HC Deb 16 February 1841 vol 56 cc633-46
Mr. Cresswell

rose pursuant to the notice he had given, to move that— This House will upon Tuesday, the 23rd day of this instant February, resolve itself into a committee of the whole House, to consider of the following address to her Majesty, that is to say, that an humble Address be presented to her Majesty, praying that her Majesty will be graciously pleased to take into consideration the Report, bearing date 12th May, 1840, made by the Commissioners to whom it was referred to examine and adjudicate upon the claims of certain British subjects, for losses sustained by the seizure and confiscation of their ships and cargoes by the Government of Denmark in the year 1807, and that her Majesty will be graciously pleased to advance to such claimants the amount of their respective losses as ascertained by the said commissioners, and to assure her Majesty that this House will make good the same. The hon. and learned Member briefly alluded to the facts of the case, and to the classes of claimants—those who had ships and goods, and those who had goods ashore and book debts. He had hitherto been opposed by the Government; but he would not then enter into the merits of the question. If, however, he should hear any new arguments urged against the motion, he should use his privilege of replying to them.

Mr. Hutt

said, I rise for the purpose of seconding this motion. It has been with feelings of regret that I have for some time observed the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer give to this subject the same opposition as his predecessors, and adopt all the ex parte considerations by which they were influenced. From the straightforward, manly character of my right hon. Friend, I would have imagined that he would not interpose his authority to prevent the compensation justly due to those claimants. With every feeling of respect, I must say, that I believe the right hon. Gentleman does not understand the merits of this case. When this British property was seized by the Danish Government the British Government had seized upwards of 1,300,000l. worth of Danish property, without providing any protection for British merchants. That property was always represented and understood to be intended as a fund from which compensation should be given to the British merchants who were sufferers by the course pursued by our Government. These persons have constantly since that time down to the present period, pressed their claims. The House of Commons has ordered payment to be made to two classes of claimants—to those who had claims for book debts, and to those who had their goods seized in the ports. Now there is a third party demanding compensation, those who have had their ships and cargoes seized at sea by Danish men of war. I cannot see how the right hon. Gentleman can oppose himself to their application. The judgment of the House has been on two several occasions pronounced in their favour; and I am sure, Sir, that it does not become the character of this House, to do that which would be considered monstrous in a court of justice, to reverse the decision which it has twice pronounced, when there are no new facts by which its judgments can be influenced. I cannot think the House will do so; still less can I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth, who has ever shown the greatest regard for maintaining the character and consistency of the House, would recommend such a course. For my own part, I must say, that, having advocated those claims for nine years, it is with feelings of indignation I am compelled to come forward on this occasion. A large sum of money was obtained previous to the war at the sacrifice of British property. Surely no one will pretend that the object was to plunder the owners? I hope the House will do them fair and honourable justice. They ought to be paid not only the principal, but I am quite sure that those claimants whose case has been so improperly delayed, ought to receive compensation for that delay. I will not further trouble the House on this occasion; but I will say that this is not a party question. The House has twice declared itself in favour of these claims; and I trust it will not now reverse its decision.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

