HC Deb 07 July 1842 vol 64 cc1117-30
Sir R. H. Inglis,

in rising to bring forward a motion respecting the secret proceedings of election committees, said, that he felt himself somewhat embarrassed, because he had been given to understand that the committee over which the hon. Member for Bath presided had made its report to the House. [Mr. Hume: No, no!—agreed to it.] Then he was quite in order in moving the resolution to which he had given notice, and it was this:— That in all the proceedings of the committees specially appointed to investigate the charges of alleged corrupt compromises and bribery in respect of the late elections for the boroughs of Nottingham, Reading, Harwich, Lewes, Falmouth and Penryn, Bridport, Belfast, and Southampton, respectively, the parties accused or implicated in such charges shall at all times, save at such times only as the said committee shall deliberate thereon, be entitled to be present at such committees, irrespectively of the right which such of them as may be Members of this House have to attend all committees, except secret committees of the same. He thought he might say with absolute confidence that no Member of that House would vote against such a proposition; some might not assent to it; but without wishing to be offensive, he defied any one to vote against it. Those who were not able to comply with it might move the previous question; but they could not venture directly to negative such a proposition as this—that an accused person had a right to enter the court before which he was to be tried. Again and again he must declare that this was a case in which a person was tried on accusations made before a tribunal, and from which he was excluded. It was no preliminary inquiry; a direct charge was made by an hon. Member in his place in that House, and on his motion a particular tribunal was appointed for the purpose of trying the person against whom the charge was made. He was afraid of wearying the House by restating that which he had already stated more than onc.e—that the hon. and learned Member for Hath distinctly made a charge against individuals, and said he would fix and crucify those individuals whom he alleged to be guilty of that which he called a crime before their countrymen; and it was under those circumstances that the hon. and learned Member had prevailed upon the House to grant him that tribunal before whom those he accused were called to appear as witnesses. He contended that they had a right to be present throughout the proceedings; and the only consideration which might have induced him to pause in bringing forward his motion would be that the committee had made its report; but even if that had been the case, he should think he was best discharging his duty by changing the terms of the resolution, and introducing it as a resolution laying down a principle the application of which might be left to future cases, if any such should arise—an occurrence, however, of which he had little fear, for he believed no such committee as that referred to would ever again be granted. But, be that as it might, he was free from the necessity of considering the point, when he was informed that the committee had not yet brought their labours to a close; and in consequence the only matter he had to insist on was the right of an accused person to hear the charges brought and the evidence adduced against him. He was told by the hon. Member for Harwich, as well as by others who had attended the committee, that the proceedings were conducted with courtesy; but let him ask, what security had they that such courtesy would be shown in other cases? He wanted to establish the principle, and he said again that he believed no one would be found to negative the abstract proposition, and if that were so, then, let the fate of the motion be what it might, it could only be got rid of indirectly. In deference to the House, as much as in deference to the advanced state of the proceedings before the committee, he would not attempt to support this motion by any lengthened statement. He repeated again, that he believed it would be impossible to find any Member in that House, and he ventured to hope he should find no one out of it prepared to enunciate as his principle, that an accused person was not entitled to be present when accusations were made against him. The hon. and learned Member for the county of Cork had suggested to him that these regulations were not laid down by the committee over which he presided, or by the committee sitting on the business of the Southampton election. But if his motion was good for anything, it was good as a principle not applicable only to present, but to all cases. He contended that it ought to be made a matter of right that accused persons might be present if they pleased, with the single exception of occasions when their judges were sitting to deliberate among themselves. Such being the circumstances, and such being the principle, he would conclude by putting his motion in the shape of an abstract proposition in the hands of the Speaker, leaving its application to this or any future tribunal, and impressed with a full conviction that the principle he laid down was unimpeachable.

