with its honour, but that of sanctioning the motion of his noble Friend.

Mr. Goring

was understood to say, that although he thought that the words of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin were unjust, he was satisfied that the House was losing its character and dignity by pursuing the course which it had adopted towards the hon. and learned Member for Dublin.

Viscount Castlereagh

was very anxious to set himself right before the House as to his vote of last night, in reference to the charge which had been preferred by hon. Members on the opposite side of the House, against several hon. Members at his (Lord Castlereagh's) side, of having imputed something very like perjury to the Roman Catholic Members of that House. For himself, he could only say this, that whatever sentiments might be entertained by others, he was quite incapable of attributing to any Gentleman in that House, let his politics be what they might, anything which he should feel himself constrained to decline to do, consistently with his own sense of honour. He spoke as an Irishman; and as no Irish Member at his side of the House had risen during the progress of this debate, he availed himself of this opportunity to declare his conviction, with reference to his Roman Catholic fellow countrymen, that their honour, integrity, and conscientious feelings were equal in intensity to those which he himself entertained, If he had not felt thus, he would not have been justified in his vote of last night, nor should he have felt himself prepared to have acted as a judge upon himself. Whether the imputation had been cast on the other side of the house or not, was no justification of the language that had been used, and he felt himself personally, though he had not served upon any Committee, yet, as liable to serve, he felt himself aggrieved by it. Many hon. Members had certainly softened down the offensive expressions which it contained; he could only wish that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had done the same. He did not think that that hon. Member would have lost anything of the high position in which he stood, while he would have saved the House a good deal of disagreeable discussion had he done so. As an individual whose honour was dear to him, he could not, in justice to his feelings, do otherwise than vote for a continuance of the proceeding commenced by the noble Lord, the Member for Northamptonshire. Indeed, to pursue any other course would, in his opinion, be only to stultify the decision they had already come to. Her Majesty's Government and hon. Gentlemen opposite, for he should put them together, had already made two attempts to get rid of the question by a by-way proceeding, but he did not think that either the well-prepared course of the noble Lord last night, nor the ill-digested amendment proposed that evening, were likely to get the House out of the dilemma. If the House were true to itself no other course could now be taken than for the right hon. Gentleman in the chair to administer that rebuke to the hon. and learned Member which followed as a necessary result of the vote of last night.

Sir Frederick Pollock

felt himself compelled to ask the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, why he had thought fit last night to impeach the conduct of Members at that (the Opposition) side of the House, as "shabby," while to-night he sat silent, apparently prepared to vote that they should pass by the question altogether. Now, if the one proceeding was shabby, the other was ten times more so. He did not know to what extent the noble Lord might be a judge of what constituted a shabby proceeding, but he protested against the noble Lord's being considered a judge of what was shabby on that, the Opposition side of the House. He was really surprised at the tone adopted by the noble Lord when he taunted the noble Lord, the Member for Northamptonshire, with declining to follow up the vote of that House—a vote in which the noble Lord felt himself bound to concur, by some stronger measure than that which had been proposed; he was surprised, he said, at the tone assumed by the noble Lord on that occasion, when he I considered that the noble Lord was now prepared to pass by the proceeding altogether. Was that a course respectful to the House? Was it in accordance with the dignity which should characterise their proceedings, or was it respectful to the country, who looked at their proceedings with so much anxiety? He begged to assure the House that he had presented himself with the greatest reluctance, and would not have done so had any other Member risen to address it. But he did not think it would be decorous towards the country to proceed at once to vote upon this question without further discussion. He entirely agreed with the, hon. Member for Liverpool, that if they should do no more than what they had already done, they would still have done; a great deal. They would have vindicated the character of that House from an imputation sufficient to exclude any man upon whom it might rest, from sitting in the society of gentlemen. Having done that, he cared very little about the pains, penalties, or punishments, that might or could be inflicted upon the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. It was not by chains or imprisonment, or any apparatus of punishment, that the honour and dignity of that House was to be upheld, but by public opinion. To what extent was this liberty of expression to go? He for one considered that the conduct of certain hon. Gentlemen last night, instead of showing that the supporters of the original motion were wrong in the course they had adopted, had, in his humble opinion, only proved that they had begun too late. Where was the matter to terminate if that House were indifferent to the grave charge of foul perjury made against a large portion of its Members? If they did not check it, he might say that the usefulness of that House as a branch of the constitution was at an end. As stated by the hon. Member for Liverpool, it would become an assembly in which no Gentleman would sit. What, then, was the course which they ought to adopt? The noble Lord opposite had suggested that the highest penalties within the power of the House should be inflicted. But there were very grave reasons why the House ought not to pursue the course to which the noble Lord had invited them. By it they would exhibit the hon. Member for Dublin as a martyr in some shape or other, God knew how, whether in defence of the laws and decencies of society, or not. He thought, therefore, that the House would best consult its own dignity, and indeed its magnanimity, by adopting the mildest possible course in reference to that hon. and learned Member. Besides, public opinion had altered very much upon this subject within the last twenty or thirty years. The same opinion did not now exist respecting the efficacy of dungeons, chains, and prisons, as formerly; and if the hon. and learned Member for Dublin should not feel the reprimand of that House—nay, if he did not already feel their vote of last night, he did not think that the force of imprisonment could make him feel it. It was not the punishment of the individual, but the asserting of the dignity of the House, that they aimed at. One word respecting himself. He had voted last night that the charge of perjury was false and scandalous, not because he was indifferent to the imperfections of the present law, but because he conceived it to be the duty of that House, as long as that law was in operation, to protect those who were called upon to take part in its operation from charges from which every tribunal in the country was protected. Those who respected the character of that House would, therefore, he was sure, concur in the proposition consequent upon the decision that a breach of privilege had been committed.