was sorry, after what the hon. and learned Gentleman had said, to announce that he should not only follow the course of his predecessor upon this question, but was fully prepared to appeal for support and approbation to the House, and even to the country at large. The hon. and learned Gentleman was a skilful advocate, and he brought to bear upon this question his habitual adroitness. The hon. and learned Gentleman always put this question as between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the claimants. That was a most adroit way of putting the question certainly; but the real question was, were they justified in calling upon the people of England to pay those claims. Were they justified in taking the money out of the pockets of other people, to put it into the pockets of these respectable persons residing in Liverpool and Hull? From the best consideration he had been able to give the subject, he was of opinion that they had no right to call upon the public to do so. The hon. and learned Gentleman, and the hon. Gentleman who had followed him, had carefully avoided all allusion to that portion of the question. He had alluded to the decision to which the House had already come. He admitted, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had had one decision in his favour; but the first decision which had been come to, and been come to by the very Parliament which had directed the other classes of claims to be paid, had been against the claims which the hon. and learned Gentleman was then advocating. In accordance with the expressed opinion of the reformed House of Commons Lord Spencer had given way, and admitted the claims of the two first classes of claimants, which claims had been paid. The very claims which the hon. and learned Gentleman was now advocating had been submitted to that House, and it had refused to admit them. It was remarkable also, that Sir James Mackintosh, who was the first to bring the subject of the Danish claims before Parliament, had in his speech on that occasion only alluded to those claims which had since been settled. Those were the only claims which he thought the country called on to pay. In that speech Sir J. Mackintosh had stated, that there were certain acts which the Danish government had committed contrary to the laws of war and the laws of nations; by those acts British subjects had suffered wrong. The English Government, at the making of peace, had a right to call upon the Danish government for compensation for these wrongs. It had, however, neglected for some reason or other to do so, and the right hon. Gentleman had argued, that in consequence of having thus neglected its duty, which was to enforce these claims as against the Danish government, it had taken upon itself the duty of compensating the English subjects, who ought to have been compensated by the Danish government. That the claims now brought forward by the learned Gentleman had never entered into the contemplation of Sir James Mackintosh, appeared still more clearly from the calculations which he had made on the subject. On that occasion, Sir James Mackintosh had stated, that the outstanding claims amounted to about 200,000l., but that they had been reduced by various circumstances to about 100,000l. Now the Government had already paid 284,000l. on account of those claims, and here was another class of claims now brought forward, amounting to an additional quarter of a million. It was obvious that there was a great distinction between these claims and those which had already been paid. Denmark was bound to pay the other classes of claimants; she might have been compelled to pay them; but there was no doubt, that according to the laws of war and the laws of nations, Denmark was perfectly justified in confiscating the property in question. She was perfectly justified in making this seizure; consequently no claim could be brought against Denmark, and no claim could be made against her for compensation. The grounds on which the former claims had been voted did not exist in the present instance. It was stated, that we having received a large sum of money for seizures taken from Denmark were bound to give compensation to these claimants. He knew not on what ground the hon. and learned Gentleman assumed that they were in possession of that sum of money. As far as he could ascertain, after the expenses of the captors and of adjudication had been liquidated, and the other expenses had been paid, the sum remaining had, if not the whole, at least, by far the larger portion of it, had been already paid for those Danish claims which Parliament had already voted. The payment of those claims had, as nearly as possible, eaten up the whole of the money received as the produce of those seizures. The hon. and learned Gentleman had contended, that those claims ought to be satisfied out of the droits of the Crown, but as he had before stated, the hon. and learned Gentleman was mistaken, if he supposed that, after paying the expenses of the captors and the payment of the claims already liquidated, there was any surplus remaining. [Mr. Cresswell expressed his dissent.] He could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman, that after paying captions, and expenses, and other claims, it would be found that there was scarcely any surplus remaining, certainly nothing like the amount of 100,000l., or 200,000l., as the hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine. He admitted, that if the claim were founded on justice the amount of the claim ought not to be taken into account. But if there were Gentlemen there, who were under the influence of that active canvass which he knew had been carried on, he warned them that the case was not a trifling one, and that which happened once might happen again. He thought it necessary to caution them, that they would not be voting a quarter of a million, but a million in full. There were five cases of the same nature, in which he believed similar claims would be put forward, and he would tell them, that they knew not what might happen if they once opened their doors to such applications. It was supposed, that the Danish claimants were the only claimants of the kind; but if the House should grant the motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman they would have similar claims submitted to them by those whose property had been seized by the Spanish Governments for the amount of 60,600l. The more they admitted such a principle, the more would parties endeavour to avail themselves of it. If they let in one end of the wedge the rest would be sure to follow, and they would find, that the annual expense in meeting such claims would form a very large item in the public expenditure. The hon. and learned Gentleman had urged the claim then under their consideration, at a very unusual time—before they had voted any of the supplies on the estimates for the army, the navy, or other public expenses. But let them look to the nature of the claim itself. He found, that there were out of the million about 55,000l. paid to Insurance offices. Now he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not see why the underwriters should come and recompense themselves out of the taxes of the country, which they were to put into their own pockets, because they must have been remunerated in other ways for the risk they had run. But why did not the underwriters pay the parties? If they received high premiums for the risks of war, they were liable to the payment. The risk they ran was one which they willingly incurred, and they ought not to look to the nation for the money which they lost. He did not think he need detain the House any further, but he would again state to the House, that if they consented to pass that vote they would agree to a resolution which included a large sum of money to parties who had already received a quarter of a million, and they would at the same time agree to a principle the extent and termination of which no man in that House could determine.

