HC Deb 29 June 1842 vol 64 cc755-70
Mr. Roebuck

presented the following report from the Election Proceedings Committee:— The select committee on Election Proceedings have to report, That on their first proceeding to the investigation of the matters referred to them by the House, the committee, after mature consideration of the best mode of carrying on the inquiry in which they were about to engage, unanimously resolved, ' That it was desirable, for the interest of the inquiry and all parties concerned, that no person should be present except the witness under examination. The committee have hitherto been able to carry out in practice the course which to them had seemed so necessary for the due discharge of the duty delegated to them; but the committee having now reason to believe that the right of Members of the House to be present at their proceedings will be insisted on, have unanimously resolved to direct their Chairman to call the attention of the House to the subject, in the hope that on this statement of their unanimous opinion, the course they have adopted will be sanctioned by the House. Report read. The question "that the report do lie on the Table,"

Mr. Roebuck,

on moving said, that he was commanded by the committee to state to the House the course they had pursued, the reasons which had induced them to take that course, and the grounds on which they considered it advisable that they should persist in it, in the hope that after such statement the House would, in the language of the report, "sanction the course which the committee had adopted." In the first place he should state, that in no case had there been on the part of the committee any dispute whatever of the privileges of the House or of its Members. The committee had on no occasion called in question the right of Members to attend their deliberations; but taking into consideration the nature of the investigation they were appointed to conduct, they had thought that they should best discharge the duty which they owed to the House, in consequence of the powers delegated to them, if, whilst they ever considered that their paramount object was to obtain the truth, they yet endeavoured to obtain that truth with the least possible pain to individuals. The committee felt that the House had delegated to them an inquiry for the general interest; that the House had no desire to pain individuals in making that inquiry, but that they only had for their object that the Legislature and the world at large should know the circumstances and extent of certain alleged practices, in order that, by legislative measures, they might put an end to such practices in future. But, whilst this was their end and aim, he repeated that he was sure the House had no other desire than that such an inquiry should be conducted on the broadest possible principles, without any personal pain being inflicted on individuals and without any consideration whatever to party views; and, believing such to be the feeling of the House, the committee had thought that they should be best discharging their duty if, when a witness was called, they were able to receive his evidence without giving him pain, and without the risk of that evidence being published to the public by piecemeal, or being bruited abroad in an unconnected, imperfect, and incomplete form-Now he had assumed that it was the purpose of the House not to inflict personal pain, and the consideration with the committee was, how could that object be best obtained? Was it best that the doors of the committee-room should be thrown open, and that, day by day, the evidence, with all its imperfections, should be given to the public in the newspapers? He knew it would be said that no Member of that House was likely to afford much information to the public prints, and he agreed that no one in the House would, with aforethought, communicate to anybody, out of doors, what ought not to be published. But yet they had no safeguard that, day by day, there would not be a publication of minutes of their proceedings; that some information would not escape, which it might have been as well for all parties to keep undiscovered. Now, the course the committee had taken to prevent this occurrence, he would state to the House precisely as circumstances had occurred. On the first day of the proceedings they had thought right to call before them the hon. Member for Harwich (Major Beresford). He would state to the House what had occurred, from the minutes made by their Clerk. ["No, no."] Well, then, he would state, from his own recollection, the substance of what had passed. ["No, no."] Very well; it being the opinion of the House that he should not refer to the proceedings, he would shape his communication accordingly. A difficulty having arisen, in consequence of an hon. Member having asked to be admitted—" [Order, order."] Why, in what was he out of order?

Mr. B. Escott

rose to order. He apprehended that it was the rule of the House that no hon. Member had any right to state what had occurred before a committee, until that committee had made its report.

The Speaker

said, the view taken by the hon. Gentleman was accurate. The hon. and learned Member for Bath must not allude to proceedings before a committee until that committee had first made its report to the House.

