§ Mr. Hutt
said, that the subject of which he had given notice, and to which he now wished to call the attention of the House as of great importance to the public interests, was one with which the House was by no means unfamiliar. Since the Grinding Act expired in 1825, various propositions had been submitted to Parliament for allowing corn to be manufactured into flour in bond, for the purpose of exportation. These propositions had been brought forward in the form of bills, and though they had been anxiously promoted by the Gentlemen who introduced them, and supported by the shipping and mercantile interests of the country, they had not, any one of them, bad the good fortune to obtain the sanction of the House of Commons. He did not now propose to introduce a bill upon the subject, for he could have little hope of attaining an object which Gentlemen every way his superior had failed in accomplishing. But, being strongly impressed with the conviction, that the hostility evinced by the House to these measures had been the result of insufficient information and ill-founded alarm, that hon. Members in deciding on them had neither estimated rightly the advantages which these measures would confer on the community, nor the evils which they could by any possibility impose on any particular interest in it, it was with these feelings, and being urged by that class, whose welfare it was his more immediate duty in that House to promote, that he had been led to come forward and to request that the House would grant him a committee to inquire into the question. At least let the subject, with the nature of which few gentlemen could have any practical acquaintance, be fully and fairly investigated. Whatever opinions the House might entertain of the prudence and propriety of permitting corn to be ground in bond, he was sure, that looking to the large and influential classes who had solicited this boon of the Legislature, all parties would agree that it was not a request of that nature, which should be lightly or carelessly denied. The case of the merchants was this, they allege that, under the restrictions of the existing law, extensive markets, in which they might carry on a valuable trade, are closed against them; that, in consequence of the disabilities which their own Legislature has imposed on them, Newfoundland, the West Indies, 663 the Brazils, and other countries, are either exclusively supplied with flour manufactured by foreign nations, and imported in foreign shipping, or if they embark in the trade at all, they must do one of two things, both of which are seriously detrimental to them, as engaged in competition with foreign merchants. They must either purchase in this country flour which has been ground in another—very probably across the Atlantic, and thus, burdened with the charges of importation, with the expense of warehousing, and the loss from deterioration, tranship it into a vessel in a British port, or they must send to some port in the north of Europe a vessel perhaps bound for the coast of America, thus lengthening the voyage by many weeks, and by a distance of several hundred miles, with additional insurances, port charges, and other expenses of navigation, to take in flour for foreign or colonial markets, filling up their cargo invariably with the manufactured productions of rival nations. He found from official papers which the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, had permitted him to have access to, that on an average of three years upwards of 18,000 tons of British shipping annually repair to the port of Hamburgh alone, under the adverse circumstances he had described, for the exportation of flour, and that upwards of 15,000 tons of shipping laden with flour annually left the ports of Hamburgh, Copenhagen, and Dantzic, for the single colony of Newfoundland; and that for the supply of this colony with flour and biscuit, upwards of 75,000l. sterling was annually laid out in the port of Hamburgh alone. From the port of Dantzic our traders carry off 10,000,000lbs. of flour annually, while the exact amount exported from Copenhagen in the years 1837 and 1838, was officially stated as follows:—"1837, wheat flour, 8,864,125lbs.; biscuit, 252,172,000,000 1838, wheat flour, 9,000,000lbs.; biscuit, 274,022,700,000." All of this, under a different system of policy, might have been manufactured at home, and exported in British vessels directly from British ports. Now, were these times when it was wise thus to harass and obstruct, by artificial restrictions, the operations of commercial enterprise? At all events, was such a proceeding so obviously wise and profitable, that the House would refuse to inquire into it at all? What did they gain by this system? Did they suppose, that 664 by preventing the exporting merchant from grinding flour in bond, they compelled him to purchase the flour raised on their own soil? Not a pound of it. For all purposes of exportation the British merchant must go to the foreigner. They could not prevent him if they would; they ought not if it were in their power. Now, mark the consequences of their prohibitory legislation. They had driven from the shores of England a valuable branch of manufacture to establish it on the continent. Gentlemen who had visited Hamburgh, Copenhagen, or Dantzic, would bear witness to the fact, that an enormous amount of foreign capital was there invested in those mills which, but for these prohibitory laws, would have been erected in our own country. Did this seem like the contrivance of sagacious policy? Was the spectacle of foreign mills grinding corn for British consumption almost within sight of their own shores one on which the Legislature could dwell with unhesitating satisfaction? Would they not pause to investigate it? But this was not all. It was not merely a question of commercial enterprise, or of the investment of capital, though in a country where the rate of interest and the profits of trade were so low, that was a question of vast economical importance. Let them think of the employment