Sir Walter James

hoped, that in taking the subject into consideration they would argue it on its own merits, and would not be misled by those arguments foreign to the question, which the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had introduced in his speech. The right hon. Gentleman stated, that the amount of these claims was extremely large, and so endeavoured to make an impression on the House. These claims had undergone a most rigorous investigation, and the House would perhaps be surprised to hear, that the amount of the debts amounted to no more than 225,000l. Perhaps it might be urged, that the time for bringing forward the motion was not well chosen, inasmuch as a large deficiency had been experienced in the public revenue for the last two or three years. But he would submit to the House, that that was no reason whatever for rejecting claims, founded substantially on justice and on equity. The right hon. Gentleman said, that the payments which had been made into the Treasury, and the money seized, were entirely eaten up by the sums paid to former claimants. But it should be remembered, that the country would have been obliged to have gone to other purses if it had not received a large sum from the Danish government. The right hon. Gentleman had said, that the period chosen for the motion was an extremely inconvenient one, and that it was really too bad that it should be brought forward before any of the public estimates were voted. He could not help complimenting his hon. Friend on the period at which he had thought proper to bring forward this motion. It was an excellent opportunity for the House to put in practice the maxim—"Be just before you are generous,"—to practise that economy it was ever so ready to profess. It appeared to him, that these parties had an unanswerable claim upon the House on account of the two votes they had come to last year; on the 24th May, 1838, and 18th June, 1839. Let the House only consider the expense to which they had put these parties. They had been put to all the expense of investigation, and it would be hard if this measure, which had proved the justice of their claims, was to be made only an aggravation of injustice. He hoped the House would support his hon. Friend's motion, because he was satisfied of the justice of the claim itself, and because he thought, that it would be consistent with the honour, dignity, and character of the House, having admitted the principle, not to recede from carrying it into effect.

Mr. Hawes

confessed his opinion was precisely the same as the hon. Gentleman's. He also had constituents who were interested in this question, and he should vote for the payment of these claims, because they were just. He was not at all intimidated by the prospect of being called to account at some future day to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded, and which remark he thought had been improperly thrown out, to disturb their judgment. There were three classes of claimants, two of whom had been paid—those which were founded on book debts, and those which were founded on property on shore had been paid. The only property respecting the claim of which there could be any doubt by the law of nations, was that which the right hon. Gentleman hesitated to pay. He asked him to point out any difference whatever between these classes. He had listened attentively to hear of any difference, and had heard of none. He had heard nothing laid down in justice or principle, to deter him from giving his vote in favour of these claims. It had been twice argued, and on a former occasion means had been resorted to to postpone its payment, which he did not think consistent with the honour of any Government. When, on the 24th May, 1838, a motion for this purpose was carried by a majority of thirty-four, instead of complying with the vote, the Chancellor of the Exchequer directed the amount of the claim should be scheduled, but not examined. Now, the House had then heard the whole claim argued, and had come to a decision upon it, and he had yet to learn the propriety of any Minister afterwards opposing the payment. If there had been any doubt upon the subject, the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer would have been right in opposing the claim to the utmost. Two classes out of the three had been satisfied by the Government, and he should undoubtedly continue to vote for the payment of the other.

Alderman Thompson,

said, with respect to insurance offices, when they insured property they received premiums according to the risk which they ran. He would join issue with the right hon. Gentleman opposite as to the very grounds on which these claims were opposed—because those ships' cargoes were insured, the claim ought to be refused. Now four or five times the amount of premium would have been charged had the case which took place been contemplated, and therefore the right hon. Gentleman's argument would not stand. He conceived, that when the House, by a majority of three to one, in the year 1839, directed that the commissioner should proceed and adjudicate on the claims, it substantially decided, that those claims ought to be paid, and were just. The right hon. Gentleman ought not to represent this as a question between the House of Commons and the merchants of Liverpool. It was a question that concerned all the traders of the kingdom. The question to be decided was, whether the merchants and shipowners of England should have justice done to them by the payment of 250,000l. or not. He would certainly give his most strenuous support to the measure.