Mr. Roebuck

would, in that case, assume what might have occurred before the committee. This was no trifling case, and he hoped they would interpose no difficulty to prevent the House arriving at a proper conclusion, but that they would rather give every support in their power to those to whom they had delegated a very invidious office. Now, let them suppose this difficulty to arise—let them suppose that they felt it necesssry to explain to an hon. Member the course they thought it desirable to pursue. They could not do that without staling that they sought to infringe a privilege of the House. They were very desirous not to fall into that difficulty, and it was with a view to guard themselves against it that they implored the House to sanction their request. Now if, in the performance of their duty, they should think fit to determine that their Chairman should request of any Member who entered the room to listen to the request of the committee, and not to press upon them the invidious office of examining a witness in his presence, and also that the Chairman should state that this was the unanimous request of the Committee (and here he begged to remark that, although the committee was composed of Members of both political parties, there had not, since they met, been one difference of opinion among them on any point whatever, and that upon the point now under discussion they were completely unanimous)—supposing, he said, that the committee, through their Chairman, should feel it necessary to make such a request, and that the Member to whom it was addressed should not think right to comply with it, what, he would ask, in the event of such an occurrence, was the committee to do? In every case which had already occurred, the Members to whom such a communication had been made had, of their own accord, politely yielded to the views of the committee, and retired from the room; but the committee had, nevertheless, good reason to know that they could not enforce any rule for exclusion which they might consider it necessary to lay down. Now, if any hon. Member thought exclusion a hardship, he might, possibly, soften his feelings on the matter a little, by stating the fact that the committee had already nearly got through their inquiry, and that, without having recourse to any expedient, they might, in conformity with the rules and orders of the House, almost altogether exclude Members from being present in their room. But the committee were anxious that their inquiry should be conducted properly and fairly to all parties, and that they should be free from irregular interruptions until their report was made to that House; and when that report was made they would challenge the most rigid criticism, and if any one found that, either in the inquiry itself, in the mode of conducting it, or in the character of the report, there was anything with which fault could be fairly found, he would submit himself to all the odium thereby incurred. But he did beg them to recollect that the House had placed confidence in the committee hitherto, and that, such confidence having been given to them, they ought to have the forbearance of individual Members. Nothing more than such forbearance was, he could assure the House, desired; and having said so much as to the report, he would now go one step further. There was on the paper a notice of motion to be made by the hon. Member for Oxford University. That motion went to provide for the admission to the committee-room of all the parties in any way implicated in the inquiry. Now, in point of fact, all parties interested would be admitted, each separately, to give his account of the transactions with which his name was mixed up. Each party would be informed of all that was said concerning him, and would be allowed to make his answer thereto, and all they (the committee) now asked of the House was, that the parties might be allowed to make that answer in the mode the least painful to themselves. He was quite sure, if it had happened to any Member of that House to be examined before the committee, that that Member would state without hesitation that there was nothing, either in the mode of his examination or in the character of the questions put, to which he could possibly take any objection. Therefore he would ask why was this exceeding desire shown to interrupt the deliberations of the committee? If they had not been harassed by such interruptions they would have finished their inquiries by next Saturday; as it was, they would not now bring their deliberations to a close until about next Wednesday. And what, let him ask, was the House to gain by such a proceeding? Every word said before the committee would be laid before the House, and surely, when they had that evidence before them, that would be time enough to make complaint. The committee felt that they should be very much crippled in the course of their inquiry if the House refused to sanction their regulations; and with regard to the admission of the public generally to the room, he would only fur- ther suggest that if they were admitted it would be almost a necessary consequence that witnesses should be submitted to a strict cross examination. That might be a very agreeable process for some witnesses as it might be very disagreeable to others, but this inquiry was, he apprehended, not one in which cross-examination could be properly taken. It was desired to find out the course pursued in certain individual cases as examples and elucidations of a general plan, and they had nothing to do with cross-examinations. Further, let him ask, would it not be extremely painful to witnesses to be subjected to such examination before such a tribunal sitting with open doors; to have garbled statements of their evidence go forth to the public; to have every little fact and circumstance that passed bruited about, often misunderstood, and of consequence often misrepresented? On the other hand, if these proceedings were conducted privately and quietly, they might hope that everything would pass off without pain or annoyance to individuals, and that there would be no one marked out for scorn to point its finger at. Therefore he felt most anxious that they should sanction the rules of the committee, and so far continue to repose confidence in their proper performance of their duties as to wait until they laid their report upon the Table, when he would give them leave to find fault, if they could, with as much sharpness as they pleased.