Mr. Roebuck

was exceedingly sorry to be obliged to trouble the House on this occasion, but he could not help remarking that he was entirely at a loss to know why this motion should have been brought forward at all. The hon. Baronet said it went to establish a principle, and he inferred that he would not leave the application of that principle to the individual discretion of the chairman of a committee. Now, he would appeal to the hon. Baronet's own judgment to say, was it left to the individual discretion of the chairman? And why should he come down to that House with a proposition of this sort, carrying its own refutation, and put forward as it seemed to him merely ad captandum? There were on this committee eight Members besides himself: the House had intrusted to them to conduct a delicate inquiry; it had left to them a certain discretion as to the mode of conducting it, and all they asked was, that the House should continue that discretion until they saw cause to withdraw it. Having granted that discretion, this motion implied a direct censure upon their employment of it. It was an interference with their proceedings without any cause assigned. If the hon. Baronet would have waited until the proceedings of the committee were laid on the Table, he would have acted wisely, and would have done no harm to his cause. At that moment their report, as regarded five of the cases referred to them, was printed. It would soon be in the hands of Members. What then did the hon. Baronet want? What did he desire to effect by this motion? All they said was this— So long as we conduct the inquiry fairly, without any appearance of hostility to any one so long do we think we shall best fulfil the commands of the House. And certainly, in exercising the discretion put into their hands, they were of opinion that they should best conduct their investigation—not in public, so that their proceedings might be published in the newspapers day by day—but without public interference, in a private and friendly manner, for friendly they had been, and he was glad to say continued to be. So long as they got the evidence from the parties themselves—so long as they were without the necessity of resorting to hostile sources for information, so much would it be the better for the parties concerned; and he might add, that for the purpose of the inquiry, which was merely to elucidate examples of a system, it would be far better than any course they could otherwise adopt. He would venture to promise the hon. Baronet, that in a few days he should see the whole body of the evidence taken by the committee, and he would there find such statements as the House could not possibly acquire by any other means, and as, he would venture to say, would not be disputed by any of the parties. This evidence was given by those concerned; it was given by themselves, of themselves, about themselves, and concerning their own acts. What could he say more? All he could add was, a repetition of his advice that the House should wait a little while longer—should continue to the committee the discretion they used, and he hoped had not abused, and then the House might do what it pleased. What he entreated, and what he thought he had even a right to demand, was that hon. Members would not cast a censure on the proceedings of the committee, before they knew what had been done. One word as to the hon. Baronet's challenge to the House. No one had attempted—no one, to use his own term, dared to dispute that when a man was brought to trial he should see his accusers face to face; but there might surely be inquiries as to personal matters, with regard to which it might not be desirable that the parties should interfere; and if they could obtain evidence in such cases without resorting to third parties, he did say that it was infinitely better than to run the risk of the annoyances which would result from pursuing a different system. But, above all, he said, let the House wait and see what the committee had done, and not attempt to rush hastily into a matter of which it could know nothing. He sat down with the most perfect assurance that the House would continue its confidence in the discretion of the committee, and would adopt no resolution implying a censure on the conduct of the committee.

Mr. R. Scarlett

said, the hon. Member for Bath had implied that every witness before his committee was to state what he himself knew, and to make no charge against any other person. Now this was curious, for if a witness stated what he knew of his own knowledge, in all probability he would implicate some other person. It was quite possible, that when the report of the committee was published they would find in the evidence a vast variety of accusations against individuals, which, on examination, would be found inconsistent with facts, and with regard to which those individuals would say that had they been called before the committee, or allowed an opportunity of hearing them, they could have rebutted or explained away the allegations. This appeared to him to be a very possible result, and it was therefore highly necessary, not only for the sake of private justice, but for the public satisfaction, that the parties accused should be admitted to hear the charges.