Mr. Harvey

could not exactly understand the hon. and learned Gentleman, because he had asked them, on the one hand, whether they were prepared to treat as a nullity their vote of last night, while in the earlier part of his speech he seemed to be exceedingly anxious, as indeed was also the hon. Member for Liverpool, to impress upon the House the serious character of the sentence which had been already pronounced. Up to the present time he was ready to concede to hon. Gentlemen opposite that they had not been animated by the narrow views of party in throwing off the blow which they considered to have been aimed at their honour. The resolution which had been proposed in so amiable a manner by the noble Lord opposite had effected that; but it was one thing, allow him to tell the House, to vindicate its honour, and another to avenge it. Hon. Gentlemen ought, in his opinion, to be satisfied with the vote to which the House had come last night. They stood well with their own feelings, and he could not help saying, what must be still more acceptable to them, with the country. But if they pressed the matter further, and imparted a personal character to what at the present moment assumed the higher pretension of principle, they would invite the consideration in the public mind whether they had not descended from the noble path of vindicating their honour thus assailed, to attack a powerful individual, whose political influence they felt and feared. It appeared to him that if the hon. and learned Member for Dublin did not feel the resolution already come to by the House, he would be perfectly indifferent to the censure which hon. Gentlemen opposite wished to pass upon him. If they persisted, that censure would bear the character of a political penalty; they would thereby injure the efficacy of their resolution, and make the public at large regard the affair more as a triumph of partisanship than a vindication of insulted honour.

Colonel Conolly

would not vote for the amendment proposed, because, in doing so, he would be only stultifying the vote he had already given in favour of the resolution. Neither was he prepared to pass to the previous question, as proposed by one noble Lord, or to inflict the deepest punishment in their power upon the individual from whom the imputation emanated, as proposed by another noble Lord; because, by none of these courses did he conceive they would vindicate the honour or authority of that House.

Viscount Maidstone

observed, that when the House came to a vote last night, he conceived that the question had been decided upon, and that some punishment would follow as a matter of course. He appealed to the Speaker, if ever there was an occasion like this, upon which the House had come to a similar decision, when that decision had not been followed up by some other proceeding? Surely it was not to go forth to the country that on Monday they said "Yes," and on Tuesday "No." Why not proceed in the customary way? Where was the use of holding the scales of justice in one hand, and the sword in the other? Of the courses proposed he was undoubtedly in favour of the most lenient, but with their vote of yesterday recorded, a vote come to after due and deliberate consideration, he did not think the House would be acting consistently or in conformity with former usage if they now adopted the amendment proposed.

The House divided on the motion that the original question remain:—Ayes 249; Noes 225: Majority 24.