Major Beresford

said, that as the hon. Member for Bath had referred to him as a Member who had been examined before this committee, he had no hesitation in saying, that the demeanour of the Members of that committee, when he was examined before it, was everything that was kind, courteous, and gentlemanlike. But, at the same time, he must also say, that he most decidedly appealed against the constitution of that committee. He impugned the system on which it conducted its examination altogether, and he impugned also the secrecy with which those examinations were conducted. It was not because he wished to shrink from anything that he had done that he made this appeal, but, on the contrary, a public accusation having been made against him, he courted, and he felt that he had a right to demand, a public investigation. If he was accused of anything which was wrong, he desired that he should be tried on that accusation in consistence with the principles of the British Constitution—in consistence with the judicial modes of inquiry prevailing in the land; and not in darkness and secrecy, but in the face of day, and under the eyes of the whole world. This inquiry bore no resemblance to a judicial investigation, nor to any other investigation that he ever heard of, except the investigation by the Star Chamber, in the very apartment of which, by a singular coincidence, the committee held its meetings. It was an appropriate place for a committee, which sought to conduct its inquiries in secret, and seemed afraid of encountering the light of day. It was said, that no man was accused before this committee—that it was only a committee of inquiry; but he had referred back to the speeches made at the commencement of their proceedings in the early part of May, and he found the hon. Member for Bath saying—["Order."]

The Speaker:

The hon. Member must not read from any report of words used by an hon. Member in a former debate.

Major Beresford

knew that the result of these proceedings entailed no pains or penalties on any Member, but what, let him ask, was to indemnify him for the pains or penalties of mental anxiety? How was he to be indemnified for being kept mentally brooding upon charges made against him before a secret tribunal, supported by witnesses whom he did not know, all of whom underwent secret examinations, whom he had no means of confounding by putting personal questions to, and whose statements might have an effect on the minds of the committee, which he had no opportunity of removing? What was to compensate him for the harassing anxieties he experienced in waiting for weeks for the judgment of this secret committee, who, of course, took their own time to make their report? He said, that to lay him under such anxieties was not only inflicting a hardship, but was laying him under pains and penalties in the shape of grievous mental punishment. He protested against such a system. It was contrary to every principle of our law. Every court of judicature in the land laid down, that the evidence of an accusing witness should be given before the party he accused. When a man was before a magistrate, the charge against him was openly made, openly heard, and openly decided. When he was in a court of criminal law, he was placed where he could see every witness, and could hear all that they said; he was allowed the use of counsel to aid his cause, and the publicity of the proceedings enabled the world to form their opinion of the fairness of his judges. Even a foreigner was entitled to these privileges—even an alien exercised these rights; and were they to deprive an elected Member of the Commons of England, or a candidate for the honour of such a position, of rights which they extended to all the world besides? He entered a solemn protest against any such treatment. If public inquiry would inflict personal pain, the pain inflicted of secrecy was tenfold greater, and as for the ridiculous pretence that any one would garble the reports—was it likely, he would ask, that any man would go forth from the committee and give garbled statements of his own evidence? The public feeling was against the inquiry, and he did hope that the House would not further oppose it by giving the committee such an uncontrolled authority as that they sought—a power the very demand for which made one fancy that we must be living in the times when Speaker Lenthall occupied the Chair, instead of in days when, according to a popular saying, every man was innocent until he was convicted.

Colonel Sibthorp

rose to move an amendment, and said, that though the hon. and learned Chairman stated that the committee was influenced by no desire of individual punishment, he would like to ask what must have been the feelings of an hon. Gentleman, formerly a Member of that House, when summoned to attend at their Bar? It was true, he had left the Bar with honour to himself, but how was he to know what oppressive results might follow from an exercise of the pleasure or the power of the House? Much had been said of the courtesy of the committee, but what was the notice which the hon. and learned Member for Bath had upon the paper of the day? There was no great courtesy in excluding Members of that House from the committee, as those Members had a perfect right, as Members, to know what the proceedings were which were taking place before the committee. He felt bound to protest against the committee, as usurping the rights and privileges of the House, and as attacking persons on the allegations of a few individuals who were, perhaps, influenced by feelings of disappointment. He felt hurt that the right hon Baronet at the head of the Go- vernment, who always stood up in his place to defend the liberty of the subject, of which that House ought to be the guardian—he felt hurt, he repeated, that the right hon. Baronet could for a moment be induced to assent to the appointment of this committee; but it was to be hoped that the right hon. Baronet, upon more cool and mature reflection, regretted the part he had taken in the transaction. The committee was one of a novel character and utterly unknown to a free country. For his own part, no secret tribunal of the kind should ever compel him to give evidence; and he hoped that the House, which was bound to protect the liberty of the subject, would never allow penalties to be inflicted by means of secret assassination. He would move that the order for appointing the select committee on Election Proceedings be discharged, and he would take the sense of the House on his motion.

