THE EARL OF CARDIGAN.

HC Deb 13 May 1841 vol 58 cc337-49

Mr. Muntz

rose to make the motion of which he had given notice, in reference to the conduct of the Earl of Cardigan, as Colonel of the 11th Hussars.

Lord J. Russell

expressed a hope that the hon. Member would not press his motion that evening.

Mr. Muntz

was very sorry that he could not comply with the noble Lord's request, as he was extremely anxious to bring the subject before the House with as little delay as possible, and particularly to do so before a dissolution could take place. He begged on the outset to disclaim all personal feeling towards the noble Lord whom his motion had regard to; in fact, he knew nothing personally of the noble Lord, never having even seen him. He would not have brought forward the subject at all, but that he had been urged by many parties to do so for some weeks past. Why they selected him, he knew not, unless it was that they were aware of his being unconnected with any party, and independent of all men. He had waited for some weeks in hopes that some older Member of that House would take the matter in hand, but, finding that such was not the case, and feeling that it ought not to be put off any longer, he was obliged to take it up himself. He hoped that in doing so the House would not consider that he was the Friend of disorder, or the enemy of discipline. On the contrary, no man had a higher sense of the necessity of preserving the discipline of the army than himself. But he was assured that the present questions had nothing to do with the discipline of the army. They were altogether of a private nature, but at the same time of such a character as to have disgusted a very large portion of the community. The immediate cause of his motion was, the flogging of a man on the Sabbath-day, but he would not have considered even that a sufficient justification for his interference, was it not that that was but the last of a series of misdeeds on the part of the noble Earl, which made it impossible to believe, that there was not something more culpable than neglect on his part. He understood that on the occasion referred to, the noble Earl had marched the men out of the riding school immediately after divine service, for the express purpose of having a place fixed for the punishment of the private, and that the punishment took place on the very spot where the clergyman had read the church service a few minutes previously; the men being marched back again to witness the proceeding. Now he was always opposed to flogging in the army; he thought it, under all circumstances, very objectionable; and particularly so as inflicted upon Englishmen. In the French and Prussian armies this species of punishment was not inflicted, and he did not see why it should not be abolished in the English army also. But admitting even that this punishment was necessary, surely there could be no necessity for its being inflicted on the Sabbath-day; or if there was some cogent reason for inflicting it on this day, on the present occasion, the public should be made acquainted with the fact; and the noble Earl ought to be glad of an opportunity of justifying his conduct in their eyes. There was a general feeling amongst the public of the existence of favouritism at the Horse Guards, in reference to the noble Lord in command of the 11th Hussars; and the impression prevailed that the conduct of the authorities, in regard to that regiment, was very different to what it would have been, under the circumstances, towards any other regiment in the service. This was not as it should be, for the public ought to have reason to believe, that in the army, as in other departments of the State, whether a man was noble or not, he was subject to the same laws as others. One great point, however, which went to confirm the impression of the public as to undue favouritism towards the Earl of Cardigan, was the fact that one of the Captain Reynolds was permitted to enjoy a long leave of absence on full pay, under the promise also that he should never again be called upon to serve under the Earl of Cardigan: and this he thought was very strong presumptive evidence of acknowledged misconduct on the part of the noble Earl, The fact was, that the noble Earl, with many excellent qualities, appeared to labour under a failing which rendered him totally unfit to command others; and that was a total want of command over his own temper, Now, to give a few instances of the way in which Lord Cardigan had managed the regiment under his command, he would beg to read to the House a few plain facts: — In two years, the regiment being 350 strong, the Earl of Cardigan had held 105 Courts-martial. In the same two years he punished in the defaulters' list upwards of 700 men. During the same period, 90 men were placed in Canterbury gaol. During twenty years in India, the regiment was 700 strong, and the punishments less than during the two years under the command of the Earl of Cardigan. During his command for one month, there were more Courts-martial and more men defaulters than in the preceding twelve months. In a following six months that he had not the command, there were only two Courts-martial. He refused Captain Reynolds leave of absence which he had previously given, on the ground that the verdict of a court-martial, of which Captain Reynolds was president, was contrary to his wishes. He frequently gave the lie to officers when on duty before the men. Now, when a commanding officer gave a subordinate officer the lie in face of the regiment, he would leave it to Gentlemen to say what a man was to do? If he did anything he could only cut him down with his sword, and then be shot for it. He (Mr. Muntz) would not detain the House longer. All he would say in conclusion was, that if he were placed in Lord Cardigan's situation, he should court inquiry; and if the noble Lord did not so court inquiry, there was the better ground to come to the conclusion, that inquiry was necessary. He had no alternative, therefore, but to move, in the terms of his notice, That a humble Address be presented to her Majesty, praying her Majesty to institute an inquiry into the conduct of the right hon. the Earl of Cardigan, during his command of the Eleventh Hussars, with the view of ascertaining how far such conduct has rendered him unfit to remain in her Majesty's service.