List of the AYES.
Acland, T. D. Colquhoun, J. C.
A'Court, Captain Conolly, E.
Adare, Visct. Copeland, Alderman
Alexander, Visct. Corry, hon. H.
Alsager, Captain Courtenay, P.
Arbuthnot, hon. H. Cresswell, C.
Ashley, Lord Dalrymple, Sir A.
Ashley, hon. H. Damer, hon. D.
Attwood, M. Darby, G.
Bagge, W. Darlington, Earl of
Bagot, hon. W. De Horsey, S. H.
Bailey, J. Dick, Q.
Bailey, J., jun. D'Israeli, B.
Baillie, Colonel Dottin, A. R.
Baker, E. Douglas, Sir C. E.
Baring, hon. W. B. Douro, Marquess of
Barneby, J. Dowdeswell, W.
Barnes, Sir E. Duffield, T.
Barrington, Viscount Dugdale, W. S.
Bateman, J. Duncombe, hon. W.
Bateson, Sir R. Duncombe, hon. A.
Bell, M. East, J. B.
Benett, J. Eastnor, Viscount
Bentinck, Lord G. Eaton, R. J.
Bethell, R. Egerton, W. T.
Blackburne, I. Egerton, Sir P.
Blackstone, W. S. Egerton, Lord F.
Blair, J. Eliot, Lord
Blennerhassett, A. Ellis, J.
Boldero, H. G. Estcourt, T. G. B.
Bolling, W. Estcourt, T. H. S.
Borthwick, P. Farrand, R.
Bradshaw, J. Fielden, W.
Bramston, T. W. Fitzroy, hon. H.
Broadley, H. Follett, Sir W.
Broadwood, H. Forbes, W.
Bruce, Lord E. Forester, hon. G.
Bruges, W. H. L. Gaskell, Jas. Milnes
Buller, Sir J. Y. Gladstone, W. E.
Burdett, Sir F. Glynne, Sir S. R.
Burrell, Sir C. Goddard, A.
Calcraft, J. H. Gordon, hon. Captain
Campbell, Sir H. Gore, O. J. R.
Canning, rt. hon. Sir S. Gore, O. W.
Cantalupe, Viscount Goulburn, rt. hon. H.
Castlereagh, Viscount Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.
Chandos, Marq. of Granby, Marq. of
Chaplin, Colonel Grant, hon. Colonel
Chapman, A. Greene, T.
Christopher, R. A. Grimsditch, T.
Chute, W. L. W. Grimston, Viscount
Clive, Viscount Grimston, hon. E. H.
Clive, hon. R. H. Hale, R. B.
Codrington, C. W. Halford, H.
Cole, hon. A. H. Halse, J.
Cole, Visct. Harcourt, G. G.
Harcourt, G. S. Mordaunt, Sir J.
Hardinge, rt. hon. Sir H. Neeld, J.
Hawkes, T. Neeld, J.
Hayes, Sir E. Norreys, Lord
Heathcote, Sir W. Northland, Viscount
Henniker, Lord O'Neil, hon. J. B. R.
Herbert, hon. S. Ossulston, Lord
Herries, rt. hon. J. C. Packe, C. W.
Hill, Sir R. Pakington, J. S.
Hillsborough, Earl of Palmer, R.
Hinde, J. H. Palmer, G.
Hodgson, F. Parker, M.
Hodgson, R. Parker, R. T.
Hogg, J. W. Patten, J.
Holmes, hon. W. A'C. Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Holmes, W. Peel, J.
Hope, G. W. Perceval, Colonel
Hope, H. T. Perceval, hon. G. J.
Hotham, Lord Pigot, R.
Houldsworth, T. Planta, rt. hon. J.
Houstoun, G. Polhill, F.
Howard, hon. W. Pollock, Sir F.
Hughes, W. B. Praed, W. M.
Hurst, R. H. Price, R.
Hurt, F. Pringle, A.
Inglis, Sir R. H. Pusey, P.
Irton, S. Reid, Sir J. R.
Irving, J. Richards, R.
Jackson, Sergeant Rickford, W.
James, Sir W. C. Rolleston, L.
Jenkins, R. Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.
Jermyn, Earl of Round, C. G.
Johnston, H. Round, J.
Jones, W. Rushbrooke, Colonel
Jones, T. Rushout, G.
Kemble, H. Sanderson, R.
Kerrison, Sir E. Sandon, Viscount
Knight, H. G. Scarlett, hon. J. Y.
Knightley, Sir C. Scarlett, hon. R.
Lascelles, hon. W. S. Sheppard, T.
Law, hon. C. E. Shirley, E. J.
Lefroy, rt. hon. T. Sibthorp, Colonel
Lewis, W. Sinclair, Sir G.
Liddell, hon. H. T. Smyth, Sir G. H.
Litton, E. Somerset, Lord G.
Lockhart, A. M. Spry, Sir S. T.
Logan, H. Stanley, E.
Long, W. Stewart, J.
Lowther, Viscount Stuart, H.
Lowther, J. H. Sturt, H. C.
Lucas, E. Sugden, rt. hon. Sir E.
Lygon, hon. General Thompson, Ald.
Mackenzie, T. Thornhill, G.
Mackenzie, W. F. Tollemache, F. J.
Mackinnon, W. A. Trench, Sir F.
Mahon, Viscount Trevor, hon. G. R.
Maidstone, Visct. Vere, Sir C. B.
Marsland, T. Verner, Colonel
Marton, G. Villiers, Viscount
Master, T. W. C. Vivian, J. E.
Maunsell, T. P. Wall, C. B.
Maxwell, H. Williams, R.
Meynell, Captain Williams, T. P.
Miles, P. W. S. Wodehouse, E.
Miller, W. H. Wood, Colonel T.
Milnes, R M. Wood, T.
Moneypenny, T. G. Wyndham, W.
Wynn, rt. hon. C. W. TELLERS.
Yorke, hon. E. T. Baring, H. B.
Young, J. Fremantle, Sir T.
List of the NOES.
Adam, Sir C. Duncan, Viscount
Aglionby, H. A. Dundas, hon. J. C.
Aglionby, Major Dundas, Captain D.
Ainsworth, P. Easthope, J.
Alston, R. Ebrington, Viscount
Anson, hon. Colonel Ellice, Captain A.
Anson, Sir G. Ellice, rt. hon. E.
Archbold, R. Ellice, E.
Attwood, T. Erle, W.
Baines, E. Etwall, R.
Ball, N. Evans, G.
Baring, F. T. Evans, W.
Barnard, E. G. Fazakerley, J. N.
Barron, H. W. Ferguson, R.
Barry, G. S. Fergusson, rt. hon. C.
Beamish, F. B. Finch, F.
Belfast, Earl of Fitzgibbon, hon. Col.
Bellew, R. M. Fitzroy, Lord C.
Bentinck, Lord W. Fitzsimon, N.
Berkeley, hon. H. Fort, J.
Bernal, R. French, F.
Bewes, T. Gillon, W. D.
Blackett, C. Gordon, R.
Blake, M. J. Goring, H. D.
Blewitt, R. J. Grattan, H.
Bodkin, J. J. Greenaway, C.
Bowes, J. Grey, Sir G.
Bridgeman, H. Grosvenor, Lord R.
Briscoe, J. I. Grote, G.
Brocklehurst, J. Guest, J. J.
Brodie, W. B. Hall, B.
Brotherton, J. Handley, H.
Browne, R. D. Harland, W. C.
Buller, C. Harvey, D. W.
Buller, E. Hastie, A.
Busfield, W. Hawes, B.
Byng, G. Hawkins, J. H.
Byng, rt. hon. G. S. Hayter, W. G.
Callaghan, D. Heathcoat, J.
Campbell, Sir J. Hector, C. J.
Carnac, Sir J. R. Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.
Cavendish, hon. C. Hobhouse, T. B.
Cavendish, hon. G. H. Hodges, T. L.
Chalmers, P. Hollond, R.
Chetwynd, Major Horsman, E.
Clements, Viscount Howard, F. J.
Codrington, Admiral Howick, Viscount
Collier, J. Hume, J.
Collins, W. Hutton, R.
Colquhoun, Sir J. James, W.
Cowper, hon. W. F. Jephson, C. D. O.
Craig, W. G. Johnson, General
Crawford, W. Labouchere, rt. hon. H.
Currie, R. Lambton, H.
Curry, W. Langdale, hon. C.
Dalmeny, Lord Lefevre, C. S.
Davis, Colonel Lennox, Lord G.
Dennistoun, J. Leveson, Lord
D'Eyncourt, rt. hon. C. Lister, E C.
Divett, E. Loch, J.
Duckworth, S. Lushington, C.
Duff, J. Macleod, R.
Macnamara, Major Seale, Colonel
Mactaggart, J. Seymour, Lord
Maher, J. Smith, hon. R.
Mahony, P. Somers, J.
Marshall, W. Somerville, Sir W. M.
Marsland, H. Standish, C.
Martin, J. Stanley, M.
Maule, hon. F. Stanley, W. O.
Maule, W. H. Stansfield, W. R. C.
Melgund, Viscount Strangways, hon. J.
Mildmay, P. St. J. Strutt, E.
Morpeth, Viscount Stuart, Lord J.
Murray, rt. hon. J. A. Stuart, V.
Muskett, G. A. Style, Sir C.
Nagle, Sir R. Talbot, C. R. M.
O'Brien, W. S. Talbot, J. H.
O'Callaghan, hon. C. Tancred, H. W.
O'Connell, M. J. Thomson, rt. hon. C. P.
O'Connell, M. Thornley, T.
O'Ferrall, R. M. Townley, R. G.
Ord, W. Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Paget, Lord A. Turner, E.
Palmer, C. F. Turner, W.
Palmerston, Viscount Vigors, N. A.
Parker J. Vivian, right hon. Sir R. H
Parnell, rt. hon. Sir H.
Parrott, J. Wakley, T.
Pattison, J. Walker, C. A.
Pease, J. Walker, R.
Pechell, Captain Wallace, R.
Pendarves, E. W. W. Warburton, H.
Philips, Sir R. Ward, H. G.
Philips, M. Wemyss, J. E.
Philips, G. R. Westenra, hon. H. R.
Pinney, W. Westenra, hon. J. C.
Ponsonby, C. F. A. C. White, L.
Ponsonby, hon. J. White, S.
Poulter, J. S. Wilbraham, G.
Power, J. Wilde, Sergeant
Price, Sir R. Williams, W. A.
Prime, G. Wilshere, W.
Redington, T. N. Winnington, T. E.
Rice, rt. hon. T. S. Winnington, H. J.
Rich, H. Wood, C.
Rippon, C. Wood, G. W.
Roche, E. B. Woulfe, Sergeant
Roche, W. Wrightson, W. B.
Rolfe, Sir R. M. Wyse, T.
Rundle, J. Yates, J. A.
Russell, Lord J.
Salwey, Col. TELLERS.
Sanford, E. A. Stanley, E. J.
Scrope, G. P. Steuart, R.