Mr. B. Escott

hoped that the hon. Member for Bath would not attribute to him that he entertained any desire to impute to him, and to him alone, the outrageous acts the committee had been guilty of on the confession of their own chairman. He did not impute those acts to the hon. and learned Member any more than to any other Member of the committee, but he presumed it would not be thought very extraordinary if he drew the conclusion that the deliberations and proceedings of that committee would be very much guided by the superior learning, intelligence, and ability of the hon. Member for Bath. The hon. Member told them that they were to judge of the committee by their conduct. He did so, and he found that a part of that conduct was to prevent the parties implicated from being present to hear the evidence given against them. He presumed the hon. and learned Member adhered to that determination, and, not knowing whether the report of the committee might be final or not—not knowing how much longer they might choose to sit and deliberate, he did think it highly desirable that they should adopt the principle embodied in this resolution. The hon. Member told them that he excluded the parties for their own benefit. Now he was not particularly anxious to benefit these parties. He wished, all who bought or sold in boroughs to pay the just penalty for so doing. He did not desire certainly that they should be punished with the extreme severity suggested by the hon. Member—that they should be put to the tortures he would inflict upon them—but he did wish them to be properly punished, and he was not to be told that these proceedings were to be carried on in secrecy, because the parties whose dirty practices were to be inquired into were to have their feelings carefully considered. Why should not all the courts be shut against parties either implicated or interested? Because feelings might be hurt by letting in the light of day on evidence by means of which crime was to be punished. He confessed he did not understand the principle laid down by the hon. Member for Bath. He said cross-examination was to be avoided, because he wished that all the proceedings of the committee should be conducted without offence to the feelings of any one. Why, he had always thought that cross-examination was the best security which was provided by the law of England for the elucidation of truth. But, said the hon. Member for Bath, it would be very inconvenient, and would interrupt the harmony of the proceedings of the committee; he called upon the House to wait until they had seen the report; and in the gentlest terms he said or implied that it was drawn in so mild a form, that nobody's feelings would be hurt. He would certainly wait to see the report before he formed any opinion upon the evidence; but what he wanted to know was, why feelings should be allowed to interfere with justice, if such a term could be applied to the proceedings of the committee? He might be wrong; but he had formed an opinion, and, whatever the House might think of it, he would tell them what it was; he suspected that there was another compromise. He might have been hasty in coming to such a conclusion, but he suspected it from the tone and language of the hon. and learned Member for Bath. What a contrast between the indignation he showed when he denounced the corrupt practices he alleged to have taken place— what a contrast between the language which fell from him when he took the House by storm, and the gentle tone in which he now spoke of the feelings of parties whom he formerly denounced. Seeing such a change, he could not help suspecting, that there had been a compromise— that the whole matter was to end in some gentle, mild report, which could not, by any possibility, injure the feelings of any one. The House showed itself anxious to probe the whole charge made by the hon. Member for Bath to the very bottom, and they had armed the committee with powers accordingly; but now they were to be put off with a report which would make them all look foolish at their having allowed themselves to be taken by the stormy invectives of the hon. and learned Member. He would not say, that the hon. and learned Gentleman would be haunted by any of those feelings of foolishness, but he must say, that he thought the hon. and learned Member had been very ill-advised, when he allowed himself, and induced the committee, to depart from the acknowledged and regular rules of judicial investigation. From the moment the hon. and learned Gentleman declared in that House that the accused were not to be allowed to be present at the inquiry into the charges brought against them, from that moment all the importance which the people of England attached to the proceedings of the committee was gone—utterly annihilated. He did not care what might be the result of the report promised by the hon. and learned Gentleman, but he would tell him that he must in it convince both that House, and the intelligent, thinking part of the public, that he had a strong case, which had justified him and the committee in departing from the regular and established principles of fairness which governed all temples of justice, and to which this committee was the only exception.

Mr. Labouchere

would confine himself strictly to the question before the House; it was not whether the committee had or had not properly used the discretion given to them, by closing their doors. Upon that point he felt himself compelled to suspend his judgment until their report had been laid on the Table of the House, and he saw how they had conducted the important inquiry intrusted to them by the House. At the same time, he must say, that if the charge made against them — if he found it should turn out that they had inculpated individuals in the dark—if they had conducted judicial inquiries without giving ample opportunity to the parties charged to hear the charges and make their defence, he should consider that they had acted improperly and irregularly. But that was not the question before the House; it was, was the House prepared to step out of its way to interfere with the discretion of a committee relating to a resolution to which they were informed they were unanimous in coming? In his opinion, the House would deal unfairly and unjustly with the committee if they interfered with them in the manner sought by the hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford. It was a motion for which he had been unable to find any precedent, and one to which he hoped the House would not give its assent. They were now informed, that the committee had concluded their labours in respect of five of the cases which had been referred to them—that, in fact, the report was printed, It would, therefore, be highly inexpedient for the House to interfere, and require the committee to carry on the remaining inquiry in a manner different from that in which they had thought it their duty to conduct the previous ones. Upon these grounds, he should be prepared to give a negative to the motion.

