§ Mr. Roebucksaid, that his desire in selecting a committee for the purpose of inquiring into the compromises entered into during the recent elections had been to do justice to all parties, and so to frame the committee that the object of the present inquiry might not be frustrated. It had, therefore, been his earnest wish, to take all possible pains to meet the wishes of all parties, and, if possible, so to frame the committee, that they should command the attention and consideration of the House, and, through them, the attention and consideration of the country; and he hoped that, acting on the sugges- 483 tions of the right hon. Baronet on the last occasion when this subject was under discussion, he should be enabled to obtain that result. Without further preface, therefore, he would read to the House the names of those hon. Gentlemen whom he wished to place on the committee. One noble Lord (Lord F. Egerton), whom he had desired to include in the number, had been compelled to decline the duty on the ground of ill-health. The names were, therefore, Mr. Bramston, Mr. W. Miles, Sir W. Heathcote, the hon. W, S. Lascelles, Sir W. Somerville, Mr. Hawes, Mr. Strutt, Lord Worsley, and himself.
§ Sir W. Somervillebegged that his name might not be included in the list, as he was already a Member of the general committee of elections, which, together with other duties, he feared would prevent him from effectually discharging his duty as a Member of the committee now under discussion.
§ Mr. Roebuckhoped that his hon. Friend, whose services would be peculiarly valuable, would not press his objection.
§ Sir W. Somervilleconsented to waive his objection.
§ Mr. M. Milneshoped, that no final step would be taken on the present occasion, because he believed that the result of a few days' consideration had been a feeling that the House had done wrong in appointing a committee at all. He believed that the House in granting this committee, had been actuated simply by a want of moral courage, and every hour of reflection since the appointment of that committee had strengthened that feeling in his mind. He did not feel himself called upon to accuse any hon. Member present of a want of moral courage; neither did he accuse the Government, for it was no party question, or the right hon. Baronet, who, in his humble judgment, had expressed somewhat exaggerated sentiments on the subject to which this committee had reference. He believed that if this committee should be granted, the House would enter upon a course of which they could not foresee the end. He thought, nevertheless, his hon. and learned, and, he might almost add, his gallant Friend, perfectly right in bringing the matter before the House. Still, however just the course of the hon. and learned Gentleman might be, he could not view without apprehension the appointment of this committee, the consequence of which might 484 be to hold up certain Members to public obloquy for doing that which every individual whom he now addressed well knew had never hitherto been regarded as morally or legally wrong. The committee would be formed to investigate matters which upon all sides of the House were admitted. He believed that they were but commencing a career which would end in nothing but confusion. It would appear that they were speaking inside this House in a different tone to that which characterised them outside. He believed that if there was proved to be a great necessity for this committee everything else should give way to it. He, however, did not admit the existence of this necessity. He did not admit that this system of bribery and corruption was by any means so large and extensive as hon. Members appeared to think. If he did admit this, he felt that he should also admit the irresistible conclusion, which he thought should naturally follow such admission, that the people of this country were not fit to have the representation of the country confided to them, and that they had received a gift which they had abused; that whatever rights had been given to them by the Reform Bill, had been conferred on them for their detriment, and not for their good. The motion of which the hon. Member for Rochdale had given notice was, in his opinion, but a delusion and an absurdity. By the appointment of this committee, the House would be saying that the people of this country had abused every power which was confided to them in the election of their representatives; that they had been grossly corrupted because they were so easily corruptible. He believed that the alleged increase of bribery and corruption was simply owing to the increased vigilance which was abroad; it was owing, he believed, to the increased value which every man set upon a seat in this House. He believed that this committee was uncalled for; that they were setting out on a wrong principle altogether, because they were now endeavouring to make people out of doors believe what they did not nor could not believe themselves. He would, therefore, give every opposition in his power to the appointment of this committee.
§ Mr. Humesaid, that it was very well for the hon. Member to speak of himself, but he begged to remind the hon. Member that he began his speech by saying, 485 that the whole House and all persons knew that these malpractices had been committed.
§ Mr. Milnesbegged the hon. Member's pardon, but he meant to say, that the House was very well aware of everything with regard to these arrangements.
§ Mr. Humeunderstood the hon. Member had argued against this inquiry altogether, and founded his objections upon the fact, that they all knew already the existence of the evils. It appeared, however, that he did not understand the hon. Member correctly. The hon. Gentleman, however, objected to this inquiry, though, at the same time, he did not deny that in some instances bribery and corruption had existed. If the hon. Member admitted so much, he must also admit, that the facts which had been brought before the House must be also believed. Whatever opinion the hon. Member might entertain of the people of England, he believed that they were more honest than the hon. Member would lead us to believe. In his opinion there were no means which would prove so effectual in putting an end to these evils of which they now complained than by largely extending the suffrage, and doing away with the monopoly which now existed in the franchise. Let a law be passed which would give every man liable to taxation a vote in the election of Members of that House. He hoped that nothing would stop the progress of the present inquiry.
§ Sir J. Walshdid not think he was addressing himself to a subject altogether beside the question if he called the attention of the House not only to the extent and importance of those duties, but to the change which had been made in the nature of those duties, and to the greater width of the objects which would be given to this committee by the introduction of certain words into the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Bath at the close of the discussion on Monday night, of which addition a great part of the House was totally and entirely ignorant. He would begin by saying that he disclaimed making any charge of an unfair nature against the hon. and learned Member for Bath. He could perfectly conceive that the hon. and learned Gentleman had no intention whatever to take any advantage of the House or to make any alterations in the terms of his motion in a furtive or clandestine manner. While, however, he 486 acquitted him of such misconduct, he was then, as a Member of this House, to deal with results, and consequences, and effects, and not with intentions. If, in characterising such results, he should apply any terms too strong to the subject, he begged the House to believe, and the hon. and learned Member himself, that he would do so without any intention whatsoever of violating that respect which was due to this House, and that respect which he should always feel for the talents and abilities of the hon. and learned Member who had brought the question forward. While saying this he contended that the hon. and learned Member did introduce into the original motion put into the right hon. Gentleman the Speaker's hands most important principles, and a subject not at all contemplated by the terms of the motion as it originally stood. ["Question"]
§ The Speakerbegged to inform the hon. Baronet, that if it were his intention to move for any alteration in the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Bath he should give notice of such intention, when it could be discussed upon some future occasion. The question which was now before the House was one respecting the names of those hon. Members who should form this committee, and to that it would be necessary for the hon. Baronet to confine himself. If the hon. Baronet had any objection to make to those hon. Gentlemen who were already mentioned as those who should form this committee, the hon. Baronet could of course state it.