On the main question being again put,

Mr. Grattan

moved, by way of amendment, that words to the following effect be added to the motion:—"Notwith-standing that the Members for the county and city of Cork, for Sligo, for Liskeard, and for Falkirk, have avowed in their places in this House sentiments similar to those expressed by the Member for the city of Dublin, and though this House has permitted to pass uncensured and even unnoticed a published charge of the Bishop of Exeter accusing the Roman Catholic Members of this House of a disregard of their oaths, and of manifesting, in the exercise of their rights as Members of Parliament, treachery, aggravated by perjury." He called on the noble Lord, the Member for Downshire, to adopt this amendment, because that noble Lord had said, that they should deal out equal justice to all parties. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire had asked, how would they stand in the eyes of the public if they did not proceed with the motion? and he taunted the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) last night with not having come forward. What position, let him ask, would they place the hon. and learned Member for Dublin in by their present proceeding? They were for passing a censure on the hon. and learned Member; but they were unwilling to censure others who had avowed the same sentiments—he meant the hon. Members for the county and city of Cork, for the borough of Sligo, for the borough of Liskeard, and for Falkirk; but could they punish them or the hon. and learned Member for Dublin without taking into consideration the conduct of the Bishop of Exeter; they were ready to do justice, they said; but how would they do it? By punishing one, and not the others. If it were stated, that the charge of the Bishop of Exeter was long since gone by, he would reply, that the author of that charge was now in the eye of the law a libeller; for it was to be bought at this moment in the booksellers' shops in London. One word as to the prudence of these proceedings. He admitted the propriety of what was said by the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) that the words which had been used were not to be justified; he said last night, that he did not justify them. He thought, that that of, which there was reason to complain might have been complained of in a different manner; but he would say, that great provocation had been given—that a deep injury had been inflicted; and, the country feeling this, for the House to proceed on the matter would be to render itself perfectly ridiculous. Let them bear in mind what had taken place in the case of Sir Francis Burdett. The motion having been made for the hon. Member for Dublin to attend, suppose he sent for answer, that he denied the right of the House to interfere. What would the noble Lord do then? Suppose the Speaker issued his war- rant, and on the Sergeant-at-arms going to execute it the people took the part of the hon. and learned Member. ["Oh, oh!"] Did not the people take a part with the hon. Baronet (Sir Francis Burdett) in 1812? The hon. Baronet encountered their power with defiance; he said he looked on their warrant as so much waste paper; he did as Cromwell did—treated them with contempt. Though he would not use the words of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, he would say, that he did think the proceedings of these Committees were shameful and disgraceful. He again asked the House would they run the chance of a repetition of the ridiculous scenes which were enacted in 1812? So far from the dignity of the House having been vindicated by any such proceedings, they would render themselves the laughingstock of the entire community. What was the origin of this business? The whole of that of which they had to m-plain originated in the connexion of the hon. Gentleman opposite with the Spottiswoode party. Look at the provocation. In what manner had the organs of that party spoken of the Roman Catholic clergy? They had called them "unprincipled, barbarous rebels," "Popish ruffians," "surpliced ruffians," "atrocious hypocrites," "wretched imposters," "beings who were a disgrace to the name of Christianity." What would have been said if he had called the Bishop of Exeter "a surpliced ruffian." Such were the words that were used to describe those who were the supporters of the hon. Member for Dublin. Such were the words used by those who were parties to the getting up of petitions for the express purpose of defeating the elections of the people of Ireland. The feelings of the hon. Member for Dublin were naturally roused and excited by such proceedings. Without intending to defend the latter words used by the hon. and learned Gentleman in his speech, he would say, that he was perfectly right in what he said in the first portion of that speech. He declared, that "the Irish people wanted a measure that would protect them from being exposed to the machinations of the Spottiswoode gang." Was that true, or was it not? Did not that party attempt to run down every Member who had not the means of incurring the great expense necessary to defend his seat? Was there not a petition against the seat of the hon. Member for Westmeath, though he had a majority of 500? He hoped that that petition would be found to be frivolous and vexatious.

The amendment having been put,

Mr. E. B. Roche,

rose to explain his reasons for having last night declared that he was a participator in the opinions expressed by the hon. and learned Member. He complained of the proceedings of the election committees, as exhibiting a perversion of public principle to party spirit. The division of last night was more of a party division than any other that had taken place this Session. The fact was, the motion of last night was directed against an individual whom the Gentlemen opposite dreaded. He was persuaded it was not the result of that squeamish sensitiveness, so much talked of, but of personal enmity towards the hon. and learned Gentleman. He adopted the expressions used by the hon. and learned Member, because he believed them to be substantially correct. It was said that the hon. and learned Gentleman, having laid down a principle of conduct for himself which rendered him irresponsible for any strong language that he used, ought to be particularly careful that he did not give personal offence; but he, in adopting the language of the hon. and learned Member, was ready to give anybody who objected to those expressions any satisfaction that they might require.

The Speaker

The House is placed in an entirely new situation by this discussion. The House has come to certain resolutions expressing its censure and displeasure with regard to certain expressions used elsewhere, and avowed in this place by an hon. Member. The consequence of that decision has been, that various other Members have since risen for the purpose of repeating, reiterating, and avowing similar expressions. The object of that course, no doubt, was to court for themselves the censure which had been pronounced upon another. It was accompanied also with this irregularity, and by what I must call this great novelty. Hitherto no expression has been noticed, and made the foundation of any proceeding against an hon. Member, unless the words were taken down at the time; and what had usually happened? According to the former usage and practice of Parliament, whenever the words of an hon. Member were taken down, it was on the motion of some other hon. Member who viewed them in a sense opposite to that of the hon. Member who used them. Now, the House has seen the very reverse of that done. For the motion to take the words down was made by an individual who agreed in the main part, but not wholly with the expressions used. Now, if the House be prepared to sanction such a practice, it is impossible to say to what extent it may go. Every hon. Member of the same opinions may rise in succession and voluntarily commit that which the House has pronounced to be a grave and serious offence. I put that very point to the consideration of the House last night. I pointedly called the attention of hon. Gentlemen to the expressions which they were about to use, as far as I could judge what those expressions would be by those which they had previously used: but it must be obvious to all who hear me, that if an hon. Member be determined to persevere in using the expressions against which he had been warned, I have no power to prevent him; it would remain with the House to deal with that Member as it might think proper.