Mr. Macaulay

hoped to be able, in a few minutes, to state to the House sufficient grounds for dissenting from the motion of the hon. Member. His first objection was a very obvious one. It was a constitutional objection. He believed that the hon. Gentleman himself would admit, that while there was no prerogative of the Crown which that House was not entitled to offer its advice upon, yet it was neces- sary that, in offering advice on such points, it should be guided by a very sound discretion. Indeed, none but the most imperious reasons, in the most extreme cases, could warrant such interference with the royal prerogative; and he believed that, above all other prerogatives, in all well-organized states, the control of the army, and the awarding of rewards and punishments to military men, were considered most exclusively to belong to the supreme executive authority; and that such matters ought not to be submitted to large popular assemblies of men, who were too apt to be influenced by party and factious impulse. He did not deny, however, that there might be extreme cases in which such interference would be prudent and proper; but he did not think that the present was a case of that kind. He thought that her Majesty's Government ought not to counsel her Majesty to follow the advice of the hon. Member in the present case, whether that advice were concurred in by Parliament or not. With respect to the particular occurrence to which the hon. Member had referred, he had not hesitated, on a former occasion, to express the opinion he entertained of the conduct of the noble Earl on that occasion; but he must say, that whatever might be the faults of the noble Earl, he considered him as one of the most unfortunate men of the present time. Into the merits and demerits of the noble Earl's conduct, however, he would not go at present, but, viewing that conduct in whatever light it might deserve, he still said, that the present motion was highly objectionable, because, in all matters of this kind, they should be guided by general rules; they should beware how they hastened to take advantage of the unpopularity of an individual, to introduce a precedent which, if once established, would lead to the most fatal effects to the whole of our military system, and work a great injustice to all officers in her Majesty's service. What was the case of officers in the army? They bought their commissions at a high price, the interest of which would be very nearly equal to the pay they received; they devoted the best years of their lives to the service, were liable to be sent to all, and even to the most unhealthy parts of the globe, where their health, and sometimes their lives, fell a sacrifice. Now, was it to be expected that men of spirit and honour would consent to enter this service, if they had not, at least, some degree of security of the permanence of their situations. Certainly one of those securities was, that no officer should be deprived of his commission, except by sentence of a court-martial. There might certainly be exceptions; as, for instance, where an officer had done something which was cognizable by court-martial, but there were strong reasons why a proceeding of that sort should not be adopted. But to charge an officer by an ex post facto proceeding, without a court-martial, and of a nature not cognizable by virtue of the Mutiny Act, would lead to a great injustice, and a most fatal uncertainty in our whole military system. If some part of the statements which had been made were true; if the fact of the Earl of Cardigan having given the lie to one of the officers at the head of his regiment had been represented to the proper military authorities, notice would have been immediately taken of it. He could only say, that he never heard the smallest whisper of such a practice. With regard to the unhappy event of the flogging on the Sunday, be believed that no person acquainted with the military law of this country would be of opinion that that was an act on which, however flagrant it might be considered, as a breach of decorum, which a court-martial would condemn as a breach of military law. That opinion rested on the authority of Lord Hill, the Adjutant-General, and the Duke of Wellington, who said that, however great the indecorum might be of an act not included in the Articles of War, or the Mutiny Act, or the regulations of the army, it must be looked on as a casus omissus, which could only subject an officer to a reprimand by general order, and thus be raised to an offence which, in future, would make the party guilty of it liable to court martial. As to the proposition of the hon. Gentleman, for erecting that House into a penal court of inquiry, he must protest against it as a species of tribunal, dangerous and revolutionary. It would make that House, which had not the power to administer an oath to witnesses, or punish them if they prevaricated, a court for passing a sentence, which might ruin a poor man in the shape of a pecuniary fine, or in attaching a stigma to his name almost worse than death itself. With regard to the part which he felt it his duty to take on this question, he defied any Gentleman to imagine any motive which he could have beyond a regard to the performance of the duties of his office, and a regard for the interests of the service, in speaking- as he had done in behalf of a man with whom he had never had the slightest personal communication, whom he did not know by sight, and with regard to whom everything that he did know—apart from the unfortunate circumstances with which his name had been mixed up—led him to think he was a decided opponent of the Government of which he was a Member, and of the party to which he was attached.