§ Sir J. Walshcould only say that he conceived the duties which the committee would have to perform would necessarily be of a most important nature, and, being such, they should be most particular in their selection of such hon. Members as would be competent to discharge those duties with efficiency. He had ventured to address some observations to the alteration which had been made in the hon. and learned Gentleman's motion, but if the House should be of opinion that the consideration of such a subject, did not bear upon the question now before the House, he should of course defer to that opinion, and take another opportunity of pressing this point upon the consideration of hon. Members, which he thought was well worthy of their attention. He was therefore quite in the hands of the House, and he should of course bow to its decision. The connection which he wished to establish between the question itself, the 487 nature of the present motion, and the Members who should form this committee, would, he thought, warrant him in entering upon the subject with which he had commenced his observations. He should wish to learn from the House if he would be out of order in continuing his observations under those circumstances. [" Question "] Well, then, he supposed he was to understand that he could only object to the names already proposed to form this committee. He would therefore proceed by saying that he had an objection to some of the names which were proposed. He thought he could make his objections without mentioning certain names, which would render the task he undertook most disagreeable and invidious. He conceived that hon. Members might be spared the painful task of objecting to certain names without stating reasons of a personal and invidious character. He was saying, that in a manner perfectly unexpected by the House, the hon. and learned Member had extended, considerably, the duties of this committee, which rendered it necessary that they should select hon. Members of the highest character for professional and legal eminence to form this committee. He conceived that on all ordinary occasions, perhaps, they should not appeal to such hon. Gentlemen, nor would they be justified in withdrawing them from their professional avocations. He, however, conceived that on the present occasion, considering the subject in the aspect in which the hon. and learned Gentleman had placed it, they would be perfectly justified in appealing to the professional Members of this House, who ought to lend their services to a question like this. There was a voice which once commanded the universal attention of this House—a voice that whenever its tones were uttered, all those who could appreciate the talent or admire the genius of the greatest living orator of the day, would follow and endeavour to catch the accents wherever they would flow. He did hear a certain noble and learned Lord not very long ago in commenting upon the composition of election committees—he did hear that distinguished individual say, that he was surprised and he much regretted to find those great professional names which would have given weight and effect to the deliberations of any committee, and authority to the judicial decisions of any assembly, were absent from the lists of those election committees. And the noble and 488 learned Lord, who, no doubt, well knew his own profession, and those liberal feelings which actuated it, had further said, that whatever personal sacrifice men of the highest professional ability would subject themselves, he was certain, nevertheless, that they would be found most willing and desirous to contribute their assistance, if it was deemed necessary, in the fulfilment and discharge of those duties, which, as Members of this House, they might be called upon to give. Having said that, he considered this was a question of such importance, and of such a judicial character, the House, he thought, was fully justified in asking those Members of high professional eminence to allow themselves to be placed on this committee. He now asked if he were out of order if he endeavoured to trace those duties which would be imposed on this committee, and to show that they partook of a judicial character. From the extended form given to the motion by the alteration which had been made in it, it embraced objects of importance sufficient to justify the House in an appeal to professional assistance, however eminent. If the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, as originally framed [cries of " Order;"] he begged leave to refer to the original notice that that hon. and learned Gentleman had given, which was for a committee to inquire into certain practices connected with the elections of certain hon. Members, and to ascertain whether such practices were not gross breaches of the privileges of this House. That was the tenor of the first notice. The motion, however, which was founded upon it was,—
That a select committee be appointed to inquire whether, in the cases of the election petitions presented to that House from Nottingham, Heading, Harwich, Lewes, and Falmouth, there has not been a corrupt compromise entered into for the purpose of withdrawing from the investigations of the committees appointed to try the merits of these petitions. the gross bribery practised at them.This was the amended motion of the hon. and learned Member, and not the one which was first submitted from the Chair of this House. He contended, that this involved a judicial inquiry of great importance, an inquiry which concerned not only the honour and character of several Members of this House, but also a judicial inquiry in which the interests, rights, and privileges of those electors were concerned who returned nine representatives to this House. Was this number, nine, so trivial 489 a part of this House? He recollected the time when upon the voice of nine Members hung the fate of the Ministry. And he did not think it impossible that in fifty years hence the votes of nine hon. Members of this House might turn the fate of the monarchy itself. As the motion of the hon. and learned Member originally stood, it was impossible he could ground upon it his objection to the issuing of the writ for Nottingham, or that he could have asked for the suspension of that writ; but it was upon his amended motion he did ground his objection to the issuing of that writ. He should remind the House that it was a serious thing to move for the suspension of a writ, and nothing should justify such a proceeding, except some very strong grounds indeed, and when it was contemplated to have recourse to ulterior legal proceedings against the borough itself. The consequence he would then draw from the hon. and learned Member's motion was this, that it was possible on the report of this committee that ulterior proceedings would he taken against the borough of Nottingham, it was equally possible that ulterior proceedings would be taken against all the other boroughs mentioned in the motion. Therefore, in point of fact, the House had brought itself to this position. It had voted a committee which might be said to combine the subject matter of five election committees in one. That was a case which required the assistance of the hon. Members of professional and high legal character in this House. He entertained the highest respect for the Gentlemen appointed to serve on this committee, and he need not say that he felt the greatest respect for those hon. Friends of his own who were chosen from his side of the House. Yet he did say that, though they took an occasional and highly creditable part in the deliberations of this House, he did not feel, and he said this frankly and openly, that they were sufficiently acquainted with the privileges and practices of this House, nor had they that legal and professional knowledge which it was so necessary they should possess to have such duties as those entrusted to them. He wished to make no invidious observations, for a number of his own personal friends had been selected to form this committee; but he considered that this was a question of such immense importance, a question into which in his opinion the assent of the House was in a great degree surprised, that he for one should raise his feeble voice 490 in favour of a full and fair investigation into it. It should be recollected that this inquiry was to be taken for a committee not upon their oaths, and who were not bound to hear all the evidence which might be adduced on the occasion. He would not have the rights and privileges of so large a portion of the electors entrusted to this committee if he had known the exact nature of the motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Since, however, the consent of the House had been surprised into this committee, he thought that the only remedy they could apply would be to make an appeal to the gentlemen of the greatest professional eminence and legal information to assist them in this inquiry. In the spirit of the noble and learned Lord who answered for those gentlemen, he was sure they would respond cheerfully to the call which would be made upon them, and would give their assistance to an investigation wherein the rights and privileges of so large a portion of the constituencies of this country were involved.