Mr. E. B. Roche

said, that no man felt greater respect than he did for the opinion of the Chair; but this was a subject on which his constituents and himself felt so strongly, that though he was anxious to bow to the Chair on every other occasion, he could not consent on this to yield up his own deliberate judgment. The Speaker had informed him that punishment might follow his perseverance in his present course, and the knowledge of that circumstance impelled him the more strongly to declare his dissent from the resolution to which the House had come last night, and his concurrence with the views expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. He hoped that it would not be considered contrary to the rules of the House if he then proceeded to read from a written paper his adoption of the expressions used by Mr. O'Connell. ["Order."]

Lord John Russell,

in speaking of order, observed that for his own part he fully agreed in the observations which had fallen from the Chair. He had been in hopes that the hon. Member for the county of Cork, having heard what had fallen from the Chair, would have been content to abide by that authority which was due to the station and opinion of the Speaker. He regretted that the hon. Member had not taken that course, because he thought, that after the decision to which the House had recently come, it was a want of respect to the whole House to continue the conduct which the hon. Member had declared himself prepared to adopt, and to read a written statement containing sentiments and language similar to, or rather identical with, those used by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. He was aware that, if the hon. Gentleman persisted in the course on which he had entered, the mode in which the House would deal with it might be very different. He hoped, however, that the hon. Member, from his own sense of what was due to the House, would not persist in his present course. He confessed, that with his views he thought that it was natural that hon. Gentlemen should not be satisfied with the vote of the small majority of last night that the language used by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin was false and scandalous. But every thing had been done that was required for their own satisfaction. Any further proceedings would be an attempt to embarrass the proceedings of the House, and he therefore did hope, that upon consideration, the hon. Member would not think it necessary to carry his opposition further.

Mr. E. B. Roche

As the objection raised by the House in general, and by the noble Lord, appears to be to my reading these words from a paper, I think it is sufficiently reconcileable to my views to state them. ["Order.'] I am not aware I am out of order; I must say, that I fully concur in and adopt the sentiments and expressions of the hon. Member for Dublin. ["Order;" "Chair;"] that I believe them to be the sentiments of my constituents; that I stand here to represent those constituents; and when I cease to represent them, either from fear or any other motive, I ought no longer to retain my seat.

Mr. Hume

rose to request that the hon. Members words might be taken down. He apprehended it was perfectly consistent with the rules of the House that any hon. Member might request words which he thought objectionable and improper, to be taken down. ["Oh!"] The hon. Gentleman would correct him if he had taken down his words wrong—"I most fully concur in and adopt the sentiments and expressions of the hon. Member for Dublin, as expressed at the Crown and Anchor Tavern, and admitted in his place in this House."

Mr. C. Buller

hoped the House would observe the malice of the hon. Member for Kilkenny.

Mr. Hume

said, hon. Members might think it a very unusual course, that concurring as he did with the hon. Member for Cork, he should have taken an objection to the words he had employed. Now, there were two modes of dealing with a matter. One was to attempt to reason on it; the other was when reason failed, to have recourse to ridicule. He was desirous of throwing ridicule on the conduct of the other side; he was now trying to do that; he wanted to show, as he said last night, that it was impossible to say where hon. Members wished that such proceedings should stop. The hon. Member for Cork and several other Gentlemen had made the same declaration as the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, and he was ready to do the same. If the resolutions agreed to by the House were adopted with the view of maintaining their honour and dignity, he would ask was it consistent with their dignity to punish one man for having used certain expressions, and abstaining from punishing others who declared their perfect concurrence in them? He did not think be had abused that freedom of speech which was the right of every Member of the House, and he begged to request that the words might be read by the clerk, in order that he might take a further proceeding regarding them.