Sir R. Peel,

in making up his mind upon the motion of his hon. Friend, would throw out of consideration all regard to the committee now sitting; in fact, they knew nothing of it; but he must say, that if the House had no confidence in it, it would be better that a motion should be made, rescinding the resolution which appointed it, but if the House continued the committee, let it have the full confidence of the House and a free exercise of discretion. Surely the House would not make a retrospective rule, and require the committee again to go over the ground it had cleaved. Would they, then, make a prospective rule, applicable to future committees? Would it be wise for the House to lay down a rule which would have the effect of controlling the conduct of all future committees? He, for one, was not prepared to lay down a rule which would so control all commit- tees to be hereafter appointed as that they should have no discretion as to whom they should admit to hear their deliberations—that they should not have power to say to parties who might be implicated by their proceedings, "You must retire." He was not prepared to say that all parties implicated in charges which were under investigation before a committee should have an absolute right to insist upon being present, even against the opinion of the committee communicated to them. Supposing such a rule to be laid down,—charges were sometimes made in committees of the whole House; inquiries were sometimes made at the Bar, in which individuals were implicated; would it then be right that those parties should be able to invalidate the act of Mr. Speaker, to invalidate the standing orders, or even to set at nought the unanimous vote of the House by insisting on being present; or that they should have the power to rescind that order of the House which requires that the House should be cleared if one Member should remark that strangers were present? He much doubted the policy of making such a change. He thought it infinitely better that the House should, when they appointed such a tribunal, leave it to the discretion of the committee either to exclude or to allow the presence of such parties as they pleased. There might be cases where charges were under investigation in which the presence of parties might defeat the ends of justice. Take the case of grand juries. [Sir R. Inglis: Before the grand jury only a preliminary inquiry is gone into.] That strengthened his argument, because the committee had no right to affect the rights of any one individual, but the grand jury had the power of sending any person charged before them to his trial, and if the bill was ignored by the grand jury, the party charged stood in a very different and a much better position in society than if they stated that a prima facie case had been made out against him; yet the party had not only no right to be in the grand jury-room, but he was expressly excluded by the law. Looking at the function committees were intrusted with, he did not think it would be wise to control them in the exercise of their discretion in the manner proposed by his hon. Friend. He was therefore prepared to give a decided "No" to the motion.

Sir R. H. Inglis,

in reply, said, he had worded his motion in the manner in which it appeared on the paper, because he was informed the committee had not yet reported, and of course the House was presumed not to know in what stage their proceedings were. His right hon. Friend had compared the functions of the committee to those of a grand jury, but he contended that there was no analogy whatever between the two tribunals, and for this simple reason—in the latter, the proceedings were for the purpose of inquiry, those before the committee were for the purposes of trial. He insisted the parties charged before that committee were on their trial. In election committees, the very first proceedings taken were to call in the parties, their counsel and agents, and he contended that the proceedings before the committee of the hon. and learned Member ought to be as open, for he contended the parties before them were on their trial. The hon. and learned Member for Bath could not deny that he had made certain charges before that House, sitting in the character of a grand jury. The charges were entertained, and sent before the committee, who were the jury for trial. [Mr. Roebuck: Investigation.] It might be called investigation at the Old Bailey; but still the investigations entered upon there were trials in every sense of the word. Personally he had nothing to complain of,— he had to return thanks to both sides of the House for the manner in which he was received when he felt it his duty to address them, and he had to thank the hon. and learned Member for Bath for much courtesy; but he could not, like his hon. Friend the learned Member for Winchester, pay him a compliment upon his learning and ability at the expense of the other Members of the committee, especially of the Member for Lambeth, who sat beside him, and whom he knew served upon the committee. With the exception of that hon. Member and one other he confessed, with something approaching shame, that he did not know of whom the committee was composed; but he could not pay them so bad a compliment as to suppose for one moment that they would allow themselves to be passive instruments in the hands of the hon. and learned Member who presided as Chairman. The hon. and learned Gentleman had himself admitted the principle for which he was contending: he said, if they were compelled to deal with hostile witnesses the doors would be thrown open at once. He further said, he had thrown aside his character of judge—he sat no longer in a court of justice—he sat now as father confessor in the confessional, turning an ear first to one side and then to another to hear all that parties had to say against themselves—to hear all that might be confided to him by willing witnesses. He thought, therefore, that the hon. and learned Member had practically conceded the point for which he contended. The hon. and learned Member for Bath said,— By the adoption of this motion, you pass a severe censure on the committee. We have adopted a particular line of conduct, and you, without knowing how this course has operated, censure us for pursuing it. He thought, however, that the refusal of the House to entertain this motion would imply a direct censure upon those committees who had made their proceedings public. If the right hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government had moved the previous question, he might not, perhaps, have thought it necessary to press his motion to a division; but, as the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to meet the question by a direct negative, he considered that he ought to take the sense of the House upon it.

Mr. T. Duncombe

hoped the House would adopt some rule for regulating the future proceedings of committees on the point at issue; and he moved the previous question.