§ Mr. Cochranesaid, that having been informed that the presentation of the petion from Mr. Warburton was advised by the hon. Member for Derby, he thought he had a right to ask that hon. Member whether he was a party to those extraordinary proceedings in which he was so interested? He asked the hon. Member this question in consequence of having seen his name mentioned as one of the Members of this committee.
§ Mr. Struttwished the hon. Member would repeat his interrogatory, as he did not rightly understand him.
§ Mr. Cochranesaid, in the course which Mr. Warburton had taken with respect to a petition demanding that Bridport should be added to this inquiry, he was advised that the hon. Member for Derby advised this proceeding. And for the" reasons already stated he felt himself justified in asking the hon. Member if such was the fact?
§ Mr. Struttsaid, he was glad that he could contradict the report, that he had given Mr. Warburton any such advice whatsoever. He thought he did hear that Mr. Warburton had some intention to present such petition. But if he did hear that, it went to the extent of his recollection on the subject. He was not aware that he had ever stated any opinion upon the subject. And he was not aware of the contents of this petition until this 491 night, when they were mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard.
An hon. Memberon the Opposition side of the House said, as one of the Members lately returned to the House, he wished to ask the Speaker whether the system of putting questions to hon. Members not connected with the Government was strictly in order? He wished to ascertain the opinion of the Speaker, as some doubt existed on the subject.
§ The Speakersaid, the strict practice of the House was, that questions should be confined to the orders of the day. The rule with regard to answering questions had been considerably relaxed, and questions were now put to the Members of the Government with respect to the general policy of the Government, and to hon. Members with respect to particular measures with which they were connected. Further than that, he never knew the rule to be relaxed until the hon. and learned Member for Bath lately put certain questions to hon. Members.
§ Mr. Milnes,in voting for the committee, wished it to be understood that the arrangements and compromises referred to had nothing to do with bribery and corruption.
§ The names of Mr. Bramston, Mr. W. Milnes, Sir W. Heathcote, the hon. W. S. Lascelles, Sir W. Somerville, and Mr. Hawes were then severally put and agreed to.
§ Sir W. Somervillesaid, the situation in which he had been placed was not a very enviable one; but he should be sorry to let his private feelings interfere with his public duty, and if he could be of service in facilitating the object in view, he should be happy to give his attention to it.
§ Mr. Struttsaid, as some objection had been taken to his name, he should be extremely glad to be excused serving on the committee. He did not wish to shrink from any duty which the House might impose upon him, but if any Gentleman objected to his name being placed on the committee it would not give him the slightest offence; on the contrary, he should have great satisfaction in being excused from serving.
§ The names of Mr. Strutt, Lord Worsley, and Mr. Roebuck were then put and agreed to.
§ On the question that five be a quorum,
§ Mr. T. Duncombesaid, that supposing two out of the nine Gentlemen named 492 should not attend the committees, the number would then be reduced to seven. He objected to any quorum being named, and thought that all the Gentlemen nominated ought to attend, as they were bound to do when appointed to try the merits of election petitions.
Lord Pollingtonsaid, that when an accusation was made against the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cork, Mr. Hardy was objected to on the ground of being the accuser. In the same spirit he objected to the hon. and learned Member for Bath being placed on the committee.
§ The SpeakerThe hon. and learned Gentleman has already been appointed.
§ Sir R. Peelsaid, he did not see how the attendance of hon. Members could be enforced. It was of the utmost importance that those Gentlemen who undertook the duty should do so with the understanding that their attendance should be regular. If, unfortunately, any individual Member should be prevented from giving his attendance, the House ought to have the opportunity of immediately supplying his place. That, however, would be an imperfect remedy for his absence, because any new Member would have to commence with hearing only the latter part of the evidence. He trusted that those Gentlemen composed the committee would feel it their duty to be regular in their attendance.
§ Mr. T. Duncombesaid, he would at once move that nine be the quorum.
The question was put that the word "five" stand part of the question.
§ Lord F. Egerton,having served on two committees of an analogous description, wished to state these precedents for the guidance of the House. It was understood that on both these committees the attendance should be precisely the same as on an election committee — that no Gentleman should absent himself from their sittings.
§ Mr. Bramstonsaid, having been nominated on the committee, he would endeavour to do his duty to the best of his ability. He trusted the House would make an order that the committee should meet in full number. It was due to the committee, to the House, and to the important matter they were about to take in hand, to be regular in their attendance; and they ought to consider themselves precisely in the situation of an election committee.
The Chancellor of the Exchaquerbelieved the rule of the House to be this, that the whole body must attend.
Lord J. Russellthought it very desirable that the whole of the Members of the committee should attend; and he believed that to be the general opinion of the House.
§ Amendment and the original motion both withdrawn.
§ Mr. Roebuckthen moved that the committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
§ Mr. T. DuncombeSir, as this is the proper time to submit to the consideration of the House the amendment of which I have given notice, and as I have made some slight alteration in the wording of it, I will at once read it to the House:—
That each Member appointed to serve on the select committee on compromises of election petitions shall subscribe the following declaration, in the presence of Mr. Speaker:—I — do solemnly declare, that I never, directly, or indirectly, have to my knowledge been guilty, by myself or agents, of any act of bribery, treating, or corruption in procuring a seat in Parliament; that I never paid or promised to pay, intend to pay, or sanctioned the payment of, any sum or sums of money, beyond the legal charges for procuring my return for my last or any previous election; nor have I, at any time, connived at, been privy to, or assisted in, any bribery, treating, or other corrupt practices, at the election of any Member or Members to serve in Parliament.
§ (Signed) "ߞ."