Lord G. Lennox

was anxious to allude to one statement which had been made by the hon. Member for Birmingham. The hon. Member had stated, that the Earl of Cardigan had given the lie direct to one of his officers. That statement he would take upon himself to say was not founded in fact. On only one occasion, and then not at the head of his regiment, but in the dinner room, had something of the nature alluded to taken place. But the hon. Member had no right to bring that forward, because the matter had been arranged in a manner satisfactory to the feelings of both parties. The officer, who had received a reply in a moment of irritation, which he (Lord G. Lennox) admitted ought never to have been given, had subsequently received a satisfactory explanation from the Earl of Cardigan— an explanation which was equally honourable to the noble Earl who had given it, and to the officer who had received it. The hon. Member had alluded to the returns of the number of punishments which had taken place in the regiment since it had been under the command of the Earl of Cardigan. He (Lord George Lennox) knew not what those punishments were, but he did know when regiments returned to the United Kingdom, after an absence of twenty years in India, soldiers were in the habit of squandering their money, and that the discipline of regiments returning from foreign stations was, generally speaking, more lax than that of regiments which had passed the same period at home. After all, the only reason urged by the hon. Member for his motion was, that the Earl of Cardigan had flogged a man on a Sunday, for all his other acts had been approved by the Horse Guards, and if anything wrong had been done they were the proper people to be blamed. No man regretted that circumstance more than he (Lord Lennox) did: no man he was sure regretted it more than the Earl of Cardigan himself. It was done from no bad motive, and probably without thought. He would ask the House if any other commanding officer had been guilty of this act, nay, if the captain of a man of war had committed it, would it ever have been brought before the House of Commons; he ventured to say they would never have heard of it. He maintained that the Earl of Cardigan had been, and was still an abused man. Had he not been the Earl of Cardigan, the press would never have raised the cry it did. He would never have had the names of tyrant and of worse than a convicted felon applied to him. Again, the Earl of Cardigan had been hardly used by bringing him before a penal tribunal for doing what no British officer could help doing. Officers in the army were in a most awkward and trying situation with respect to duels. If they resented an insult, they were liable to fine and imprisonment; and if they did not resent an insult, they were dismissed from the service. He knew a case in which a difference having arisen between an officer and a civilian, the former was removed from the army, though four shots had been exchanged, because he was supposed not to have taken sufficiently early notice of the offence. The gallant Member for Armagh would, he was sure, confirm the statement which he had made, as he was cognisant of the transaction. Although he had no doubt that the Earl of Cardigan would be most happy to have the whole subject inquired into, yet he must resist the motion, as no grounds were adduced to support it.