which this system snatched from the British labourers and transferred to labourers on the continent. Was this quite fair to the working classes? Was it quite prudent towards yourselves? Were they resolved to prevent Chartism, and to put an end to popular discontent? Then in that House, where every other interest was so cautiously considered and protected, do not let them neglect the interests of the working classes. The working classes had no direct representatives in that House, and that was the strongest possible reason why in every act of the House the rights of industry should be scrupulously respected. He did not mean to say, that these claims should be paramount to every other, but so long as they rejected the demand for universal suffrage, they were bound by every obligation of justice and of self-interest to show a special respect for the rights and the well-being of the industrious classes. The system which he proposed to investigate was established in manifest violation of them. Let them look, then, to the price 665 which they paid for this prohibitory system, which they so pertinaciously maintained. Let them consider for one moment what they paid for this prohibitory system. There was the transference of a valuable branch of commerce from England to the stranger—the use of foreign shipping and foreign manufactures when they ought to use their own. There was also the remuneration of a vast employment in milling, the cooperage of casks, the construction of mills and of ships, an employment which rightly belonged to British industry, and which was now abandoned to the industry of other nations. These things, together with the artificial enhancement of the price of food in our colonies, constituted the price which they paid for prohibiting the home manufacture of flour in bond. What did they gain by it? Nothing. He defied any man to point out a single direct advantage which accrued from the prohibition. It was said, he knew, that the permission he contended for would open a door to smuggling, and that thus flour would be surreptitiously introduced into the home market. This objection could only be urged by persons who were completely ignorant of the measures practically resorted to by the customs for the security of bonded goods, and ignorant of the uniform and complete success with which they were applied. Smuggling from the Queen's lock was an offence almost unknown. It was unknown in respect to sugar, which paid a duty of 100 per cent.; it was unknown in regard to brandy, which paid a duty of 500 per cent.; unknown in regard to tobacco, which paid 1,200 per cent. duty. Was then the offence likely to be committed in regard to flour, which paid 25 to 30 per cent.? Was a vague and idle suspicion to be so cautiously respected for the sake of the produces in flour, when all such considerations were set aside in regard to the dealer in sugar and tobacco, both of which were subjected to a high duty, and permitted to undergo a process of manufacture in bond? It had been said that this proposition was an indirect attack on the Corn-laws. He utterly denied it. His hon. Friend, the Member for Wolverhampton, disapproved of this proposition, because it had a tendency to relieve the Corn-laws from a portion of the odium in which they were regarded. He believed that it had a tendency that way. He was 666 sure that injustice on the part of the Legislature was calculated not merely to overturn the Corn-laws, but all the other laws and institutions of the state; that there was nothing so dangerous, so revolutionary, as a public abuse protected by authority, and the strongest possible motive to popular convulsion was a notorious wrong consecrated by the laws. The hon. Member concluded by moving for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire under what restrictions it might be expedient to permit flour to be manufactured in bond.
§ Viscount Sandon
was anxious that this question should have the fullest and most mature consideration. He thought such a measure as the hon. Gentleman had proposed would be highly advantageous to the trade and shipping interest of this country, and he considered that it might be adopted with perfect safety as respected the interests of the home growers of corn. He should have been willing at once to sanction the introduction of a bill to carry out the views of the hon. Gentleman who had brought forward this motion, but, as a majority of the House had so recently decided against going into Committee on the Corn-laws, he was heartily glad, as a bill might not be successful, that this question had been brought forward in such a shape as would enable the House to investigate it fully.
The Earl of Darlington
said, this was not the first time that this question had been under the consideration of the House, though, perhaps, it had never before been brought forward in its present shape. Bills to carry into effect the views of the hon. Gentleman had been introduced on former occasions, and these bills had always been resisted, and chiefly on two grounds. The first of these grounds of objection was, that such a measure as was now proposed had an indirect bearing on the Corn-laws; and the second was, that no sufficient guarantee could be provided against smuggling. The last of those objections was the one which had operated on his mind to induce him to oppose those bills; but if it could be shown that fraud could be effectually prevented, he should not oppose any similar measure. For that reason he should not oppose the appointment of a Committee of inquiry, before which the whole subject could be fully investigated. If, however, the Committee was unfairly composed—if two- 667 thirds of the Members were opposed to the existing Corn-laws, and only one-third in favour of them, he was sure that the recommendations of such a body would not receive the sanction of the House. He, however, thought the proposed inquiry fair and reasonable, and he should not oppose it, provided security was given that the interests of every class would be equally attended to.