§
Sir, at the close of the last Session of Parliament I took the liberty of asking the right hon. Baronet whether it was his intention to introduce during this Session of Parliament any bill or measure for the purpose of preventing bribery, corruption, and intimidation; and I stated my reason for putting that question to be this, that it was notorious that, at the last general election, more bribery, more corruption, more treating, and more intimidation prevailed than ever were known in the most corrupt days of the most corrupt Parliament that ever existed. The right hon. Baronet then informed me that from the pressure of other measures, and the state of the public business generally, he could not take upon himself to introduce any measure of that sort—that he trusted the noble Lord the Member for the City of London would proceed with the measure which he had introduced in a former Session of Parliament. But, at the same
494
time, the right hon. Baronet said he was sorry to be obliged to confess that at the last general election gross bribery, corruption, and intimidation had prevailed. The right hon. Baronet could not say whether it existed to the extent which I stated to the House, but he seemed to intimate that I was better acquainted with the details of this corruption. I stated that if any individual in this House had the slightest doubt upon the subject, I would undertake to prove at the Bar of this House that a very considerable majority of the Members now sitting in this House were returned by gross bribery, corruption, and intimidation, and I am still prepared to prove that assertion. I did not propose to have this great question considered on one of your election committees, where private animosity and personal feelings so much prevail. No: I wished this inquiry, impeaching the integrity of this House, to be instituted at the Bar of the House, in the face of day and of the whole country; and I must say that the opinion of the public with regard to all these transactions—with regard to your conduct during the past week—is one of unmitigated disgust [" Oh, oh "]—it is one of unmitigated disgust, in consequence of the injustice and hypocrisy of your proceedings. The public know just as well as 1 do that you are going to prosecute some six or eight individuals, when there are six hundred of you equally guilty. There is that sense of justice among the British public, that they do not like to see some eight or ten individuals hunted down by 600 others equally guilty. 3,500,000 of the people of this country came the other day and told you so by their petition. You did not choose to hear them. You would not let them come here and prove it. What did they state in that petition which has been so unjustly maligned? This is the opinion of 3,500,000 of the industrious classes of the country:—
That your petitioners complain that by influence, patronage, and intimidation, there is at present no purity of election; and your petitioners contend for the right of the ballot. That your petitioners complain that seats in your honourable House are sought for at a most extravagant rate of expense, which proves an enormous degree of fraud and corruption.
They state, and state most truly,—
That bribery, intimidation, corruption, perjury, and riot prevail at all parliamentary
495
elections, to an extent best understood by the Members of your honourable House.
That is an exact description of the public feeling with regard to the system of bribery pursued by hon. Members of this House, and this accounts for the unmitigated disgust with which they view these partial proceedings on the part of this House. But if we are to have this tribunal—if this tribunal is to be established, at all events let us see that those Gentlemen who are, to a certain extent, voluntary inquisitors—let us see that they ascend the judgment seat with clean hands. That is the object of my amendment. I agree with what the right hon. Baronet stated during a former discussion, that public confidence would naturally depend upon the composition and constitution of this committee. No doubt of it. This committee ought also to be presided over by a gentleman of great legal ability —by a man of the greatest calmness, and temper, and moderation of language. Such an individual, and such a tribunal, so constituted, would command the public confidence, and their decision would then have a chance of giving satisfaction. I have heard it stated that, if the House should agree to the test which I propose, the probability is that a sufficient number of Members will not be found to serve on the committee. I do hope that it is not true—that there are at least nine men who are pure and free from all this misconduct which I have been describing. I can only say if J had been nominated on this committee I could not have taken this test. I certainly could take it as the representative of Finsbury, but, unfortunately for me, I was once a candidate for the very pure and immaculate borough of Pontefract. I spent 4,000l. in Pontefract. I have no hesitation in saying that that money was spent in gross bribery, treating, and corruption. I was defeated. My Lord Pollington and an hon. Gentleman's father assisted in defeating me; and I shall not believe, until the hon. Member opposite rises and says so, that any one is ever returned for Pontefract without bribery. Unfortunately I have also stood contested elections for Hertford, and in five contested elections I three times succeeded and was twice defeated; and I must state to this House, as I am now impeaching the conduct of its Members generally, both in their individual and collective capacity, that I left behind me
496
at Hertford considerably above 30,000l. I had to contend with very great aristocratic influence in that neighbourhood, and I believe it cost them more money. I had to contend with seven days' leases. Those poor tenants who held under seven days' leases were turned out when they disobliged their landlords. The great landlord there was my Lord Salisbury. These tenants were discharged unless they fulfilled the wishes of their landlord. When they were turned out, I had to furnish them with houses. I built or bought sixty-three houses for them. A great portion of the money went in that way, and a considerable portion was spent in treating and bribery. I think I have clearly proved that I am not innocent of this matter, and I want to find out those Simon Pures who are innocent. I am sure they will be the admiration of the country. The people will flock down to the House to see them, and when they finish their labours in committee they will be ready to report against those Gentlemen who are now accused of these practices, of which the great majority, if not the whole of the House, have been guilty. After having made this confession, I do not think it is necessary for me to say more. I only hope that no objection whatever will be made to this test being applied to the committee. If any Gentleman who is nominated on the committee cannot attend, a fresh Member will be appointed, who will then have to take this test. If the House should not consent to apply the test to hon. Members, I should like to know what the public will think of it? I can only say, if you do not agree to the test, it will be my duty immediately after the holidays to move an address to her Majesty, praying that, in consequence of the indecent exposures which have taken place, her Majesty will be graciously pleased to dissolve the present Parliament, in order that all Members in future may be deterred from pursuing the system of bribery, corruption, and intimidation which was practised at the last election, and that the House may be restored to that confidence and that public esteem which is essential to its authority as a legislative assembly. The hon. Member concluded by moving his amendment.
§ The question was then put.
Lord Pollingtonsaid, that the hon. Member who had just down had applied 497 such language to the borough which he represented, that he felt it his duty to rise and inform the House of the circumstances of the election to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded—he meant the election when the hon. Gentleman stood for Pontefract. That election was unsuccessful, and he would tell the House why it was unsuccessful. It was unsuccessful because they could not succeed in corrupting the people. Some time previous to the election a gentleman connected with the borough, with local influence—he did not apply the term invidiously—he meant that influence which high character gave in the neighbourhood—(and so he was one himself, if he might use the term)—came down, and there was a very severe contest indeed, and the memory of that contest remained to this day in the town. There was also no bribery alleged in the town to any amount, with one exception, which his hon. Friend reminded him of. All these gentlemen — these strangers who came to Pontefract, and attempted in vain to corrupt the people, were from that side of the House on which the hon. Gentleman sat. In 1834 he was himself absent from England, but he was proposed by some friends as a candidate. A gentleman then well known, Mr. Raphael, formerly sheriff of London, went to Pontefract in his sheriff's coach. He was asked whether he was a Jew, and his answer was, that he was not a Jew, but he was as rich as one. He went down with a very large sum of money. He paid into the bank 4,000l. The House would observe that he was unsuccessful. He knew one honest man who had been offered a high bribe by the agents of Mr. Raphael, but he refused the bribe and voted for him. If bribery ever prevailed in the borough it was owing to these three gentlemen, whom he had mentioned, all belonging to the other side of the House. He did not believe that it was general. He believed that the few persons who might still be disposed to accept a bribe were fast dying off, and that a better class of voters were taking their places, and he made no doubt that if these imputations were true (which he denied), very shortly the borough would be entirely rescued from any such practices.
§ Mr. Milnessaid, that in two elections for the borough of Pontefract he had never heard the subject of bribery so much as alluded to. The question which the hon. Member for Finsbury had brought forward 498 carried with it such an excellent reductio ad absurdum, that if the hon. Member divided the House he must vote with him.