Mr. W. O. Stanley

must be allowed to say that, when the rank of the officer was said to be the ground for attack, he could not help recollecting that officers who did not stand in so favourable a position, who had purchased their commissions and spent the prime of their lives in foreign countries, were dismissed the service without any display of that cherishing leniency which had been vouchsafed to Lord Cardigan. It was hard that such men, placed under the command of an officer whose temper seemed to be incorrigible, should be driven to acts which deprived this country of their service, and visited them with a sentence of disgrace by court-martial. He should support the motion.

Sir H. Vivian

said, that he did not wish to prolong this discussion, nor did he wish to conceal his unqualified disapproval of Lord Cardigan's conduct in case of the soldier that was flogged on Sunday; but, from a conversation which he had with Lord Cardigan upon the subject, he was sure that his Lordship's conduct in that transaction arose from an error in judgment; and Lord Cardigan had authorised him to express to the House his deep regret that he should have been led by an error of judgment to the commission of such an act—and to express the hope that no Member of that House would attribute to him the wish to be guilty of any act of an inhuman character from any other motive than erroneously believing it to be in the fulfilment of his duty. With respect to the charge of having given the lie to an officer, he did not admit that any such occurrence had taken place. Something had certainly occurred in a room which required an explanation at the time between Lord Cardigan and an officer of the regiment, but the matter was satisfactorily settled by that explanation. If it had not been so settled, and that a complaint had been made to the Horse Guards of Lord Cardigan having given such an offence, there could be no doubt that Lord Hill would have seen justice done by bringing the matter before a court-martial. He again expressed to the House, on the part of Lord Cardigan, that noble Lord's deep regret for the error into which he had fallen.

Colonel Verner

rose to confirm what had fallen from the noble Lord opposite (Lord George Lennox) as to an officer having been obliged to quit the service for not having taken notice in proper time of an offence given to him by a civilian, although he went out with his opponent, and they fired four shots each. The way in which he was removed from the service was, that it was intimated to him that he had permission to sell out and quit the service.

Mr. Ewart

said, that his right hon. Friend, in resisting this motion, concluded in a way which would seem to justify inquiry; for he insisted, that the delicacy of feeling and high spirit of British officers should be kept sacred by that House and the country. Seeing, then, that these had been injured—so far as they had any means of judging of the fact—he maintained that a case was made out for in- vestigation. Though there was no foundation for saying, that Lord Cardigan gave the lie to an officer at the head of his regiment, he had been confessedly guilty of an offence akin to it. Should the hon. Mover offer to prove the former assertion, was not an accusation so deeply affecting the character of the noble Lord worthy of inquiry? The noble Earl confessed to an error of judgment in one case. Were they not to inquire whether there were not other errors of judgment also committed? The noble Earl was defended on the ground of being a much abused man. How was this assertion to be proved but by inquiry? Feeling that that inquiry was due equally to the army and to the noble Lord, he should vote for the motion.

Mr. Warburton

, after the apology offered by Lord Cardigan for the case of flogging (which he had always considered the noble Earl's lightest offence), should not say a word on that subject. He remembered quoting, on a former night, Sir J. Macdonald's address to the officers of the eleventh hussars, in which he characterised the conduct of the noble Lord in some such words as these, "that it rendered the regiment unfit for service at home or abroad." He (Mr. Warburton), then expressed an opinion that if the conduct of the noble Earl was such as to reduce the regiment to a state of disorder, it was fitting, that the Horse-guards should institute an inquiry. For what did the public contribute to the cost of a regiment, if it were not, that either at home or abroad, it should be in a soldier-like condition? But were the public to pay for a regiment whose conduct had been characterised in such terms, and yet all inquiry stopped into the demeanour of the lieutenant-colonel by the commander-in chief? He could not understand that doctrine. On the last occasion he addressed the House, a gallant Member opposite, and the right hon. Secretary at War, denied, that he quoted the words of the address correctly. If he had known the present motion were coming on that evening, he should have taken care to bring the document with him. The words which he intended to have read amounted he believed, to this, that the discipline of the regiment had been materially affected by the conduct of the commanding officer. In justice to the public, then, and to the officer responsible for the discipline of the army, this inquiry ought to be entered upon.