Mr. C. Buller

said, it had become difficult now to know whether the subject before the House was the language taken down as having been used by the hon. Member for the county of Cork, or the amendment of the hon. Member for Meath. His hon. Friend, the Member for Kilkenny, had explained to the House that his object was to throw ridicule on the decision of last night. He must say, as far as that pleasantry might be carried on legitimately, he entirely concurred in the object which his hon. Friend had in view in that exercise of his power; but that pleasantry, his hon. Friend should recollect, might be carried on too long, and he thought this kind of joke had been carried on quite long enough. But he begged Gentlemen opposite to recollect that this matter was not considered a joke by many Members of that House. He begged them seriously to look at the probable consequences of the motion they had unfortunately, and h would say unadvisedly, carried. Did they suppose they could with impunity indulge personal animosity against a distinguished Member of that House, and quench those feelings of nationality which were more or less strong in all men? Did they suppose that those feelings which the hon. Member for Cork had expressed—and he believed every hon. Gentleman opposite would agree with him here—with the general ardour that became his youth, if with the indiscretion natural to youth—would not be shared by the whole of that population which the hon. and learned Member for Dublin represented? He was not justifying the words of that hon. and learned Member. Agreeing with him in much of the censure he had passed on Election Committees, he did not agee with him in the feelings he imputed to the Members of those bodies, nor did he adopt the language, the unjustly offensive language, of which the hon. and learned Member had made use. His name had been mixed up in this foolish matter; the hon. Member for Dublin had alluded to words he had uttered, and had said, that they formed a justification of those which he himself had spoken. As far as those words showed that a Member of the House who had taken much pains to understand this subject could come forward, and under no influence of party feeling or momentary heat endeavour to portray in the strongest terms the opinion which he believed the public entertained on this question, so far the hon. and learned Member might rely on his words; but it was not his wish to use words offensive to any Gentleman; it was not his habit to couch a censure in language which he thought would wound the feelings and provoke the indignation of a man of honour, or to exceed the just limits of calm and deliberate discussion. He wished to call the attention of the House to the consequences of the present constitution of Election Committees. He did not pretend to decide on the motives which governed the decision of those bodies; he would say that he thought the Members of them were generally men of the highest education, intelligence, and honour, but the people asked, what must be the character of the system that set such men loose from the obligations imposed on them both by their honour and their oaths? He did not say, that such was his opinion, but he asked if there was one Gentleman on the other side who would say, that he did not believe that such a discreditable opinion prevailed in the minds of a great portion of the people? He did not wish to have it supposed he had at all taken up the opinion which he believed the public very unjustly entertained; but as it did obtain in the public mind, would they act wisely, would they act justly, to visit with severe punishment an hon. Member who had merely delivered his opinion in terms of more than ordinary coarseness? He had alluded last night to the words of the right hon. and learned Member for Ripon (Sir E. Sugden); he had said, that the imputation which they conveyed, though not the language itself, was as offensive as that implied in the words of the hon. Member for Dublin. He now deliberately declared that he would far rather be stigmatised in terms the very coarseness of which showed the passion that dictated them, than have gross injustice and corruption imputed to him in the calm and judicial language of the right hon. Gentleman. He appealed to that right hon. and learned Member, who had exercised in another country the highest judicial functions, and exercised them in such a manner that the incorruptibility and high integrity of his judicial conduct was the one point on which parties in that distracted country agreed—he would ask that right hon. Member how he would have felt if any man could have said of him that his decisions were influenced by a bias towards his political friends? He conceived that no violent language—no language imputing the foulest perjury, the grossest corruption, in the coarsest terms, could be so painful to the feelings of a high-minded judge as the opinion passed by the right hon. Gentleman last night. In delivering that opinion the right hon. Gentleman had spoken the sentiments as well of his own as of the other side. Was it just, then, was it politic, to endeavour to fix the opprobrium of a reprimand on an individual who only conveyed, in coarse language, the same censure as the right hon. Gentleman himself? Nothing yet advanced in the course of the debate, as far as he could judge, had shaken the plain common-sense views and sound policy advocated last night by the noble Lord below him (Lord J. Russell). Hon. Gentlemen opposite, exulting in the expectation of a majority, had refused to listen to the noble Lord; but he believed that they would regret their majority now that they had obtained it. Grant that the language used was coarse, yet the imputation cast was just. Grant that they could make an example of the hon. Member for Dublin, and that it was right to do so, was there no one on the opposite side open to the same charge, and deserving the same punishment? It could not be supposed that when the zeal of Gentlemen opposite so far outweighed their discretion, Gentlemen on his side would not try to retaliate. Were they to pass by the imputations of the press if they made up their minds to resent charges of this kind? Some of those imputations were so gross that he hardly liked to mention them, but he would say, that if any persons in that House were especially bound to resentment, it was the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair and those who were intrusted with authority by the House. If they were to entertain charges made outside the House, what were they to do with regard to charges insinuated in such a way as no one could misunderstand, respecting the mode in which ballots were carried on? "I believe, Sir," said the hon. Member, addressing the Speaker, "that, safe in the dignity of your high position, safe in the estimation which I know every fair and honest man, of whatever party, willingly accords to you, you may despise those contemptible slanders; but if these matters are made the topics of after-dinner speeches, the House will not long be safe from having them intruded into our discussions." Surely those on the opposite side would pause before they set this example; they had shrunk when they heard the conduct of their episcopal champion arraigned. It was said, that the Bishop's charge could not come under their cognizance, because it alluded to Members if the last Parliament. But was it not still a breach of decorum and gentlemanly conduct? Was it forgotten that the charge was spoken to a body of clergy, and in a church? Hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they considered the multitude of attacks levelled against those occupying that (the Ministerial) side, and passed over with-out notice, might with advantage imitate their moderation. He would venture to suggest this course to them, and he would remind them that it would be attended with this benefit—that it would save them from much trouble and inconvenience, which he had incurred for two nights past in this very foolish business, in being obliged to go without his dinner. He must request the hon. Gentleman who had moved the amendment to withdraw his name from the amendment, in which he did not choose to have it mixed up. The hon. Gentleman had forgotten, that it was most annoying and vexatious to have one's name conjoined with that of the Bishop of Exeter.

Mr. Gillon

did not think the course pursued by hon. Gentlemen opposite at all creditable to them. The question of privilege was one of the most dangerous description. He only spoke the sentiments of his constituents when he said, that the conduct of the Election Committees was most corrupt. As for any stigma which the House might propose to inflict on the hon. Member for Dublin, he for one should be proud to bear a share of it.