§ Mr. Hardyhoped, that as he had been alluded to, not only on this but on other occasions, he might be allowed a few minutes in explanation. He certainly had the misfortune to be a candidate for the borough in 1826, but he had the good fortune at that time to prevail on the returning officer to take the election in one day instead of two days, which would have afforded the opportunity of leaving the previous night open to certain practices. To avoid those practices he prevailed on the returning officer to have the election on that day. He was told when that day was considerably advanced that if he spent 500l. and allowed a certain sum to be put into the hands of the electors, he would win the election. He totally refused to do that. He declared before the House, and before a higher tribunal, that he was not cognisant of the least bribery at that election. To show in what way he considered his own conduct, he would mention that when the committee sat, in which a gentleman below him was his nominee, he put himself in the witness-box that he might be examined by the counsel on the other side, and they did not choose to put a question to him which imputed improper conduct. His late excellent friend Daniel Sykes had mentioned the legitimate expenses at Hull as 300l. In consequence of the prava consuetudo which prevailed at Hull, and which seemed to prevail at Pontefract every gentleman, who was considered a gentleman, was bound to pay that, otherwise it was not possible for him to show his face. He certainly did pay that, but he took care that that should not be the means of introducing him to the constituency again, although he was strongly solicited. That was the head and front of his offending. As to bribery, he was ready to state before the House and a higher tribunal that he knew nothing of it.
§ Mr. Wardwished, before the House divided, shortly to state his reason for voting against the motion of his hon. Friend. He regarded this as an attempt to cast something like ridicule on what he conceived to be a grave and useful proceeding; and when he found an inquiry conducted, as this had been, with temper, tact, and fairness, approved of by the House, and likely to produce a useful 499 result, he would not oppose an obstacle in the way of it, by framing a test which was so impracticable—so ill defined, because nobody knew what legal expenses were. He did not think that any man on either side of the House could take the test with anything like safety of conscience. By act of Parliament the legal expenses of an election were strictly defined. The hon. Member had made the test too stringent. He looked upon it simply as an attempt to interfere with the motion of his hon. Friend near him, in which he cordially concurred, and therefore he should vote against him.
§ Sir R. PeelI shall vote for the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Bath. The House knows of the committee which it is proposed to appoint, and can judge of the character of the Members whether they are qualified to discharge their duties. In my opinion the committee, constituted as it is, are qualified to discharge their duties as honourable men. In the selection of election committees, constituted under the act of Parliament, you impose no such test as this which the hon. Gentleman proposes. You do not consider them as disqualified from adjudicating upon the case of election committees—upon the rights of Members —upon the rights of constituencies. You have not considered them as disqualified from coming to a just judgment. I am not clear that the House has a right to impose the test. I think it questionable whether the House has a right to assign a duty to Members of its own body, or to tell them that they shall not discharge that duty unless a certain test is applied. I am sure it is a dangerous precedent, that a majority of this House should impose a test of this nature, to be taken by certain of its Members who are called upon to discharge a public duty. I think he said his object was not to prevent inquiry, and yet he said, that supposing nine Members could be found who could take the test, whole towns would flock to see such paragons of virtue, or some expressions of that kind, and throughout he clearly indicated his opinion that no nine Members would be found who would take such a test. He said, that on these Members entering the committee-room, and on their departure from it, a considerable number of admiring spectators would see their entry and their exit. He considered it absolutely necessary before they entered 500 on the inquiry that they should take the test; and if he considered that 658 Members could not by some means take the test, I do not see how he could expect a satisfactory result from the inquiry which he proposed to institute; because he said the inquiry would show that the majority owed their seats to gross bribery. If an inquiry is to be instituted, at the best that inquiry must be conducted by Members the majority of whom the hon. Gentleman must hold to be disqualified to conduct the inquiry. I question the right of the House to act as is proposed, but I am quite sure it would be establishing a most dangerous precedent. Without such test I am sure the hon. Members to whom the inquiry is delegated will, as honourable and honest men, discharge their duty; and therefore I withhold my assent.
§ Mr. Humewished to explain the grounds on which he felt bound to oppose this motion. Undoubtedly, the general nature of the proposition was such as that if it were brought forward in a fit and proper manner, he should feel himself bound to vote in support of it, and he had on two previous occasions given his vote in favour of the adoption of such a declaration. In each of the cases to which he alluded, however, the adoption of such a test was incorporated in a bill before the House, and did not form the subject of a motion such as that of the hon. Member for Finsbury. If that motion were carried, its effect would be to frustrate the object of the inquiry proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Bath; and he could hardly conceive a motion more directly opposed to that object than that now before the House. He disapproved of the time at which the proposition was brought forward; but if a clause was introduced into any bill carrying out the same object, and he might suggest the introduction of such a clause in the measure to be proposed by the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) he would give it his support, and he would do so because then every hon. Gentleman entering that House would know the terms upon which he must look to hold his seat.