Lord J. Russell

wished to say a few words on the course which had been pursued by the hon. Member for Bath. He understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say, that the committee were of opinion that they could best exercise the power intrusted to them by the House for the advantage of the public and of all others concerned in the inquiry, by continuing the course in the same manner as it had hitherto been conducted. He having every reason to repose confidence in the committee as selected by that House with due deliberation, and as it was well constituted, thought it highly advisable to attend to its suggestions. If, however, the hon. and learned Member for Bath had proposed the motion which appeared upon the paper, he could not give his assent to the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposition. Though Members of that House might exercise a sound discretion in not attending upon the committee, or being present at its proceedings, it would not be proper to interfere with the right they now had of being present, if they chose to insist upon that right. In general, he considered that it would be better if Members abstained from the exercise of any idle curiosity respecting the proceedings before the committee, and wailed until the report was made in the due and regular manner. As regarded such Members of the House as were personally interested in the inquiry, even though no charge was made against them, or though they ought not to be subjected to investigation by the committee, seeing that their characters might be affected by the result, though he still thought the more proper course ought to be to refrain from attending, yet if one or more Members of the House said that they felt it due to their character not only to hear the evidence, but also to observe the manner of those who gave it, he for one should not vote in favour of a motion by which such Members should be excluded. He was glad to hear it stated by the hon. Member for Bath that the labours of the committee had come nearly to a close, and as such was the case, though no regular motion to the effect had been made, it was stilt to be hoped, that in accordance with the wish of a committee in whose proceedings the House had every reason to repose confidence, hon. Members would exhibit a disposition to abstain from attendance. The committee was constituted of men belonging to various parties in the House, whose wish it was to act with justice towards all concerned in the inquiry. They must have deliberately weighed the course which it was best to pursue with respect to the inquiry which they were appointed to make; and if in their opinion it was better that hon. Members should abstain from attendance, he hoped that opinion would be acted on by the House, though he could not consent to any positive vote for the exclusion of Members. It was not to be wondered at that the hon. and gallant Colonel should wish to have the order discharged, as he was in the first instance opposed to the appointment of the committee, but the proper time of resistance had passed. He was glad to hear it stated that the committee had no purpose to pursue the inquiry with a view to individual punishment, for that was the only course by which any public benefit would result from the investigation.

Sir R. Peel

could assure the hon. and gallant Colonel that he had not assented unadvisedly or in haste to the motion for a committee, nor did he now repent of the vote which he had formerly given in favour of an inquiry, and he doubted very much whether it would tend to maintain the influence or authority of that House if it had decided to resist the motion for investigation. In his opinion it would be better, as respected the motion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that on this as well as on other occasions where a committee was proposed to be appointed the objections should be urged at the time when the proposition was made. It was true that objections were made in the first instance to the appointment of the committee, but not to the extent that they were now carried. He had supported the present committee on the same principle that he had supported other inquiries of a similar nature. After the inquiry before election committees in the cases of Yarmouth and Stafford, he had not thought the House was precluded because of the failures before these committees from instituting other inquiries. Neither had he thought that the failure of the investigation before the York and Liverpool election committees precluded the House from entering upon more general inquiries. At the same time, when on a former occasion he stated this to be his opinion, he also added, that it would not be fair to make such inquiries the means of selecting particular individuals and holding them up to public odium. It would have been impossible for him, knowing as he did what had been the practice of other parties on other occasions of a similar nature, to consent that the persons implicated in the present inquiry should be held up to public exposure. These were the opinions which he expressed when he consented to the appointment of the committee: these opinions he yet entertained, and he was glad to find that the committee was influenced by the same feeling—that they had no desire to act upon any personal vindictive feeling, but carried on the inquiry merely with a view to elicit such facts as would best enable them to legislate in devising a remedy. The committee acted most prudently and most wisely in directing the investigation to that end. He could not, however, conceive what would be the practical effect of the course proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Bath. It appeared to him that there was no other alternative than to leave the committee in possession of the power which it at present possessed, or to make it a secret tribunal altogether, and exclude Members as well as strangers. If hon. Members claimed the exercise of their right to be present on the ground of their being Members of the House, it should be left to their discretion; but he thought that it would be objectionable at this stage of the proceedings to place the committee upon a new footing. He thought it better on the whole to adhere to the general principle by which those tribunals were governed, and to leave to the committee its present power, recommending it to individual Members of the House to use their privilege with discretion, than by any particular sanction to vest a new power in the committee, and on those grounds he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would not press for. such a power. If there were no alternative, and that hon. Gentleman were determined to persist in their right as Members of that House, it would be less inconvenient to recognize it than to grant new power to the committee at this stage of the inquiry.