Mr. O'Connell

was fully convinced, that the claim was a just one, and ought to be paid. Indeed, the case was a good deal stronger than the learned Alderman had put it, because, in the first place, the insurers never could have contemplated the risk, although the general words of the policy covered that defect. He really was surprised at the opposition that had been given to the motion. For a number of years the entire claims were contested, and then a part was conceded, on the ground that the seizure of debts was against all international law—the seizure of goods on shore was resisted in like manner; but the House decided, that the Government ought to pay them, and did make it pay them. Now, in the present case, the shippers of cargoes were informed at the Admiralty, that no war whatever was in contemplation against Denmark, and it might be said, that the Government actually induced them to send out their cargoes, and yet that claim, in spite of the repeated decisions of Parliament, the Government now resisted. Economy was certainly an excellent virtue in a Government, and one which ought to be in all cases practised, but common honesty was superior to economy and ought to be the rule of conduct. It was said there was no war whatever with Denmark, but there was something very like it in practice, and something very advantageous to those who got the Droits of the Admiralty, to the amount of 1,300,000l. and out of which ample compensation might be made to the merchants whom they deceived into sending out their cargoes. The Government had thought fit to make a present of the Droits of the Admiralty for the purpose of making improvements at Windsor. It deceived the British merchants when they sent out their cargoes, and now, in spite of the repeated decisions of the House, the Government refused these parties redress. He hoped, however, that the vote of that night would put an end to the matter.

Mr. Ingham

considered that the objections of the right hon. Gentleman did not apply to the case before them. The House had on two occasions solemnly sanctioned the motion of his hon. and learned Friend, and it was shameful now if they had not the moral courage to put the parties in the way of getting satisfaction for their claims. The right hon. Gentleman did not deny, that the decision of the House had been in their favour, but his objection was, that he himself had taken a different view of the case. He thought it most unjust in the right hon. Gentleman to withhold his assistance from the parties in obtaining their money. The right hon. Gentleman had relied upon the first division, in 1836, when the majority was against the claims; but the right hon. Gentleman did not state what the amount of the majority was, or what were the numbers in the House. He knew that discussion had taken place at the close of the Session, when there were not one hundred Members in town—and when the majority did not exceed eight. Now it was perfectly well known that the greater number of the Members attending the House at the close of the Session were the friends of Ministers, and it was therefore impossible to suppose, that such a decision would at all weigh against the decisions which the House had twice come to since. On those grounds he would give his strennous support to the motion of the hon. and learned Member.

Mr. Goulburn

did not hesitate to say, that his opinion on the subject remained unchanged. He was quite ready to admit, that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was equally entitled to hold his former opinions on the subject, and might very properly abide by that decision to which the House had already come. He was not influenced in his opinion by the amount of the demand if the claim were a just one, and if it would not be attended with fatal consequences he would at once say to the Government pay it; but his ground was, that if they made that particular payment there never would be a war hereafter, or those circumstances which led ultimately to a war, which would not ultimately involve them in claims which it was impossible to calculate, because it was impossible to calculate the activity of the enemy's cruisers against merchant vessels. It was no uncommon case that an embargo was laid on, and in particular circumstances that step might be followed by a war, and if in such cases were they to make allowance to the underwriters, or those who insured in consequence of the warlike measures taken by the country, there would be no end to the expenses they would be called upon to defray. He thought such a step would strike at the best energies of the country, and he should therefore give his vote against the hon. and learned Gentleman's motion.

Mr. Andrew White

said, the notion of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer was, that if these claims were admitted, other similar ones would be brought forward on future occasions; but he contended that every claim should stand upon its own foundation, and he believed that the present one was founded injustice, for it ought to be recollected, that when the expedition was sent out in 1807 against Denmark, the country understood we were in a state of profound peace with that power, and therefore quite unprepared.