§ Mr. Roebuckthought that it was fit for an hon. Member when he opposed a motion introduced to that House, to do it in an honest, straightforward manner—that he should not assume a virtue which he did not possess—that he should not assume to be a patriot, and at the same time frustrate the objects of those whose inten- 501 tions were good. When he had originally brought this subject before the House, he had been desirous to state—and he had done so explicitly, and he believed in such a manner that he had received the perfect assurance of his being understood by the majority of hon. Gentlemen—that it was the system, and not individuals against which he was aiming; and throughout the whole of these proceedings it had been his endeavour to point at the system, and to abstain from all asperity of language whatsoever with reference to particular individuals. The hon. Member for Fins-bury, however, in oblique language—language as oblique as his motion—had endeavoured to fix the stigma on him of being actuated by other motives than those which he professed. The hon. Member said, he was desirous of forwarding the cause of purity of election — that he was desirous of maintaining the high character of that House—a character in which he of course desired to participate, while at the same time he had stated acts of his own commission, which, according to his own phraseology, were most corrupt. Those who wished to promote purity did it by example as well as by precept; and he did not think that any man ought to come to this House and say, "I desire to be pure," and at the same time admit that he was corrupt, but he should first establish his own purity, and then express his wish that others should be pure also. He would ask the House whether they conceived the mode of proceeding of the hon. Member to be honest and straightforward. An hon. Baronet opposite had given a distinct notice that he would propose a motion, calling into question the propriety of the motion which he had laid before the House; and if he could understand the object of that motion, it was that the hon. Baronet complained of the inquiry. The hon. Member for Finsbury, however, said, that he did not complain of the inquiry— that he was favourable to the establishment of purity in that House; but at the same time he stood up in his place to prevent their making an investigation into the proceedings of five or six men, when he professed his belief that 600 other hon. Members were just as bad. Now, for his own part, he had no objection to inquire into the whole of the 600 cases; but when the matter was before the world, and it was gravely stated that there were these five or six cases, in which men were able, 502 and willing, and desirous to afford proof of that which was alleged, were they to turn round and say, that the whole state of the representation was so foul —the whole thing so bad, that they would not make any inquiry—that they would sit down contented with the existing state of things. To make a proposition having such an effect, would do very well in that House to gain a laugh—to acquire a reputation for the hon. Member who brought it forward for facetiousness, but it would not go down with the country, as being in any way conclusive either as to the honour of the House or their desire for the well-being of the community; and he thought that the country would hardly approve of the hon. Member's esoterick morality, which seemed to justify his indulging in laughter and sneers at subjects which he dared not mention when he got of doors. [Mr. T. Duncombe: "Hear."] "Hear, hear," was the grave exclamation of the hon. Member, as if he were absolutely detesting that species of false morality against which he proclaimed. He was there to entreat the support of the well-toned morality of that House: and he believed that there was a large majority of hon. Members who felt that the mischief which prevailed was one which was rapidly increasing—that there were many who, from weakness of mind or other causes, had been unwillingly drawn into a system of corruption to which they were opposed, and who would be most thankful to be placed in a position in which they might be relieved from the possibility of further participation in such acts. What he desired was to make the case so plain—so palpable, that the Legislature should feel bound to take some steps which should shield the weak, and at the same time prevent a repetition of such scenes as had of late been too frequent. There was a large majority of really virtuous constituencies which would be most thankful to the Legislature if a law was framed, the effect of which would be to throw a shield round the weak as well as the strong, to prevent the recurrence to such modes of proceeding as had been adopted. But he asked, in all seriousness, with all the gravity with which the Legislature should be called on in such a case, and also with something, he must say, of sorrow and regret at what had occurred, was this the mode of proceeding in such a case. Was it fit that, as representatives of a great 503 people, they should treat with levity, and jeering, and scorn, all the common axioms of morality. Should they not take the means of preventing these foul corruptions entering into every family of this kingdom? He asked hon. Members not to receive his proposal in that spirit of jeering with which it had been assailed, because he said that that spirit was not calculated, if it got abroad, to reflect honour on the House; and he did trust that hon. Gentlemen round him would fix the finger of scorn on the present motion—would treat it as it deserved to be —not considering it as an honest opposition to his own proposition, but as a round-about, oblique, facetious mode of opposing it. He placed the most sincere reliance upon the honour of the House, and he had no doubt that the result would be such as the country would approve.
§ Mr. Pakingtonbegged to express his great astonishment at the declaration of the hon, Member for Finsbury, that he intended to press his extravagant motion to a division—a degree of astonishment which was only equalled upon his hearing the speech of the hon. Member, in which he had introduced that motion to the House, with regard to which he did not hesitate to say, he knew not whether most to wonder at the shameless confessions which were comprised in it, or at the unjust and unfounded attacks in which he had, at the same time, indulged against the great majority of the Members of that House. He believed that the sole object of the motion of the hon. Member was to throw ridicule on the proposition of the hon. Member for Bath, and with these feelings it was impossible that he should vote with the hon. Member for Finsbury. He would not shrink from saying, for it was his firm and conscientious opinion, that the hon. and learned Member for Bath had done a great public service. He did not altogether approve of the manner in which he had brought the whole question forward; he disapproved of those questions which he had put; he had entertained, and still felt, very serious doubts whether the committee should have been granted; and he doubted whether it would not have been a better and a wiser plan to trust to preventive legislation rather than to enter into an inquiry which, he feared, must assume the character of a strongly personal, if not of a vindictive attack against particular persons. But he was 504 free to admit that the extent of bribery which had taken place at the last election was discreditable to that House, and to the law. Compromises had no doubt been entered into, which had produced great public scandal, and it was time that some measure should be adopted in order to prevent those compromises taking place in future.
Lord J. Russellmust say, with respect to the motion now before the House, that he thought that nearly all of the reasons which had been already stated as affording ground of opposition to it were extremely applicable. But he felt, above all, that the House having consented to appoint this committee, they ought not by any extraordinary, unusual, or objectionable means, to endeavour to defeat that inquiry. Whether it was fit to require such a declaration as was called for under the provisions of an act of Parliament was another question, but he thought that to agree to the present motion would be a mode evidently of avoiding that inquiry which had been already granted. Without entering into the question, to which reference had been made, whether they should have granted that committee originally, he must say that he had nothing to find fault with in the mode of proceeding of the hon. Member for Bath, with one exception. He could not help regretting that words of considerable importance should have been added to the motion for the appointment of the committee, the effect of which was not only to give to that committee the means of inquiring into the compromises which were alleged to have taken place, but which extended that inquiry to matters of bribery. He said, that he regretted that such an addition should have been made without full notice having been previously given to the House, and he did so the more, because they could not now be well taken away from the resolution, without an appearance being produced of a desire on the part of the House to restrain the inquiry. His hon. Friend, the Member for Finsbury seemed to imply, by his motion, either that the House by agreeing to it, on one hand, would be thereby exposed to great difficulty, or on the other hand, that by rejecting it, hon. Gentlemen would in effect confess that they were not ready to make the declaration against bribery, which he proposed should be required of them. He could not but think, however, that his hon. 505 Friend had drawn his motion in a very peculiar manner with regard to the introduction of that part of it which had reference to the sanction by hon. Members of the payment of other than legal expences. They all knew the extent to which bribery had been carried on, but they all knew at the same time that there were many expences incidental to an election, which were not perhaps strictly legal, and on which even, he believed, hon. Members had been unseated, but which, at the same time, were frequently paid. He spoke of such expences as were incurred where, in a county election, voters had a great distance to travel to the poll, the candidates on both sides agreed to allow them such moderate refreshment as were necessary. Whether such expences were legal or not —and he believed that they had been decided not to be legal—it was obvious that they were of a very different character from those which constituted a sufficient ground to support a charge of bribery; and however the question of their legality might stand, it was clear that, in a moral point of view, or looked at politically with regard to the position of that House, they were totally different from those charges which were incurred by the payment of five or ten guineas per head for each voter. If the hon. Member should alter his motion, so as to meet such cases, it might stand in a different position; but he should say, that it would be extremely difficult for him, even in his own case, to say that he had never paid any sums of money beyond the amount of the legal expences of his election; and agreeing, as he hoped he should, with the majority of the House, he must give his vote in opposition to a motion, the effect of which was to throw out an imputation that all hon. Members were guilty of acts of bribery.