Mr. Shaw

said, he understood the h o Baronet (Sir R. Inglis) to have stated that, if the previous question was moved, he would not press his motion to a division; but the hon. Baronet had now intimated that he felt bound to take the sense of the House on the subject. The substantial question was, he conceived, whether the proceedings before the committee, of which the hon. Member for Bath was Chairman, were in the nature of a trial. The difference between an inquiry—as before a grand jury—and a trial, was this—that in the former case only one party was heard, while in the latter the person accused had an opportunity of meeting the charges alleged against him. Before the committee appointed on the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, charges were made seriously affecting the character and conduct of individuals; and the report of that committee would be, in fact, a verdict as to the proof of those charges.

Sir R. Peel

said, it was alleged that certain parties were implicated in the charges made before a committee of that House, and that those parties were entitled to be present at the proceedings of the committee. The House was, then, called upon to say "Aye," or "No." If they considered that these parties had a right to be present, let the House say "Aye," but why should they have recourse to the previous question? He thought it was more advisable, when they could do so, to give a direct negative, than to avoid that course by affirming the motion of the previous question.

Mr. Aglionby

considered that the motion of the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Inglis) would not lead to any practical result. In the case of that committee, of which the hon. Member for Bath was Chairman, the evidence had been almost wholly heard, and the parties affected by that evidence had not been permitted to be present. He thought that it was right and expedient, as a matter of justice, that in all cases parties accused should have an opportunity of hearing the evidence against them. In this instance, however, the evidence had been heard, the committee had come to a decision, and the motion of the hon. Baronet could produce no result, as far as that committee was concerned. In the cases of the Belfast and Southampton committees, the parties implicated in the inquiry were allowed to be present; and it was, therefore, unnecessary for the House to affirm, by adopting the motion of the hon. Baronet, the propriety of the course which those committees had pursued.

Mr. Roebuck

said, the question was whether, by a general resolution of the House, they should deprive future committees, appointed to conduct inquiries of this description, of all discretion as to the exclusion of particular parties. In the case of the committee of which he was Chairman, the House allowed them to exercise a discretion. The committee had, in the exercise of that discretion, pursued a particular course; and he appealed to the House whether, under present circumstances, they were capable of judging whether the conduct of the committee was right or wrong. All he asked the House to do was, to suspend their judgment until the evidence taken by that committee was placed before them, and not to adopt a general proposition of this nature.

Mr. B. Escott

said, the question was, not what was the nature of the evidence taken before the hon. Gentleman's committee, but whether that committee had acted in a legal and constitutional manner. The hon. Member for Bath had not defended the mode in which evidence was taken by the committee; but he asked the House to suspend their judgment until the evidence was laid before them. Whatever might be the nature of that evidence, it must be unsatisfactory and nugatory, because it had been obtained in an unconstitutional manner.

Mr. C. Buller

did not understand what the hon. Member meant by asserting that this committee had proceeded in an unconstitutional manner. This committee, in taking evidence, had adopted the course usually pursued by committees of that Housse, as well as by commissioners appointed by the Crown. In the case of the committee appointed to inquire into the subject of slavery in the West Indies, evidence was taken affecting parties, who had no opportunity of refuting the statements which were made by the witnesses. With respect, too, to the recent inquiry into the state of the mining labourers, the committee went down into the mines and reported on the condition of the people, but they did not take the evidence of the owners or of their agents. In this case they could not determine whether the committee of which the hon. Member for Bath was Chairman, had acted in a constitutional manner with respect to receiving evidence, until they learned whether it was the intention of the committee to follow up the inquiry by penal measures. If the committee merely, inquired into the extent of the corruption which had prevailed, and into the compromises alleged to have taken place, and reported to the House the result of their investigation, with a view to future legislation, he thought the conduct of the committee had been in consonance with the usual practice. If, however, it was intended to follow up the inquiry by penal measures, then he thought it had not been conducted according to the forms of justice, for the parties accused ought to have had an opportunity of being present, and of refuting the charges made against them. He thought the course pursued by the hon. Member for Bath proved that he did not intend to propose any vindictive measures. He believed the object of the hon. Member was to obtain information which might enable that House to legislate for the public benefit. With regard to the Southampton and Belfast committees, which had adopted a different course to that pursued by the committee of the hon. Member for Bath, if they followed up their inquiries by recommending penal measures, he thought the parties affected by those measures would have no ground of complaint.