Sir C. Grey

said, in voting as he intended for the present motion, he wished to guard himself from being supposed as pledged hereafter to vote for compensation to private individuals in case of losses consequent upon war. The facts of the present case were special, and as such he considered himself at liberty to pursue the course he then followed. The claims made in this instance were of a threefold nature. They were as follow; claims in respect of the confiscation of debts; claims in respect of the confiscation of property on shove; and claims in respect of the confiscation of ships and cargoes, including the charges of insurance and freight. It had been allowed, that according to the law of nations, Denmark had not been entitled to confiscate the property on shore, nor the debts, nor such goods as were in their own warehouses. And if that was the case, the British Government was called upon to demand from Denmark such compensation as would satisfy the loss. Then, if this Government had neglected to do this, they were liable to be asked by the sufferers to make them that compensation which they required. The hostile movements which had led to the state of things that produced this conduct on the part of Denmark had been different from the origin of most wars. This had not commenced in an embargo being laid upon any Danish vessel or subject, but had been caused by the fact of England's receiving intelligence of the intention of a powerful enemy of her's to seize the Danish fleet, with a view of turning it against this country. Under these circumstances the Danish fleet was seized by England. Acting under the very natural, however they might be hasty, feelings caused by this seizure, and not aware that the intelligence the English Government had received with respect to the intention of her enemy, was correct, which had been subsequently proved, Denmark had declared war against this country; and these circumstances might have justified the Crown in appropriating to the uses of the revenue the money derived from the seizure of the fleet. Then if that money had been so applied, it appeared to him tolerably clear and just, that those who suffered in consequence of the retaliation of Denmark should be compensated, and more especially if they considered the particular circumstances of the country. If those claims had been made before the money in question had been spent, he apprehended there could be no possible objection to allow them. In voting then for the present motion upon its own particular merits, he trusted he had satisfied the House that he did not therefore hold himself bound to vote for future claims for compensation for injuries which might be the inevitable result of war.

Lord John Russell

did not deny what had been stated by his hon. Friend, the Member for Lambeth, that there was a great difference between the case now before the House, and those other two in which compensation had been given. But he thought his hon. Friend had signally failed in making out a reason for voting for this motion. The hon. Gentleman had said that, with respect to the book debts and the goods seized on shore, these did not come under the class of ordinary seizures in time of war; and that the Government had therefore either of two courses to choose—either to call on Denmark to make reparation, or to do so itself. But his hon. Friend admitted that the present case was different from those. This was a case of ordinary capture in time of war. It had been stated by the hon. Alderman, the Member for Sunderland, and the hon. Member for Hull, that in all cases like the present, when the Government had not made a public declaration of war, or given notice to the insurers, of the approach of war, the public ought to make compensation for losses. Could anything be more dangerous than this? There might be a great expedition preparing in the ports of another country to invade this; and it might be necessary to take steps to prevent the invasion. Would it be contended that the Government was to give notice of the preparations which it thought necessary to make, for intercepting the armament before it reached our shores? It was said, that the sum now claimed was a very moderate one—no doubt it was so, but if they consented to pay one quarter of a million they would be setting a precedent which would entail upon them claims to a much greater extent. It was said by the hon. Baronet that Denmark was much irritated—no doubt she was, and he thought she had much reason to be so. Her capital had been bombarded—she was a great sufferer, so that, in fact, she was very naturally much irritated, and he (Lord John Russell) did not think it was either rashness or showed any want of prudence in her going to war with the country which had done her so much damage. His hon. Friend said, they would be perfectly safe in paying the present claims, because they would never again meet with such a case. He could tell his hon. Friend he was much mistaken, for we might yet be thrown into war with other countries, and if the House allowed themselves to be bound to refund anything but that which was lost by anything done against the law of nations, or the rules of just war, they would open a door to most extravagant claims—if they acknowledged the present claims, they would go much beyond anything which had ever been done before. He felt bound to go much further, and say, that they were not bound to indemnify any particular classes. If it, was necessary, for the security of this country—of the whole community—if they should in certain cases be obliged to step out of the usual usages of war, the whole community had the benefit of the act—the shipowners of Hull, Sunderland, and Liverpool, had the benefit of it, and they had no right to come forward as individual claimants, and say they had the benefit of the general protection of their country, but their country could not vindicate its honour without their claiming' to the very last farthing for any losses sustained by them in consequence of a due prosecution of a necessary war, and one carried on strictly according to the law of nations. If the House of Commons persisted in acknowledging such claims as those now brought forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman, they would recognise claims for which no precedent was to be found in past history; but if the motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman were to be agreed to, many would be found in our future history.