Sir R. Inglis

was of opinion that nothing could be more unseemly than for the House to enter into a discussion that the report do lie upon the Table, for where would be the practical result? As the right hon. Baronet had stated, it would leave the same discretion to the committee that it possessed; unless the hon. and learned Member for Bath made his appeal for something further, how could he justify the limiting of his motion to the question that the report do lie upon the Table? With respect to the exclusion of reporters, it should be remembered, that when reporters were excluded hon. Gentlemen gratuitously took up the office, and said they would not be bound by any decision of the committee, but would exercise their memory, and convey the intelligence through the ordinary channels of information. The hon. and learned Gentleman was much too charitable then in his opinions, when he seemed to think that hon. Members would forbear to exercise their right to be present. His proposition with respect to the committee was that all persons should possess the right of attending, as in any court of justice. The whole question resolved itself into this —was the committee a court of justice? Election committees were admitted by all to be courts of justice. That was a point which no person denied. They had the power to compel witnesses to attend, and to insist upon the production of papers; and this was a power vested in them, not by the House of Commons alone, but by the whole of the Legislature; and if the present committee assimilated to a court of justice, accused parties had a right to be present, and to witness the proceedings which took place. The hon. Member for Bath assumed a different tone in the present debate from that which characterized his speech on a former occasion. The hon. and learned Member had said, that this was not a committee formed for the purpose of preferring accusations, but had not the hon. and learned Member on a former occasion said,— I charge the right hon. Baronet the Member for Nottingham with such transactions—I charge the hon. Member for Harwich with such transactions—I charge the hon. Member for Penryn with such transactions? He called the attention of the House to the word "charge." When a Member of that House said he would "fix and crucify before the people," any person guilty of such proceedings, he begged to ask if that was not making a charge? If that were so, then he contended that individuals under such cir. cumstances were entitled, by the principles of the law of England, to know who their accusers might be, to know who were the witnesses brought forward against them, and to be present at the examination of such witnesses. He went further, and said that, being themselves propably unprofessional men, pleading before a tribunal the Chairman of which was a member of the honourable and learned profession of the law, they had a right to be assisted by professional advocates. It was vain to refer to such tribunals as a grand jury or a military court of inquiry, which was not at all analogous to the present committee. What he wished the House to observe was this, that in the present instance they had only the assertion of the hon. Member himself, on which these proceedings were founded. The hon. Member summoned certain individuals in that House to plead to his charge. Some of them chose to answer, some chose to stand mute; but in either case the hon. and learned Member compelled them, or if he objected to that expression, the House itself compelled them, to stand their trial. He said, therefore, that the hon. Member having induced the House to consent to the institution of such a tribunal, was, himself, bound, in common justice, to give to the parties, if they desired it, the benefit of that concession which would not be withheld from them in any other court in the kingdom—namely, that of being present when their accuser came forward, and hearing what his statement was, in order that they might confront the witness who alleged anything against them with another witness whom they might call on their own part, and, generally, of being defended by all those sanctions of law with which the tribunals of England sheltered any other accused person, in order that this court might not be made the only one in England in which a person was deprived of all those means of proving his innocence, and resisting a sentence of condemnation, which would be granted to him in any other court in England.