§ Mr. W. S. O'Brienexpressed his intention to support the motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury, and thought that the object of that motion was anything but that of defeating the proposition of the hon. Member for Bath. He thought, that the House had reason to thank the hon. and learned Member for his motion; but he could see no reason why, if a test of disinterestedness was applied to hon. Members forming committees on private bills, the same species of test should be also applied in the present case.
§ Mr. Wakleywas at a loss to understand why so much sourness of criticism should 506 have been bestowed on the motion of his hon. Colleague. It was said, that the object of the motion was to get rid of the inquiry. By what means, he would beg to ask? If it were by proving to the public that there were not nine men in that House who could take the test, the effect of it would be to prove the allegations of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, and to carry out his motion, and it would show, in point of fact, what was the state of the misrepresentation of the people in that assembly; and he said, that instead of this proposition bringing upon his hon. Friend the displeasure of the House, his example should be looked upon as one which, for its honour and its courage, ought to be followed. He said, let other hon. Members make similar confessions, and let the public see by what means seats were to be obtained in that House. He said, therefore, that his hon. Friend had no object in this motion in defeating the object of the hon. Member for Bath, for he thought that if anything could give effect to the committee, it would be by the Members of that committee taking the test which was proposed. Did the right hon. Baronet mean to say, that there was anything in this test which hon. Members should not be capable of taking? Did the right hon. Baronet mean to say, that there was anything preposterous and unjust in this test? The right hon. Baronet had only objected to it because it was introduced in this particular case, but they must make a beginning in some case, and it would surely be something for hon. Members to point out this test as one which they had been compelled to take, and in that point of view, at least, would be most useful to the community at large. The House must not rest with an inquiry with regard to the six boroughs alone which were named, and if it were suffered to go forth to the public that it was to be so confined, the most unfavourable inferences would be drawn from such a result. His hon. Friend had said, that he thought that 600 of the Members of that House had not been duly elected; but he thought that he had gone too far in making that assertion, and he believed, that there were many hon. Gentlemen who had done nothing dishonourable, and his hon. Friend had no right to assume, that hon. Members had adopted means of obtaining seats in that House which he would not have taken himself. So far as the test pro- 507 posed went, he was perfectly willing to take it; he should have no difficulty in doing so, for he had not at any time expended one farthing of money for the purpose of corrupting or deceiving a voter, and he thought, that there were many others who could make a similar declaration. But what he wished to impress on the House was, that having entered into this investigation, they ought to go on with it as far as the petitions before the House would enable them. Many petitions had been withdrawn, but in those petitions were allegations in many instances as bad as those contained in the petitions which they were about to investigate. He said, that they could not do justice to the people, unless they carried out the inquiry to its fullest extent, and if that were done, a most useful lesson would be taught to the country, and before many years had passed, an entire change would be effected in the constitution of that House.
§ Mr. Brothertonbegged to be allowed to explain the vote which he was about to give, and which would be in opposition to the motion of the hon. Member for Fins-bury. He thought, that that was a motion which ought to have been brought forward before the committee had been granted; but he was confident, that the committee would do its duty—that the hon. Members composing that committee would do everything in their power to bring to light those corrupt practices which had been too common throughout the kingdom. For his own part, he should have no difficulty in taking the test, for he had never expended one shilling in corrupting a voter, nor had he ever solicited a vote, but he did not think that the motion was calculated to produce the end which was sought to be attained.
Mr. V. Smiththought, it would not be considered too much for him, as he was about to vote with his hon. Friend, the Member for Finsbury, to state his reasons for adopting that course, and he must premise by saying, that he had adopted that determination without entertaining the least desire to throw ridicule on the motion of the hon. Member for Bath, but that he had done so upon a most serious view of the case, and upon the best consideration which he had been able to give to the question. It was all very well for the hon. and learned Member for Bath to lecture his hon. Friend for throwing ridi- 508 rule on his motion, because he had brought forward some comical statements, in that agreeable manner with which the hon. Member was in the habit of entertaining the House. Those statements, however, were most serious, and the public would set their due value upon them. With reference to the refusal of this committee, he could not help thinking, that after what had passed, and after all the reproaches which had been thrown out upon that House, if the House refused to sanction the application of this test, the most unsatisfactory results must ensue; because he thought, that if that committee came to a conclusion that the charge of bribery was unfounded, its Members would be considered to be just as bad as those whose cases they had had to consider; while on the other hand, if they declared that the charges were made out, it would be said, that they had determined to sacrifice these cases, in order to hide their own delinquencies. It appeared to him, that to adopt this test would be to act in strict accordance with the line of practice adopted in other cases. In the case of election committees, hon. Members were sworn to do justice, but an objection might be made to any hon. Member on the score of private interest, or that he was petitioned against, nor, for any other reasons; while in cases of committees on private bills, Members of those committees were compelled to declare that they had No local or private interest in the matter which they were to consider. And he begged to say, that in giving his vote in favour of this motion, he did so with no sort of want of confidence in the Members proposed to form that committee, but because he thought that unless some such test as was proposed was required, the conclusions to which he had referred would be drawn. Although in this case he admitted, that the hon. and learned Member for Bath had conducted himself in a manner which might be deemed to be in general correct, he denied that he was entitled to those eulogiums which had been showered upon him by hon. Gentlemen, and he thought, that the course adopted by that hon. Member, in introducing this subject to the House by means of the questions which he had put, he had hit upon a mode of proceeding most likely to give personal offence, and which tended to produce a scene much more likely to give rise to ridicule than anything that had 509 been done by the hon. Member for Finsbury.
§ Mr. T. Duncombesaid, he knew that he had only a right to explain, but he hoped the House would indulge him for a few minutes, for he must offer a few observations in answer to the attack of the hon. and learned Member for Bath. He had always understood that it was not Parliamentary for any hon. Member to impute motives to any hon. Member for any conduct of his in that House. But the hon. and learned Member had imputed unworthy motives to him, in language which was wholly unjust and inapplicable. The hon. and learned Member said, that he was endeavouring by underhand means to defeat the inquiry. Now, he could tell the hon. and learned Member, that he knew nothing that authorised any hon. Member to say that he ever adopted any but the direct course. He was not one of those individuals who made indirect attacks on persons in their absence, and when called upon out of the House of Commons to explain or substantiate the charge, shrunk from it.
§ Mr. Roebucksaid, that as he understood the hon. Member to be speaking of him, he asked him when it was that he shrank from any charge he had made?