Mr. Cresswell,

notwithstanding what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was sure the House would go along with him in saying that there was nothing improper in the feeling which had brought him forward. Unless he had been urged to it by his constituents, he would never have brought before the Mouse a question of that nature, and he trusted that hon. Gentlemen would think that he was justified in speaking on behalf of certain firms in Liverpool. The right hon. Gentleman, like many other persons who had disagreeble things to encounter, was never pleased with the time which was chosen for this discussion. If he (Mr. Cresswell) came late in the Session all imaginable objections were made; he was told that there was no money for him, and that he should not have delayed his motion to so late a period. If he came early, he was met with the objection that there was no money in the Exchequer, and asked why he had come so soon. Now, he thought the best plan was, to bring it forward at an early period of the Session, when he could expect a full House, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with the numbers on that occasion. His (Mr. Cresswell's) opinion upon this subject was still that which he had expressed when he first brought the subject before the House. He for one, could never understand that they had any right to call upon Denmark to make compensation for the book debts and the goods on shore. He never could understand what pretence they had for such demands. Was there any complaint against Denmark? Had she committed any wrong against this country? Had we asked for redress for any wrong or injury which we had suffered? No. But, notwithstanding we had no such complaints to make, they had laid an embargo upon the ships of that country; we had sent out cruizers to capture her vessels wherever they could find them; we had sent out powerful armaments to slaughter her subjects and to seize her fleet; and it was now said, because the Danes had in turn taken the property of some of our ship-owners and merchants, that these must receive no compensation, that the Danish government was justified in taking it, and the owners must put up with the loss. But this was not a case of war. He totally denied that it was a case of war, and he hoped that this would never be made a precedent for other cases; that the country would never be in the same straits again, and therefore, would not be induced to resort to similar practices. What was their own statement to the Danes, at the time that this expedition was undertaken? What was the proclamation made? Why, that they came to their shores not as enemies, but in the way of self defence. Was there any war at that time? Was it consistent with the notion of a state of war? If it was a state of war, and it took place according to the ordinary usages of nations, why was that State Paper put forward in 1837 to justify these proceedings? Did the Government attempt to justify its proceedings upon the ground of war? No such thing. He trusted, therefore, that under all the circumstances, the House would vote, as it had voted, for the compensation of the Danish claimants.

The House divided: Ayes 127; Noes 96: Majority 31.