§ Mr. Christopher
felt himself obliged to oppose the motion. If the hon. Member who bad brought it forward, had held out any hope that new facts, in regard to this subject, could have been elicited by a committee of inquiry, then he might have been induced to agree with the noble Lord who had last spoken, and have voted for the motion. But the hon. Mover had held out no such hope. This was a question which had over and over again been discussed in that House, and was one on which repeated decisions had been given against the views of the hon. Mover. He could not therefore see the necessity for again bringing it forward, as it had on former occasions been fully investigated. He considered this motion as an attack, by a side wind, on the Corn-laws, and as Such, he was sure it would be received by the country. The House had only two nights ago refused, by a large majority, to go into committee on the Corn-laws, and under these circumstances he was resolved to resist this motion, and to divide the House upon it, if it was pressed.
Mr. G. Heathcole
confessed that nothing had fallen from any hon. Member who had spoken on this motion to alter the opinions which he had formerly expressed upon this subject; and if the hon. Member who had last spoken, divided the House, he should certainly vote with him. The measure which was now proposed, Was not a new one. The proposal of the hon. Member who had brought forward the motion, had been tried before, and had been found a failure, as the greatest frauds were constantly committed; flour having been admitted into bond, and chalk having been taken out in return. It not unfrequently happened that ships took flour and bread on board, afterwards using them as ship's stores, and the bonds were not enforced. He would have this, as well as every other portion of the system inquired into. The strongest possible feeling prevailed amongst the agricul- 668 turists and farmers in his district against this measure, in a district, too, which was not so far from Hull. He felt convinced that the table would be loaded with petitions against a bill on the subject if the agriculturists once thought that such a measure were likely to pass.
§ Sir J. R. Reid
hoped that the agriculturists would act liberally towards the shipping interests in this as in all other instances. He trusted that the hon. Member for Lincolnshire would withdraw his opposition, and permit the question to be discussed fairly in the proposed committee.
§ Mr. Labouchere
thought the course pursued by his hon. Friend, the Member for Hull, an exceedingly fair one. In his opinion, this power of converting foreign wheat into flour in bond, would be a very great benefit to the commercial interest, without incurring the smallest danger of infringing the provisions of the Corn-laws. Although he was as strongly opposed as any man to the existing system of corn-laws, yet if he thought that the proposed measure would have a tendency insidiously and indirectly to undermine the operation of the Corn-laws, so long as those laws existed, he would most strenuously oppose it. He had always considered the alarm entertained upon this subject by the country gentlemen to be quite groundless. He was somewhat surprised to hear the speech which had been delivered by the noble Lord, the Member for Shropshire. Four or five years since, great alarm prevailed amongst the landed interest lest the privilege accorded to the Channel Islands, with reference to foreign corn, should lead to an illicit importation of grain into this country. He had had the pleasure of meeting the noble Lord upon that occasion, and they had carefully inquired into the subject. The result of this inquiry was, to produce the conviction in their minds, that the statements which had been made upon the subject, had been greatly exaggerated, and that this valuable boon conferred upon these dependencies of the British Crown was productive of no injury to the landed proprietors of England. He entertained sanguine hopes, that as the result of the proposed committee's labours, a measure would pass the Legislature conferring this important privilege upon the mercantile interests. Our West Indian possessions and Newfoundland took large quantities of flour, no mills existing among 669 them. If this measure were carried, they would be enabled to take this foreign grain from our ports in the shape of flour, which if unground, they could not consume. This would be also a boon to the labouring population, who would be presented with all the advantages which these various branches of industry would generate. By the existing system they made a present of this branch of trade to Hamburgh and other foreign ports.
§ Mr. A. White
said, as the measure proposed by his hon. Friend would be a very great boon to the shipping and commercial interests of the country, he trusted a majority of that House would not refuse inquiry, so that some safe system might be found out to carry it into effect.