§ Mr. T. Duncomberesumed, and was proceeding to repeat that he was not one of those who made indirect attacks, &c, when he was interrupted by
§ The Speaker,who said, that the rule of the House only admitted of an hon. Member saying a few words by way of explanation, and therefore the hon. Member would see the propriety of not going into these matters.
§ Mr. T. Duncombesaid, he wished to explain that he was not one of those individuals who made attacks on individuals in their absence, and then shrank from those attacks when asked to substantiate them out of the House.
§ Sir E. Knatchbullrose to order. It was not consistent with the rules of the House that an hon. Member should use expressions which went to attack another.
§ Mr. T. DuncombeI am attacking no person.
§ Mr. F. Frenchthought, that as the hon. Member for Finsbury had been assailed he had a right to defend himself, and unless the permission were granted, he would move the adjournment of the debate.
§ Mr. T. Duncombesaid, that he should, as the right hon. Baronet opposite had done the other night, address himself to the main question. It was not his object in making the present motion to defeat the purpose for which the committee was appointed. On the contrary, he was desirous of placing the committee in a position which would secure for it the confidence and esteem of the public, and unless the test which he proposed were applied, it could neither gain nor deserve public estimation. He had been accused of making a barefaced confession. He had, however, only told the truth, and, in his opinion, such a confession of human frailty was better than to indulge in professions of extreme purity, and assume with a complacent self-conceit a character of superior virtue, which none but the modest professor himself could discover.
§ The House divided on the question that the words proposed by Mr. T. Duncombe be added to the motion:—Ayes 17; Noes 160: Majority 143.
| List of the AYES. | |
| Bernal, Capt. | Mitchell, T. A. |
| Carew, hon. R. S. | Napier, Sir C. |
| Christmas, W. | O'Brien, W. S. |
| Collett, W. R. | O'Connell, J. |
| Crawford, W. S. | Plumridge, Capt. |
| Forbes, W. | Smith, rt. hn. R. V. |
| French, F. | Turner, E. |
| Grosvenor, Lord R. | TELLERS. |
| Hatton, Capt. V. | Duncombe, T. |
| Hinde, J. H. | Wakley, T. |
| List of the NOES. | |
| Acland, Sir T. D. | Buller, C. |
| Acland.T. D. | Butler, hon. Col. |
| Acton, Col. | Campbell, A. |
| Adderley, C. B. | Chapman, A. |
| Ainsworth, P. | Charteris, hon. F. |
| Aldam, W. | Christie, W. D. |
| Allix, J. P. | Clayton, R. R. |
| Antrobus, E. | Cobden, R. |
| Arkwright, G. | Codrington, C. W. |
| Attwood, M. | Collins, W. |
| Bagge, W. | Courtenay, Lord |
| Bailey, J. jun. | Cripps, W. |
| Baillie, Col. | Damer, hon. Col. |
| Baring, rt. hon. F. T. | Dawnay, hon. W. H. |
| Barnard, E. G. | Denison, E. B. |
| Bernard, Visct. | Douglas, Sir H. |
| Blackstone, W. S. | Douglas, Sir C. E. |
| Botfield, B. | Duff, J. |
| Bowring, Dr. | Dundas, D. |
| Brotherton, J. | Egerton, Lord F. |
| Browne, hon. W. | Eliot, Lord |
| Brownrigg, J. S. | Elphinstone, H. |
| Bruce, C. L. C. | Escott, B. |
| Buck, L.W. | Evans, W. |
| Ferguson, Col. | Packe, C. W. |
| Fitzroy, Capt. | Pakington, J. S. |
| Fleming, J. W. | Palmer, R. |
| Flower, Sir J. | Palmer, G. |
| Follett, Sir W. W. | Peel, rt. hon. Sir R. |
| Forbes, M. | Peel, J. |
| Fuller, A. E. | Pendarves, E. W. W. |
| Gaskell, J. M. | Philips, M. |
| Gladstone, rt. hn. H. | Plumptre, J. P. |
| Gore, M. | Polhill, F. |
| Goulburn, rt. hn. H. | Pollington, Visct. |
| Graham, rt. hn. Sir J. | Pusey, P. |
| Granger, T. C. | Rawdon, Col. |
| Greenall, P. | Reade, W. M. |
| Grimston, Visct. | Richards, R. |
| Grogan, E. | Roebuck, J. A. |
| Halford, H, | Rose, rt. hn. Sir G. |
| Hamilton, W. J. | Round, C. G. |
| Hampden, R. | Round, J. |
| Harcourt, G. | Rundell, J. |
| Hardy, J. | Russell, Lord J. |
| Henley, J. W. | Sandon, Visct. |
| Hepburn, Sir T. B. | Shaw, rt. hon. F. |
| Hill, Lord M. | Sheil, rt. hon. R. L. |
| Hodgson, R. | Sheppard, T. |
| Hope, hon. C. | Somerset, Lord G. |
| Howard, P. H. | Stanley, Lord |
| Howick, Visct. | Stansfield, W. R. C. |
| Hume, J. | Staunton, Sir G. T. |
| Jackson, J. D. | Stuart, Lord J. |
| Johnson, W. G. | Stuart, W. V. |
| Johnston, A. | Sutton, hon. H. M. |
| Johnstone, Sir J. | Tancred, H. W. |
| Kelburne, Visct. | Thornely, T. |
| Kemble, H. | Thornhill, G. |
| Knatchbull,rt.hn.Sir E. | Trench, Sir F. W. |
| Knight, H. G. | Trollope, Sir J. |
| Lambton, H. | Trotter, J. |
| Lawson, A. | Tufnell, H. |
| Leader, J. T. | Tyrell, Sir J. T. |
| Lefroy, A. | Vere, Sir C. B. |
| Lemon, Sir C. | Vernon, G. H. |
| Leveson, Lord | Vivian, hon. Major |
| Liddell, hon. H. T. | Vivian, J. E. |
| Lincoln, Earl of | Walsh, Sir J. B. |
| Lyall, G. | Ward, H. G. |
| Maclean, D. | Williams, W. |
| M'Geachy, F. A. | Wood, B. |
| M'Taggart, Sir J. | Wood, C. |
| Maher, V. | Wood, Col. |
| Mangles, R. D. | Wortley, hon. J. S. |
| Martin, C. W. | Wynn, rt. hn.C.W.W. |
| Masterman, J. | Yorke, hon. E. T. |
| Morgan, O. | Young, J. |
| Morison, General | |
| MuntZ, G. F. | TELLERS. |
| Murray, C. R. S. | Baring, H. |
| Murray, A. | Fremantle Sir T. |
§ Main question agreed to.