List of the AYES.
Aglionby, H. A. Antrobus, E.
Archdall, M. Knatchbull, right hon. Sir E.
Bailey, J.
Baillie, Col. Knight, H. G.
Bainbridge, E. T. Langdale, hon. C.
Barnard, E. G. Lascelles, hon. W. S.
Bell, M. Leader, J. T.
Bentinck, Lord G. Liddell, hon. H. T.
Boldero, H. G. Litton, E.
Bolling, W. Lockhart, A. M.
Bramston, T. W. Lowther, J. H.
Broadley, H. Mackenzie, T.
Bruges, W. H. L. Mackenzie, W. F.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Maclean, D.
Burr, H. Martin, J.
Canning, rt. hon. Sir S. Mathew, G. B.
Chapman, A. Molesworth, Sir W.
Chute, W. L. W. Morgan, O.
Cochrane, Sir T. J. Muntz, G. F.
Colquhoun, J. C. Neeld, Jl.
Coote, Sir C. H. O'Connel, D.
Craig, W. G. O'Connell, M. J.
D'Israeli, B. O'Conor, Don
Douglas, Sir C. E. Ord, W.
Dunbar, G. Ossulston, Lord
Duncombe, T. Pakington, J. S.
Duncombe, hon. W. Philips, M.
Easthope, J. Pigot, R.
Egerton, Lord F. Plumptre, J. P.
Eliot, Lord Praed, W. T.
Ellice, E. Pryme, G.
Ewart, W. Reid, Sir J. R.
Feilden, W. Richards, R.
Fielden, J. Rushbrooke, Col.
Ferguson, Col. Rushout, G.
Filmer, Sir E. Salwey, Colonel
Fox, S. L. Sandon, Viscount.
Freshfield, J. W. Scarlett, hon. J. Y.
Gladstone, J. N. Scholefield, J.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir C. Scrope, G. P.
Grimsditch, T. Shaw, rt. hon. F.
Hamilton, Lord C. Sheppard, T.
Harland, W. C. Sibthorp, Colonel
Hawes, B. Stanley, E.
Hepburn, Sir T. B. Stuart, Lord J.
Hindley, C. Stuart, W. V.
Hodgson, R. Strickland, Sir G.
Hogg, J. W. Style, Sir C.
Holmes, W. Tennent, J. E.
Hope, hon. C. Thesiger, F.
Hope, G. W. Thompson, Mr. Ald.
Hotham, Lord Trench, Sir F.
Houstoun, G. Verner, Colonel
Hume, J. Vivian, J. E.
Humphrey, J. Waddington, H. S.
Ingham, R. Wallace, R.
Inglis, Sir R. H. Warburton, H.
Irton, S. White, A.
Jackson, Mr. Serg. Williams, W.
James, Sir W. C. Wilshere, W.
Jones, J. Wodehouse, E.
Jones, Capt. Wood, B.
Kelly, F.
Kemble, H. TELLERS.
Kelburne, Viscount Cresswell, C.
Kirk, P. Hutt, W.
List of the NOES.
Ainsworth, P. Alston, R.
Baillie, H. J. Marshall, W.
Baines, E. Maule, hon. F.
Baring, rt. hon. T. F. Morpeth, Viscount
Bellew, R. M. Muskett, G. A.
Benett, John Nicholl, J.
Bernal, Ralph O'Ferrall, R. M.
Bewes, T. Paget, F.
Bodkin, J. J. Palmerston, Visct.
Bridgeman, H. Parker, M.
Brotherton, J. Parker, R. T.
Busfeild, W. Parnell, rt. hon. Sir H.
Chalmers, P. Pattison, J.
Chetwynd, Major Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Chichester, Sir B. Redington, T. N.
Clements, H. J. Rich, H.
Clive, E. B. Russell, Lord J.
Corbally, M. E. Rutherfurd, rt. hon. A.
Cowper, hon. W. F. Seymour, Lord
Currie, R. Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.
Dennistoun, J. Smith, G. R.
Divett, E. Smith, R. V.
Egerton, W. T. Somers, J. P.
Ellice, rt. hon. E. Stanley, Lord
Ferguson, Sir R. A. Stanley, hon. W. O.
Fitzalan, Lord Stansfield, W. R. C.
Fitzroy, Lord C. Steuart, R.
Fremantle, Sir T. Stock, Mr Serg.
Gladstone, W. E. Strutt, E.
Gordon, R. Surrey, Earl of
Goulburn, rt. hn. H. Tancred, H. W.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J. Thornely, T.
Grant, Sir A. C. Townley, R. G.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. Trotter, J.
Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H. Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Hastie, A. Turner, E.
Hawkins, J. H. Vivian, Major C.
Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J. Vivian, rt. hon. Sir R. H.
Hobhouse, T. B. Wall, C. B.
Horsman, E. Wilbraham, G.
Hoskins, K. Wood, C.
Howard, hn. C. W. G. Worsley, Lord
Howick, Viscount Wrightson, W. B.
Labouchere, rt. hon. H. Wyse, T.
Lister, E. C. Yates, J. A.
Listowel, Earl of Young, Sir W.
Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B. TELLERS.
Macnamara, Major Stanley, hon. E. J.
M'Taggart, J. Tufnell, H.
Back to