§ Sir J. Graham
hoped that the motion would not be pressed to a division. He entirely concurred with the view which had been taken by his noble Friend, the Member for Shropshire. He differed wholly from the right hon. Gentleman opposite with respect to the Corn-laws. The right hon. Gentleman opposed them; he strenuously supported them. He supported them, because he was firmly persuaded that the protection of agriculture by agraduated scale of duties—the only mode which he believed would be either effectual or permanent— was essential to the general interests of the community. It was his earnest desire to enforce that protection as little vexatiously as possible. In a former Session, when a bill was introduced upon this subject by the hon. Baronet, the Member for Dartmouth, he had opposed it as tending to encourage fraud. It was only upon this narrow ground that a measure like this could be resisted. Into the proposed inquiry he was prepared to enter; but he did not think the terms of the hon. Member for Hull's motion altogether unobjectionable. He did not think that an inquiry as to the means of carrying on this manufacture should be referred to a committee. The subject referred to them should rather be, whether it was practicable by any means to secure the revenue, and prevent the illicit intrusion of foreign corn. It would then be for the House to consider as to ulterior measures. He would suggest, that these words should be added to the motion—"to consider whether it was possible, without fraud to the revenue, to devise means for the grinding of corn in bond." He trusted that there would be no division.
§ Mr. Mark Phillips
felt the importance of the subject so much, that he had placed in the paper a notice of his intention to introduce a bill during the present Session. He did not complain of the hon. Member for Hull having taken up the question, and he would shortly state his reasons for taking so much interest in the question. He thought they ought to give every possible scope to the enterprise of the merchants, but he never wished to do so in contravention of any existing law. Whenever a demand was made for flour the merchants were compelled to go into the ports of the Baltic in order to supply the markets of the United States and the Brazils, and those voyages were attended with considerable expense and loss of time. He recollected hearing Mr. Poulett Thompson state, a few years ago, that owing to the deficiency in the crop in the United States there would have been a very considerable demand for flour from England, if at the time they had been permitted to grind corn in bond. Most of the seaports in America had no means of converting grain into flour, and their supplies always came from the interior in the shape of flour. On that occasion it would have been of great advantage to the Americans, and a great convenience to our merchants, if they had been permitted to supply the demand. He thought an arrangement could be made by which that object might be accomplished, while at the same time security was given that the revenue should not be defrauded. It was a notorious fact that under the new bonding system goods of the most valuable description were allowed to be transferred from London to Liverpool, or to any other part of the country which had the advantage of canal communication, without any loss whatever to the revenue. It had been stated, he believed, before that Committee, that no loss to the revenue had occurred from the abstraction of property in transit; there had occasionally been losses by forfeiture of bonds on account of the insufficiency of the bonds given in the first instance, but there had been no pilfering or abstraction of property during its transit. He could not conceive any great difficulty with respect to security in this case. It had been tried with respect to sugars now refined in bond, and though at first there had been some practical difficulties these had been overcome. With respect to 671 the bran so manufactured, if the duty were to be paid equal to the present 20 per cent, ad valorem, he thought it probable great advantage would be derived by the manufacturing interests. He was informed by a large house that in the making 410,000 printed calicoes they had consumed 250 tons of bran that year. Bran was an article that was always extremely dear in manufacturing districts, and if Gentlemen would compare its price there and in the agricultural districts, he thought they would find it to their interests to introduce larger quantities there. He had no doubt in his own mind that such restrictions might be introduced as would enable these manufactures to be carried on with perfect security; but a Committee of Inquiry was the proper place for this to be fairly and properly settled. There was one other argument he would suggest, as it was important to give every inducement to industry within our reach. It would be found there were other branches of industry that were promoted by it. He had thought at one time exportation might be effected in sacks, but he found he was mistaken, and that barrels must be employed; so that they would form a new branch of trade, namely, the cooperage, which would give employment to a large number of individuals. All this, however, was matter for consideration by the committee, who, he trusted, would agree on such measures as should best give an impulse to industry.