Mr. Shaw

said, the object of the hon. and learned Member for Bath's proposition to the House was, that they should sanction the manner in which the committee thought fit to conduct their proceedings, in silence and mystery. That was what had induced him to rise on this occasion, for, if even silence on his part should be considered as an assent to that proposition, he was not prepared to remain silent. So long as the committee appointed by the House exercised their own discretion, without any interference from the House, he should not have thought it necessary to protest against their proceedings; but if they asked for the sanction of the House to them, then it became necessary for every Member to say whether he was willing or not to afford his sanction. He was not willing to do so; he had not heard a single argument for the secresy of their proceedings. The hon. and learned Member for Bath said the object of the committee was to elicit truth. He said that ought to be its object, but the principles of English jurisprudence must be very different from the notions he had always entertained of them if it were a principle that truth was to be elicited by means of secresy and shrouding themselves in darkness. It was not enough that the accused person should have the proceedings of the committee communicated to him as a favour by the Chairman, or a Member of the committee; he ought to know who were the persons preferring and supporting the accusations against him, in what manner they gave their evidence, and, above all, he ought to have the opportunity of cross-examining them, and conducting his defence in the manner due to himself; he thought publicity was, of all other things, the best guardian of justice. He believed that no positive enactment or law would so satisfactorily secure the due administration of justice as its being open to the public. No doubt the custom had its inconvenience,—every court of justice felt more or less inconvenience in its proceedings from this regulation,—but no man who understood the spirit of our law could for a moment doubt that the balance of advantage was in favour of publicity.

Mr. Roebuck,

after the expression of opinion from the noble Lord and from the right hon. Baronet, and after the feeling expressed generally by the House, was sure he spoke the feeling of the committee when he said that they would not press the point of exclusion further. They would leave it to individual discretion, to the good taste and feeling of Members. They thought that by doing so they would best discharge their duty to the House in the present state of the question.

Mr. B. Escott

asked if the hon. and learned Member could state any tribunal in which English justice was administered where persons were accused and tried in their absence? It had been said that this was not an accusatory proceeding at all. Was he to be told that, after what he had heard in that House, that the right hon. Baronet the present Member for Nottingham, that Sir G. Larpent, who was a candidate at the late election for Nottingham, that his hon. Friend the Member for Bridport, that the hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for Bridport, and others, were accused of nothing? If they were accused of nothing, what was this committee to inquire into? It was stated that the committee sat to purify the House. If it sat to purify the House, it sat to purify it from something wrong, from something corrupt. Was that not an accusation? But he would not refer to the debate in which the hon. and learned Member for Bath spoke so strongly on this subject, he would refer to the order of the House appointing the committee. In that order occurred the expression "corrupt compromises." Was that no accusation? And if it were an accusation, he asked again, how could the proceedings be fairly conducted unless the parties charged were present to hear the charges brought against them? At the commencement of this proceeding he had thought the hon. and learned Gentleman in the right. If the question had come to a vote, he was prepared to say that he would have voted for this committee. He had not objected to the committee itself, though he did not approve of the questions which the hon, and learned Member had put. His objections commenced at the point when the committee began to act contrary to the principles of law and right. These were the reasons for which he should vote against the hon. and learned Member.

The House divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question:—Ayes, 177; Noes, 45: Majority, 132.