Viscount Howick

retained the opinion he had formerly expressed, that it would have been for the advantage of the service if an inquiry had taken place at an earlier period by order of the Commander-in chief. Still he was not prepared to concur in the motion of the hon. Member for Birmingham, on the ground stated by his right hon. Friend, the Secretary at War— that although that House had undoubtedly the right of advising the Crown as to the exercise of its power over the army, as of all its other prerogatives, still that right should be exercised with the greatest caution, and only in extreme cases. He did not think there was sufficient ground for exercising their power in the present instance. He could not, however, help adding, that he greatly regretted that his right hon. Friend, the Secretary at War, had pushed his opposition to this motion so far as to make a statement not at all called for by the circumstances of the case, and which, if unnoticed, might lead to very serious inconvenience— namely, that no officer of the British army ought to be removed from his commission, unless he were guilty of some offence of which a court-martial would take cognizance. That was a proposition to which he entirely demurred; and, he was quite sure, the hon. and gallant Officer opposite, who was formerly Secretary at War (Sir H. Hardinge), would concur with him in thinking, that the Crown had the prerogative, and sometimes exercised it, of removing officers from their commissions, even when no distinct and specific offence could be charged against them. An officer might show himself generally unfit for command — incapable of performing the important duties of his situation—and it would then become the duty of the advisers of the Crown to remove him. That necessity was not removed by the circumstance, that the officer might have purchased his commission, for the Crown had the means of obviating that difficulty, by giving him permission to sell out. That was a course which it was by no means unusual for the Horse-guards to adopt, where an officer was unfit for the duties of his command.

Sir A. Dalrymple

advised the hon. Member for Bridport, when next he ventured to state the substance of a memorandum, not to come without a book. He took the liberty of contradicting the assertion when the hon. Member made it before. There could have been no such memorandum issued from the Horse-guards, as Lord Cardigan would not have been permitted to remain at the head of the regiment.

Colonel Salwey

considered it his duty —his painful duty —to support the motion. He considered the conduct of Lord Cardigan calculated to promote, not only disaffection, but disgust, in the ranks of the British army. The case at Hounslow was wholly unprecedented within his memory, and he had served thirty years in the army. It proved the commander wanting in judgment and discretion, and, therefore, unfit for such a position in the service as he held. No one had been bold enough during that debate, to say, that the 11th Hussars had not been found fault with by the Horse-guards. He should read Sir J. Macdonald's address to the regiment:— The commanding officer of the 11th Hussars should feel, that he has an arduous duty to perform; that he has not only to command and form for service a body of soldiers nearly newly raised, and entirely re-mounted and equipped, but a corps of officers either recently returned from service in a tropical climate, in which the habits and customs of the service, must differ from those in European service, or who have been but a short time in the army. He should view their errors with indulgent moderation, particularly if he should not have reason to believe, as the General commanding in chief feels confident he will not, that the errors are to be attributed to wilful disobedience, insubordination, or disrespect of his authority. He should never forget, that those placed under his command are so by the grant to them of the commissions of our gracious Sovereign as well as to himself, are officers in the service of her Majesty, gentlemen of education as well as himself, under the protection of her most gracious Majesty, of the authorities of the army and of the law, as long as they perform their duty, and conduct themselves as officers and as gentlemen ought. He must recollect, that it is expected from him not only to exercise the military command over this regiment, but to give an example of moderation, temper, and discretion, blended with the zealous activity and ability for which he is noted, which will tend to form others to be able hereafter to perform the high duties, which, in the course of their professional life, each of those placed under his command, may be called upon hereafter to perform. He should only further say, that any man who voted for this inquiry performed an act of friendship to the noble Earl.