§ Mr. Warburton
had no objection to the hon. Member for Hull amusing himself with a committee if he liked. He had no doubt but that he might do so without opposition, but when he brought in a bill founded on the evidence taken before that committee, it would fare in the same manner as the bill brought in last year by his hon. Friend below him, the Member for Dartmouth, which was permitted to be read a second time, but when they came to discuss the provisions by which it was proposed to guard against fraud, they were not permitted to enter upon the consideration of them, for on the motion that the Speaker do leave the chair, preparatory to going into com- 672 mittee on the bill, the right hon. Baronet opposite mustered all his forces, and the bill was thrown out. This was, in fact, the farce after the serious drama which had recently been performed in that House. The hon. Member for Lincoln, had said, that no new arguments had been brought forward which had not been brought forward in favour of the former system, which had been found to be attended with fraud in its operation. Now this was not the measure which had been brought forward before. The principle was different. With regard to sugar, when a certain quantity of raw produce was taken into bond, and a certain quantity of manufactured sugar, allowed to be exported, which was assumed to be the product of the raw sugar, frauds took place; the same thing occurred with regard to flour, when it was assumed that a certain quantity of corn could produce a certain quantity of flour, which was to be the quantity exported,—but that was not the principle now proposed. The principle now proposed was, that the whole of the manufactured article produced from the raw material should be exported,— the same principle had been applied to sugar, and had been found to answer. He believed his hon. Friend might amuse himself with a committee if he liked, but that when he brought forward his practical measure he would find he would be defeated.
said, that many hon. Gentlemen who had voted for the second reading of the bill of the hon. Member for Dartmouth, had also voted for the Speaker leaving the chair to go into committee on that bill, because they believed the measure to be harmless as regarded the Corn-laws, while they thought it would conduce to the advantage of the shipping interest, so that the hon. Member for Bridport, was not quite justified in the accusation he had brought forward against all those who had supported the second reading of that bill. He hoped the House would allow an inquiry to be gone into, because he was sure the measure would be found to be perfectly harmless as regarded the landed interest.
§ Mr. G, Palmer
would not quibble with the motion. It was clear that if the House did consent to a committee, that that committee would be composed of Members who were favourable to the principles of the hon. Mover, and who 673 would make a report favourable to his views of the question. The committee would be no doubt a partial one. It appeared that there were two points in which the motion could be considered; the first was, the consideration of grinding foreign corn without injury to the revenue; the second was, the effect it might have upon the consumption of British grown corn. As to the first point he felt satisfied that there would be a great difficulty in providing against frauds which were always known to take place when grinding corn occurred on account of the various forms which it assumed, and the opportunities it afforded of being mixed with other material. That, however, was a fiscal consideration for the Government, and not for an individual Member, and of secondary importance when compared with the other consideration, namely, the permission to grind foreign corn in bond for the purpose of exportation. The necessary effect of such a law would be to supply with foreign corn the colonies, the ships, the coasting vessels of our shores, and in fact every place without the precincts of the kingdom, to the total exclusion of home grown corn. He, therefore, would oppose the motion.
wished to make an observation, in consequence of his hon. Friend, the Member for Hull, having revealed a private communication that had taken place between them. His hon. Friend certainly told him that his intention was to constitute the committee entirely of country gentlemen; but he had referred to what had taken place between them, with a view of unduly influencing the judgment of the House at his expense. His hon. Friend had recommended his motion, on the ground that he had said the refusal of the motion would throw odium on the other side. That disclosure was not correct. The only question between him and his hon. Friend was as to the time; and he had recommended the motion of his hon. Friend to be brought on after the House had rejected the motion for a committee on the Corn-laws, which they were sure to do, as it was very unpopular. His hon. Friend then said, "Oh, I am sure to carry it, for Lord this and Lord that, and Sir Charles the other, have promised me their support." All that he had said was, that he did not consider the objection was as to the details, but as to meddling; with the 674 Corn-laws at all; and that, as no opposition was to be offered to the motion, his hon. Friend had better bring in a bill at once. He never begged him to withhold his motion on account of casting odium on the other side. It might do some good, and he did not see how it could prejudice anybody.
§ Mr. Hutt,
after the extraordinary speech of his hon. Friend, the Member for Wolverhampton, must make an observation. It was true this was a private conversation, but his hon. Friend had stated, two years ago, in that House, that his objection to this bill was, that it would remove from the Corn-laws a portion of that odium which he thought they justly deserved. [Mr. Villiers—No.] That was the impression on his mind. If he had misunderstood his hon. Friend, he must return the compliment by saying his hon. Friend had most egregiously misunderstood him. With regard to the motion before the House, he begged to state it was his determination to deal honestly with all parties.