List of the AYES.
Acland, Sir T. D. Fielden, J.
Acland, T. D. Flower, Sir J.
Ainsworth, P. Forster, M.
Bailey, J., jun. Fremantle, Sir T.
Baird, W. Gaskell, J. Milnes
Baring, hon. W. B. Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.
Barnard, E. G. Gordon, Lord F.
Barron, Sir H. W. Gore, M.
Bentinek, Lord G. Goulburn, rt. hn. H.
Berkeley, hon. C. Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.
Berkeley, hon. Capt, Greenall, P.
Berkeley, hon. H. F. Greenaway, C.
Bernal, R. Greene, T.
Blackburne, J. I. Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.
Bowes, J. Guest, Sir J.
Bramston, T. W. Hamilton, W. J,
Broadley, H. Hampden, R.
Brotherton, J. Hanmer, Sir J.
Browne, hon. W. Heathcoat, J.
Bryan, G. Heneage, E.
Busfeild, W. Hepburn, Sir T. B.
Butler, hon. Col. Hervey, Lord A.
Byng, rt. hon. G. S. Hill, Lord M.
Cavendish, hon. C. C. Hindley, C.
Chapman, A. Hodgson, F.
Chapman, B. Hodgson, R.
Childers, J. W. Houldsworth, T.
Clements, Visct. Howard, hn. C. W. G.
Clerk, Sir G. Howard, Lord
Clive, E. B. Howard, hn. E. G. G.
Cobden, R. Howard, P. H.
Courtenay, Lord oward, hon, H.
Craig, W. G. Hume, J.
Crawford, W. S. Hutt, W.
Cripps, W. Irving, J.
Dalrymple, Capt. James, Sir W. C.
Dickinson, F. H. Jocelyn, Visct.
Divett, E. Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.
Douglas, Sir C. E. Ker, D. S.
Duff, J. Labouchere, rt. hn. H.
Dugdale, W. S. Lambton, H.
Duncan, G. Lascelles, hon; W. S.
Duncombe, T. Layard, Capt.
Duncombe, hon. O. Legh, G. C.
Dundas, D. Lennox, Lord A.
East, J. B. Liddell, hon. H. T.
Easthope, Sir J. Lincoln, Earl of
Ebrington Visct. Lindsay, H. H.
Egerton, Sir P. Lowther, J. H.
Ellice, rt. hon. E. Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B.
Ellice, E. Mackenzie, W. F.
Eliot, Lord Mackinnon, W. A.
Elphinstone, H. Mc. Taggart, Sir J.
Ferguson, Col. Marsland, H.
Martin, J. Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.
Marton, G. Sheppard, T.
Masterman, J. Shirley, E. J.
Meynell, Capt. Smith, rt. hon. R. V.
Miles, W. Somers, J. P.
Milnes, R. M. Somerville, Sir W. M.
Mitchell, T. A. Stanley, Lord
Morris, D. Stansfield, W. R. C.
Murphy, F. S. Stuart, Lord J.
Napier, Sir C. Stuart, H.
Nicholl, rt. hon. J. Stock, Mr. Serj.
Norreys, Sir D. J. Strutt, E.
O'Brien, J. Sutton, hon. H. M.
O'Connell, D. Thornley, T.
O'Connell, M. J. Troubridge, Sir E. T.
O'Connell, J. Tufnell, H.
Ogle, S. C. H. Turner, E.
Packe, C. W. Vernon, G. H.
Palmer, R. Vesey, hon. T.
Parker, J. Vivian, hon. Capt.
Patten, J. W. Walker, R.
Peel, rt. hon. Sir R. Wall, C. B.
Pendarves, E. W. W. Wallace, R.
Philips, G. R. Wawn, J. T.
Plumridge, Capt. White, H.
Plumptre, J. P. Williams, W.
Ponsonby, hon. J. G. Wodehouse, E.
Pringle, A. Wood, C.
Protheroe, E. Worsley, Lord
Pusey, P. Wortley, hon. J. S.
Redington, T. N. Yorke, hon. E. T.
Rolleston, Col. Yorke, H. R.
Rundle, J. Young, J.
Russell, Lord J. TELLERS.
Seale, Sir J. H. Hawes, B.
Shaw, rt. hon. F. Roebuck, J. A.
List of the NOES.
Allix, J. P. Hornby, J.
Antrobus, E Hussey, T.
Archdall, Capt. Ingestre, Visct.
Arkwright, G. Inglis, Sir R. H.
Bateson, Sir R. M'Geachy, F. A.
Borthwick, P. Manners, Lord J.
Broadwood, H. Marsham, Visct.
Burrell, Sir C. M. Neeld, J.
Colvile, C. R. Neville, R.
Darby, G. Northland, Visct.
Disraeli, B. Pollington, Visct.
Douglas, J. D. S. Pulsford, R.
Eaton, R. J. Rushbrooke, Col.
Ferrand, W. B. Russell, J. D. W.
Ffolliott, J. Stewart, J
Forester, hon. G. C. W. Taylor, T. E.
Fuller, A. E. Trevor, hon. G. R.
Gladstone, T. Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Glynne, Sir S. R. Verner, Col.
Gore, W. O. Williams, T. P.
Goring, C. Wynn, Sir W. W.
Grimsditch, T. TELLERS.
Grogan, E. Escott, B.
Henley, J. W. Sibthorp, Col.