Mr. Warburton

said, he had found the passage to which he alluded, and whether it made entirely for, or partly against him, he thought it but fair to read it to the House: — But the General commanding-in-chief feels, that he should only deceive the officers of the 11th Hussars, if he did not apprise them of his opinion, that the proceedings of the late general court-martial, and the various disputes amongst themselves, complaints and instances of disobedience, insubordination, and disrespect, towards the commanding officer recorded therein, as well as in the correspondence with the Adjutant-general, at the Horse-guards, must attract the serious attention of his Royal Highness, their colonel, her Majesty the Queen, her servants, and the public in general; and it is impossible, that it should not be felt, that the 11th Hussars is not in the state in which a regiment ought to be, in order to afford ground for confidence that it would, in quarters, or in the field, at home or abroad, render the efficient service which might be expected from a body of non-commissioned officers and soldiers so well trained and disciplined in the performance of their duty as light cavalry, in such good order, and uniformly so well conducted in their barracks and quarters; and this on account of the lamentable disputes and differences among the officers, their disrespect to their commanding officer, their disobedience and insubordination.

Mr. Hume

inquired, whether it was true, as had been stated, that Captain John Williams Reynolds had got two or three years' leave of absence with the understanding, that he should not be again called on to serve under Lord Cardigan, on condition of withdrawing his request to be allowed to sell out of the regiment. He also wished to know if leave of absence had been granted to Dr. Sandon, of the 11th Hussars?

Mr. Macaulay

had not expected those questions to be put, and, therefore, he was unable to give so detailed an answer as might otherwise have been expected. He could state, however, from a conversation he had lately had with the Adjutant-general, that the facts with respect to Captain Reynolds stood thus. When the regiment came from India, Captain J. Reynolds applied for leave to go to the Military College. The application was referred to Lord Cardigan; but as the regiment was then not in a high state of discipline, and short of captains, leave of absence was refused. Subsequently, however, the discipline of the regiment being improved, and there being no want of captains, he was, at his own request, suffered to go. He believed, that Dr. Sandon had also obtained leave, which would expire in a few days.

Mr. Muntz

, in reply, said, he had not asked for an unconstitutional inquiry, nor for an inquiry by that House, nor for a court-martial. Why, then, did the right hon. Gentleman infer, that he had? It was all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to shuffle and twist about, but no man should put words into his mouth. Every one who had spoken, had admitted that the noble Earl had committed a great outrage. If flogging on Sundays were to be permitted, they would soon have hanging on Sundays. But flogging a man within an inch of his life, was almost the same as hanging him. He denied, that be should have looked over this affair, if a poor man had been the person inculpated in it. He denied, that he was an enemy to the aristocracy. He was often blamed for supporting the aristocracy. For his own part, he made no difference between aristocrats and democrats, when any of them were in the wrong. He must say, he felt surprised, that the noble Earl had obtained promotion while so many other men had been passed for. All he asked, was an inquiry into the matter, because he disapproved of the system, because the flogging was given on a Sunday, and, therefore, a great outrage on public feeling, and because he thought it would do the noble Earl himself no little good.

The House divided:—Ayes 58; Noes 135: Majority 77.

List of the AYES.
Alston, R.	Ewart, W.
Armstrong, A.	Fielden, J.
Barnard, E. G.	Fitzpatrick, J. W.
Barron, H. W.	Grattan, H.
Barry, G. S.	Greig, D.
Blake, M. J.	Hastie, A.
Blake, W. J.	Hawkins, J. H.
Blewitt, R. J.	Hector, C. J.
Bridgeman, H.	Hindley, C.
Briscoe, J. I.	Hollond, R.
Brotherton, J.	Hume, J.
Bulwer, Sir L	Hutton, R.
Clements, Viscount	Marsland, H.
Craig, W. G.	Morris, D.
Crompton, Sir S.	O'Brien, C.
Currie, R.	O'Brien, W. S.
Denison, W. J.	Ponsonby, hon. J.
Dundas, C. W. D	Roche, Sir D.
Ellice, E.	Rundle, J.
Etwall, R.	Salwey, Colonel

Stanley, hon. W. O.	Wallace, R.
Stansfield, W. R. C.	Warburton, H.
Stock, Mr. Serjeant	White, L.
Strickland, Sir G.	White. S.
Strutt, E.	Wilbraham, G.
Style, Sir C.	Wood, B.
Thornely, T.	Yates, J. A.
Turner, E.
Turner, W.	TELLERS.
Villiers, hon. C. P.	Muntz, G. F.
Wakley, T.	Scholefield, J.