§ The House divided. Ayes 126; Noes 54;—Majority 72.
|List of the AYES.|
|Acland, Sir T.||Egerton, W. T.|
|Aglionby, H. A.||Ellice, rt. hon. E.|
|Aglionby, Major||Ellis, W.|
|Baines, E.||Ewart, W.|
|Baldwin, C. B.||Fielding, J.|
|Baring rt. hon. F. T.||Finch, F.|
|Barnard, E. G.||Fleetwood, Sir P. H.|
|Barron, H. W.||Goulburn, rt. hon. H.|
|Bernal, R.||Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.|
|Bewes, T.||Greg, R. H.|
|Blackburne, I.||Greig, D.|
|Blake, M. J.||Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.|
|Blake, W. J.||Guest, Sir J.|
|Bowes, J.||Harcourt, G. G.|
|Briscoe, J. I.||Hawes, B.|
|Brotherton, J.||Heathcoat, J.|
|Busfeild, W.||Hector, C. J.|
|Callaghan, E.||Hepburn, Sir T. B.|
|Canning, rt. hn. Sir S.||Heron, Sir R.|
|Childers, J. W.||Hope, hon. C.|
|Clay, W.||Houstoun, G.|
|Clements, Lord||Howard, hon. E. G.|
|Clive, hon. R. H.||Howard, F. J.|
|Collier, J.||Howard, P. H.|
|Colquhoun, Sir J. C.||Ingham, R.|
|Courtenay, P.||Irving, J.|
|Craig, W. G.||James, Sir W. C.|
|Currie, R.||Johnson, General|
|Darlington, Earl of||Jones, J.|
|Douglas, Sir C. E.||Labouchere, rt. hn. H.|
|Duncan, Viscount||Langdale, hon. C.|
|Duncombe, T. S.||Lascelles, W.|
|East, J. B.||Lincoln, Earl of|
|Lister, E. C.||Shaw, right hon. F.|
|Litton, E.||Sheil, right hon. R. L.|
|Lushington, C.||Stanley, hon. E. J.|
|Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B.||Stuart, W. V.|
|Marsland, H.||Stock, Dr.|
|Melgund, Viscount||Strult, E.|
|Morris, D.||Sturt, H. C.|
|Muntz, G. F.||Style, Sir C.|
|Norreys, Sir D.||Teignmouth, Lord|
|O'Brien, W. S.||Thompson, Alderman|
|O'Connell, M. J.||Thornely, T.|
|O'Conor Don||Tufnell, H.|
|O'Ferrall, R. M.||Verney, Sir H.|
|Parker, J.||Vigors, N. A.|
|Parker, R. T.||Villiers, hon. C. P.|
|Patten, J.||Wall, C. B.|
|Pattison, J.||Warburton, H.|
|Pease, J.||Ward, H. G.|
|Pechell, Captain||White, A.|
|Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.||Williams, W.|
|Pendarves, E. W. W.||Williams, W. A.|
|Philips, M.||Wodehouse, E.|
|Pigot, D. R.||Wood, G. W.|
|Power, J.||Wood, Colonel T.|
|Rawdon, J. D.||Worsley, Lord|
|Rice, E. R.||Wrightson, W. B.|
|Roche, W.||Wynn, C. W.|
|Russell, Lord J.||Yates, J. A.|
|Scrope, G. P.||Hutt, W.|
|Seale, Sir J. H.||Sandon, Viscount|
|List of the NOES.|
|Bagge, W.||Lygon, hon. General|
|Bailey, J.||Mackenzie, T.|
|Bell, M.||Macnamara, W.|
|Benett, J.||Martin, T. B.|
|Broadley, H.||Maunsell, T. P.|
|Brownrigg, S.||Mordaunt, Sir J.|
|Buller, Sir J. Y.||Neeld, J.|
|Burr, H.||O'Brien, C.|
|Codrington, C.||Packe, C. W.|
|Darby, G.||Palmer, G.|
|Dunbar, G.||Parker, M.|
|Duncombe, W.||Perceval, hon. G. J.|
|Duncombe, A,||Plurnptre, J. P.|
|Du Pre, G.||Pusey, P.|
|Eaton, R. J.||Richards, R.|
|Estcourt, T.||Rolleston, L.|
|Fitzroy, H.||Round, J.|
|Fleming, J.||Rushbrooke, R.|
|Freshfield, J. W.||Rushout, G.|
|Gore, O. W.||Spry, Sir S. T.|
|Grant, Sir A. C.||Stanley, E.|
|Hale, R. B.||Vere, Sir C. B.|
|Handley, H.||Verner, Colonel|
|Harcourt, G. S.||Waddington, H.|
|Henniker, Lord||Winnington, H.|
|Hodges, T. L.|
|Knatchbull, Sir E.||Christopher, R.|
|Knightley, Sir C.||Heathcote, G. J.|