Lord John Russell

said, that he should give his vote against this last proceeding on this subject, and state shortly to the House the view he took of the case, without entering into any unnecessary argument upon it. Indeed, it was unnecessary to enter into any argument, because what had fallen from his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liskeard very nearly expressed what he thought. He wished the House to recollect, that for some years past attacks had been made of the most gross and abusive kind upon Members of that House, and especially on those who sat on that (the Ministerial) side of the House; he wished the House to recollect that in the autumn of 1836, the very word "perjury" applied to Members of that House, only qualified by being joined in the connexion, "treachery aggravated by perjury"—he begged the House to recollect, that last year he had advised the House not to notice these expressions otherwise than by contempt, and he was glad to find that that contempt had been shown by the House; he begged also to call to the minds of the House the conduct of the Members who had been charged with the crime of perjury, that they had not thought it necessary, although their feelings must have been sorely wounded at the imputations cast upon them, to call upon the House for any kind of vindictive proceedings, or for censures on that occasion. He begged the House also to call to mind, that on various occasions, expressions had been used out of doors highly derogatory to the Queen's Ministers, not only as public men, but as gentlemen, and he thought it right to say, that neither by prosecution nor proscription, nor by taking away of honours, station, office, nor by any other means, had the Ministry done anything that could show vindictive feelings on those occa- sions. What was the situation of the House now? That a Member had used very strong expressions against a party in that House to which he did not belong, and a member of that party had brought before the House the subject of that charge; 254 Members had voted against the proposition of that Member, and 263 in favour of it, the majority belonging to the party against whom the charge was made. That was not the manner in which decisions of that House with respect to privilege used to be expressed, that was not the manner in which the decisions of juries of this country were formed, nor, with respect to any twelve men accused of perjury, was it the custom that they should be put into the box to try the charge. With respect to the decision of the House last night, he felt some consolation in the very trifling nature of the punishment which it was proposed to inflict, adopting precedents not of very great importance. One of them, indeed, was a very bad precedent, where a person during the prosecution of Mr. Warren Hastings was ordered to be reprimanded, and with regard to the other precedent, that was the decision of the majority who voted to reprimand Sir Francis Burdett in his place in that House. But he did think that those who adopted that conduct were proceeding from a worse course to a better, for the ancient manner of settling affairs of this description was, that Members should be punished by imprisonment, which, however was found, as the hon. and learned Member for Huntingdon had said, to be quite inefficacious. When the House had begun to mitigate the punishment it thought proper to inflict on its Members, it no longer imprisoned, but took the course of ordering a reprimand, and this was a step to a better mode of proceeding, which was, to take notice of cases of imputed breach of privilege only when they interfered with the functions of that House. But having so long gone on in this course, to reprimand a Member in his place for expressions applying only to a part of the House, would be to go from a better to a worse course. He might be told by hon. Members opposite, that this was the mildest kind of punishment which could be inflicted, and that it was little more, in fact, than what had been already done. But, as he had last night taken the liberty to say, he could not be convinced that they might not go on from the milder to the worse course—that they might not, if they once stopped in the course of progressive improvement which he had described, in fact, go back to the ancient harsh proceedings—that they might not come to have recourse to those more violent modes of punishment which, of late years, had been wholly dropped. He lamented that the House should have done anything which appeared to tend that way, and that it should have taken this course in a case in which the expressions used did not apply as against the whole House, but against that part of it which formed the majority on the occasion of the late vote. He trusted that those who felt with the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, certainly far more fully than he did, would do their best to restrain their feelings, because he thought that the only chance of the matter ending without any pernicious result, was, that they should not proceed farther on the subject than the vote to which they were about to come. and that the House should rest satisfied with that vote.

The House divided on the main question, that Mr. O'Connell be reprimanded:—Ayes 226; Noes 197: Majority 29.