Sir R. Peel

could not see any practical difference between saying no to the proposition and voting for the previous question. The taking the division on the previous question would lead to two divisions, and so little willing was he to waste the time of the House by technicalities, that he would vote for the previous question, if, by so doing, two divisions would be prevented.

The House divided on the previous question: — Ayes 49; Noes 129: — Majority 80.

List of the AYES.
Adderley, C. B. Hughes, W. B.
Antrobus, E. Hussey, T.
Arbuthnott, hon. H. Johnson, Gen.
Attwood, M. Kemble, H.
Bagge, W. Law, hon. C. E.
Bateson, R. Leicester, Earl of
Browne, hon. W. Litton, E.
Buckley, E. Lockhart, W.
Chapman, A. Lygon, hon. Gen.
Chetwode, Sir J. Mackenzie, T.
Crawford, W. S. M'Geachy, F. A.
Cresswell, B. Mainwaring, T.
Dick, Q. Morgan, O.
Duffield, T. Mundy, E. M.
Fitzroy, hon. H. Palmer, R.
Forbes, W. Palmer, G.
Fuller, A. E. Rous, hon. Capt.
Gladstone, T. Scarlett, hon. R. C.
Goring, C. Shaw, rt. hon. F.
Gregory, W. H. Stewart, J.
Grimsditch, T. Trevor, hon. G. R.
Grogan, E. Trotter, J.
Halford, H. Vere, Sir C. B.
Henley, J. W. TELLERS.
Hervey, Lord A. Inglis, Sir R. H.
Hornby, J. Escott, B.
List of the NOES.
A'Court, Capt. Chelsea, Visct.
Aldam, W. Childers, J. W.
Baldwin, B. Clayton, R. R.
Bannerman, A. Clerk, Sir G.
Baring, hon. W. B. Cockburne, rt. hn. Sir G.
Baring, H. B. Colebrooke, Sir T. E.
Barnard, E. G. Denison, E. B.
Bentinck, Lord G. D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C.T
Berkeley, hon. Capt. Dickinson, F, H.
Berkeley, hon. G. F. Duncan, G.
Bernal, R. Dundas, Adm.
Blackburne, J. I. Eaton, R. J.
Blakemore, R. Ellis, W.
Bowring, Dr. Eliot, Lord
Brocklehurst, J. Elphinstone, H.
Brodie, W. B. Flower, Sir J.
Brotherton, J. Follett, Sir W. W.
Bruce, Lord E. Forster, M.
Buller, C. Fremantle, Sir T.
Busfeild, W. Gaskell, J. M.
Cardwell, E. Gill, T.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E. Peel, J.
Gore, M. Philips, G. R.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Phillpotts, J.
Graham, rt. hn. Sir J. Plumridge, Capt.
Greenall, P. Pollock, Sir F.
Greene, T. Pryse, P.
Hamilton, W. J. Rice, E. R.
Hamilton, Lord C. Roebuck, J. A.
Harcourt, G G. Rushbrooke, Col.
Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H. Scholefield, J.
Hastie, A. Scott, R.
Hawes, B. Seale, Sir J. H.
Hill, Lord M. Seymour, Lord
Hindley, C. Smith, A.
Hodgson, R. Smyth, Sir G.
Hope, hon. C Somerset, Lord G.
Howard, P. H. Stanley, Lord
Hume, J. Stansfield, W. R. C.
Humphrey, Ald. Strutt, E.
Hutt, W. Sutton, hon. H. M.
Jermyn, Earl Tancred, H. W.
Labouchere, rt. hn. H. Thesiger, F.
Langton, W. G. Thornely, T.
Lascelles, hon. W. S. Trench, Sir F. W.
Layard, Capt. Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Lincoln, Earl of Vane, Lord H.
Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B. Vesey, hon. T.
Macnamara, Major Villiers, hon. C.
Marsland, H. Waddington, H. S.
Masterman, J. Walker, R.
Mitchell, T. A. Wallace, R.
Morris, D. Watson, W. H.
Morison, Gen. Wawn, J. T.
Nicholl, right hon. J Wood, B.
O'Brien, J. Wood, C.
O'Connell, M. J. Wood, Col. T.
O'Connell, J. Wrightson, W. B.
O'Conor, D. Young, J.
Packe, C. W. Duncombe, T.
Peel, rt. hon. Sir R. Aglionby, H.