List of the NOES.
A'Court, Captain	Gordon, hon. Captain
Antrobus, E.	Goulburn, rt. hn. H.
Bagge, W.	Graham, rt. hn. Sir. J.
Bagot, hon. W.	Granby, Marquess of
Baillie, Colonel,	Grey, rt. hn. Sir C.
Baillie, H. J.	Grey, rt. hn. Sir G.
Baker, E.	Grimsditch, T.
Baldwin, C. B.	Hale, R. B.
Baring, H. B.	Hamilton, Lord C.
Barneby, J.	Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.
Bethell, R.	Harland, W. C.
Blackburne, I.	Hawkes, T.
Blackstone, W. S.	Henniker, Lord
Blair, J.	Hepburn, Sir T. B.
Blennerhassett, A.	Herries, rt. hn. J. C.
Bolling, W.	Hill, Sir R.
Bradshaw, J.	Hodgson, F.
Broadwood, H.	Hope, hon. C.
Bruce, C. L. C.	Hurt, F.
Buller, Sir J. Y.	Ingham, R.
Calcraft, J. H.	Irving, J.
Campbell, Sir H.	Jackson, Mr. Serjeant
Cantilupe, Viscount	Kerrison, Sir E.
Cartwright, W. R.	Kelburne, Viscount
Castlereagh, Viscount	Knightly, Sir C.
Christopher, R. A.	Lefroy, rt. hn. T.
Clay, W.	Lennox, Lord A.
Clayton, Sir W. R.	Lincoln, Earl of
Clements, H. J.	Lindsay, H. H.
Clive, hon. R. H.	Litton, E.
Cochrane, Sir T. J.	Lowther, J. H.
Codrington, C. W.	Lygon, hon. G.
Cole, hon. A. H.	Macauley, rt. hn. T.B.
Corry, hon. H.	Macnamara, Major
Dalrymple, Sir A.	Maidstone, Viscount
Darby, G.	Manners, Lord C. S.
Darlington, Earl of	Maunsell, T. P.
De Horsey, S. H.	Melgund, Viscount
D'Israeli, B.	Monypenny, T. G.
Dugdale, W. S.	Morgan, O.
Egerton, W. T.	Muskett, G. A.
Egerton, Sir P.	Norreys, Lord
Elliot, hon. J. E.	Northland, Lord
Estcourt, T.	Paget, Colonel
Fellowes, E.	Pakington, J. S.
Filmer, Sir E.	Palmer, G.
Fleming, J.	Parker, R. T.
Forester, hon. G.	Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.
Fremantle, Sir T.	Peel. J.
French, F.	Perceval, Colonel
Freshfield, J. W.	Polhill, F.
Gaskell, J. Milnes	Powerscourt, Viscount
Gladstone, J. N.	Richards, R.
Gladstone, W. E.	Rose, rt. hn. Sir G.

Round, C. G.	Trevor, hon. G. R.
Rushbrooke, Colonel	Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Russell, Lord J.	Vere, Sir C. B.
Russell, Lord C.	Verner, Colonel
Shaw, rt. hon. F.	Villiers, Viscount
Sibthorp, Colonel	Vivian, rt. hn. Sir R.H
Sinclair, Sir G.	Waddington, H. S.
Somerset, Lord G.	Wall, C. B.
Stanley, Lord	Walsh, Sir J.
Stanley, M.	Wodehouse, E.
Stuart, Lord J.	Wyndham, W.
Stuart, W.V.	Young, Sir W.
Sturt, H. C.
Teignmouth, Lord	TELLERS.
Thornhill, G.	Lennox, Lord G.
Trench, Sir F.	Seymour, Lord