List of the AYES.
Acland, T. D. Broadley, H.
A'Court, Captain Broadwood, H.
Adare, Viscount Brownrigg, S.
Alexander, Viscount Bruce, Lord E.
Alsager, Captain Bruges, W. H. L.
Arbuthnott, hon. H. Buller, Sir J. Y.
Ashley, Lord Burdett, Sir F.
Attwood, W. Burrell, Sir C.
Attwood, M. Calcraft, J. H.
Bagge, W. Campbell, Sir H.
Bailey, J. Canning, rt. hn. Sir R.
Bailey, J., jun. Cantalupe, Visct.
Baker, E. Castlereagh, Visct.
Baring hon. W. B. Chandos, Marquis
Barneby, J. Chaplin, Colonel
Barnes, Sir E. Chapman, A.
Barrington, Visct. Christopher, R. A.
Bateman, J. Chute, W. L. W.
Bateson, Sir R. Clive, Visct.
Rell, M. Clive, hon. R. H.
Bentinck, Lord G. Codrington, C. W.
Bethell, R. Cole, hon. A. H.
Blackburne, L. Cole, Viscount
Blackstone, W. S. Colquhoun, J.
Blair, J. Conolly, E. M.
Blennerhassett, A. Corry, rt. hon. H.
Boldero, H. G. Cresswell, C.
Bolling, W. Dalrymple, Sir A.
Borthwick, Peter Darby, G.
Bradshaw, J. D'Israeli, B.
Bramston, T. W. Dottin, A. R.
Douglas, Sir C. E. Jermyn, Earl of
Douro, Marquis of Johnston, H.
Dowdeswell, W. Jones, W.
Duffield, T. Jones, T.
Duncombe, hon. W. Kemble, H.
Duncombe, hon. A. Kerrison, Sir E.
Dungannon, Viscount Knight, H. G.
Eastnor, Visct. Knightley, Sir C.
Eaton, R. J. Law, hon. C. E.
Egerton, W. T. Lefroy, rt. hon. T.
Egerton, Sir P. Lewis, W.
Egerton, Lord F. Liddell, hon. H. T.
Eliot, Lord Litton, E.
Ellis, J. Lockhart, A. M.
Estcourt, T. Logan, H.
Estcourt, T. Long, W.
Farranti, R. Lowther, Visct.
Feilden, W. Lowther, J. H.
Fitzroy, hon. H. Lucas, E.
Follett, Sir W. Lygon, hon. Gen.
Forbes, W. Mackenzie, T.
Gaskell, James Milnes Mackenzie, W. F.
Gladstone, W. E. Mackinnon, W. A.
Glynne, Sir R. Mahon, Visct.
Goddard, A. Maidstone, Visct.
Godson, R. Marsland, T.
Gordon, hon. Capt. Master, T. W. C.
Gore, O. J. R. Maunsell, T. P.
Gore, O. W. Maxwell, H.
Goulburn, H. Miles, W.
Graham, Sir J. Miller, W. H.
Granby, Marquis of Monypenny, T. G.
Grant, hon. Col. Mordaunt, Sir J.
Greene, T. Neeld, J.
Grimsditch, T. Neeld, J.
Grimston, Visct. Norreys, Lord
Hale, R. B. Northland, Viscount
Halford, H. O'Neil, hon. J. B. R.
Halse, J. Packe, C. W.
Harcourt, G. G. Pakington, J. S.
Harcourt, G. S. Palmer, R.
Hardinge, rt. hon. Sir H. Palmer, G.
Parker, M.
Hawkes, T. Parker, R. T.
Hayes, Sir E. Patten, J. W.
Heathcote, Sir W. Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.
Henniker, Lord Peel, J.
Herries, rt. hn. J. C. Perceval, Col.
Hill, Sir R. Perceval, hon. G.
Hillsborough, Earl of Planta, rt. hon. J.
Hinde, J. H. Polhill Captain F.
Hodgson, F. Plumptree, J. P.
Hodgson, R. Pollock, Sir F.
Hogg, J. W. Praed, W. M.
Holmes, hon. W., Price, R.
Holmes, W. Pringle, A.
Hope, G. W. Pusey, P.
Hope, H. T. Reid, Sir J. R.
Hotham, Lord Richards, R.
Houldsworth, T. Rickford, W.
Houstoun, G. Rolleston, L.
Hughes, W. B. Rose, rt. hn. Sir G.
Hurt, F. Round, C. G.
Irton, Samuel Round, J.
Jackson, Serjeant Rushbrooke, Col.
James, W. Rushout, G.
Jenkins, R. Sanderson, R.
Sandon, Viscount Trevor, hon. G. R.
Scarlett, hon. R. Vere, Sir C. B.
Sheppard, T. Verner, Colonel
Sibthorp, Colonel Villiers, Viscount
Sinclair, Sir George Vivian, J. E.
Smyth, Sir. G. H. Williams, R
Somerset, Lord G. Williams, T. P.
Spry, Sir S. T. Wodehouse, E.
Stanley, E. J. Wood, Col. T.
Stewart, J. Wood, T.
Stuart, H. Wynn, rt. hn. C. W.
Sturt, H. C. York, hon. E. T.
Sugden, rt. hn. Sir E. Young, J.
Thompson, Alderman Young, Sir W.
Thornhill, G. TELLERS.
Tollemache, F. J. Baring, H. B.
Trench, Sir F. Fremantle, Sir T.
List of the NOES.
Adam, Sir C. Dennistoun, J.
Aglionby, H. A. D'Eyncourt, hon. C. T.
Aglionby, Major Duckworth, S.
Ainsworth, P. Duff, J.
Alston, R. Duncan, Viscount
Anson, Sir G. Dundas, C. W. D.
Archbold, R. Dundas, hon. J. C.
Attwood, T. Dundas, Captain D.
Baines, E. Dunlop, J.
Ball, N. Easthope, J.
Baring, F. T. Ebrington, Viscount
Barron, H. W. Ellice, Captain A.
Barry, G. S. Ellice, E.
Beamish, F. B. Erle, W.
Bellew, R. M. Evans, Sir D. L.
Bentinck, Lord W. Evans, G.
Bernal, R. Evans, W.
Bewes, T. Fazakerley, J. N.
Blackett, C. Fenton, J.
Blake, M. J. Fergusson, rt. hon. C.
Blake, W. J. Finch, F.
Blewitt, R. J. Fitzpatrick, J. W.
Blunt, Sir C. Fitzsimon, N.
Bodkin, J. J. Fleetwood, P. H.
Brabazon, Sir W. Fort, J.
Bridgeman, H. Gillon, W. D.
Briscoe, J. I. Gordon, R.
Brocklehurst, J. Grattan, H.
Brodie, W. B. Greenaway, C.
Brotherton, J. Grey, Sir G.
Buller, C. Grote, G.
Buller, E. Guest, J. J.
Bulwer, E. L. Hall, B.
Busfield, W. Handley, H.
Butler, hon. Colonel Harland, W. C.
Callaghan, D. Harvey, D. W.
Campbell, Sir J. Hastie, A.
Campbell, W. Hawkins, J. H.
Carnac, Sir J. T. Hayter, W. G.
Cayley, E. S. Heathcoat, J.
Chalmers, P. Hector, C. J.
Codrington, Admiral Hobhouse, T. B.
Collins, W. Hodges, T. L.
Craig, W. G. Hollond, R.
Crawford, W. Horsman, E.
Curry, W. Howick, Viscount
Dalmeny, Lord Hume, J.
Davies, Colonel Hutton, R.
James, W. Russell, Lord
Jephson, C. D. O. Salwey, Col.
Jervis, J. Sanford, E. A.
Lambton, H. Scrope, G. P.
Langdale, hon. C. Seale, Colonel
Lefevre, C. S. Smith, R. V.
Lennox, Lord G. Somers, J. P.
Lister, E. C. Standish, C.
Lushington, Dr. Stansfield, W. R. C.
Lushington, C. Stanley, W. O.
Lynch, A. H. Stewart, J.
Macleod, R. Strangways, hon. J.
Mactaggart, J. Strutt, E.
Maher, J. Style, Sir C.
Mahony, P. Talbot, J. H.
Marshall, W. Tancred, H. W.
Marsland, H. Thomson, rt. hon. C. P.
Martin, J. Thornley, T.
Maule, hon. F. Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Mildmay, P. St. J. Turner, E.
Morpeth, Viscount Verney, Sir H.
Morris, D. Vigors, N. A.
Murray, rt. hon. J. A. Vivian, rt. hon. Sir H.
Nagle, Sir R. Wakley, T.
O'Brien, W. S. Walker, C. A.
O'Callaghan, hon. C. Walker, R.
O'Connell, M. J. Wallace, R.
O'Connell, M. Warburton, H.
O'Ferrall, R. M. Ward, H. G.
Ord, W. Wemyss, J. E.
Palmer, C. F. Westenra, hon. H. R.
Palmerston, Viscount Westenra, hon. J. C.
Parker, J. White, H.
Parrott, J. White, L.
Pattison, J. White, S.
Pechell, Captain Wilbraham, G.
Pendarves, E. W. W. Wilde, Sergeant
Philips, Sir R. Williams, W.
Philips, G. R. Williams, W. A.
Pinney, W. Wilshere, W.
Ponsonby, C. F. A. C. Winnington, T. E.
Poulter, J. S. Winnington, H. J.
Power, J. Wood, C.
Pryme, G. Wood, Sir M.
Redington, T. N. Wood, G. W.
Rice, rt. hon. T. S. Wrightson, W. B.
Rich, H. Wyse, T.
Rippon, C. Yates, J. A.
Roche, E. B.
Rolfe, Sir R. M. TELLERS.
Rundle, J. Stanley, E. J.
Russell, Lord J. Steuart, R.
Viscount Maidstone

moved, that Mr. O'Connell be ordered to attend in his place in the House to-morrow to receive the reprimand of the Speaker.

Mr. Hume

said, that if Mr. O'Connell was to be punished, every other Member who had adopted his words ought to be dealt with in the same manner. He would move that the words of all such Members be taken down in writing by the clerk at the table.

Mr. Gillon

said, he adopted the words of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin.

Mr. Hume

moved, that the words be taken down. He had now put hon. Members at the opposite side in the wrong box, and let them get out of it as soon as they could.

Motion agreed to. Ordered accordingly.