HC Deb 01 March 1844 vol 73 cc436-62

Mr. Sidney Herbert having moved the Order of the Day for a Committee of Supply,

Mr. T. Duncombe

rose to call the attention of the House to the subject of which he had given notice on a previous evening. He was about to move for A return of all moneys paid to Richard Bond Hughes, Charles Ross, and John Jackson, on account of any communications made by them to Government relative to the Repeal agitation in Ireland, distinguishing the amounts paid to each; also, the dates of the several payments, specifying the respective periods at which they commenced; together with copies of any instructions given to the above-named Richard Bond Hughes, Charles Ross, and John Jackson, with respect to the duties to be performed by them in Ireland. Also, a return of the amount paid to the above-named for expenses during their attendance at the trial of the Queen against O'Connell and others. Also a return of all the moneys paid to the late or present proprietor or proprietors, managers, conductors, or persons in the employ of the Morning Herald and Standard newspapers, or any of them, on account of communications or information made or given by the said parties, or any of them, to the Government, in reference to the Repeal agitation in Ireland; distinguishing the times at which the said communications or informations were furnished, and the period at which the several sums of money were paid. In opposing, for a short time, the Motion that the House go into Committee of Supply, he was desirous to state that he did not do so in furtherance of the Mo- tion of the hon. Member for Rochdale, but in the exercise of his undoubted right, as a Member of that House, to call on the Government to explain, before they went into the Committee of Supply, the manner in which they had expended certain sums of money which had been already placed at their disposal for the public service. It was more especially the duty of the House to make that inquiry when they had good reason to believe that a portion of that money had been expended in a manner neither creditable or honourable to those who so expended it. They were told that the object of the State prosecutions in Ireland was to vindicate what had been called the majesty of the law—to create increased respect for the institutions of the country, and to inspire the people with confidence in the wisdom and justice of those in authority. He listened with much attention to the late Debate on the subject of Ireland during the fortnight which it lasted. He had looked carefully through the whole evidence that had been given on the State Trials, and he felt justified in saying that it was impossible to find any portion of those transactions creditable to the Government which instituted the prosecutions—to the Judge before whom the traversers were tried—to the Jury who tried them—to the Officers of the Crown who were engaged, in fact to any of the parties concerned, or especially to some of the witnesses produced on the part of the Crown. The branch of the subject to which he should direct the attention of the House on that occasion was that which more immediately affected the conduct of the Government towards the press and those employed upon it. A perverse Government had two ways by which it could proceed for the purpose of destroying the freedom and public utility of the press; namely, persecution and corruption. He could either strain the law to prosecute the press, or could attempt to corrupt those who were connected with it. Now, the present Government seemed to have employed both these means. They had not rested satisfied with corrupting members of the press, but they also strained the law to persecute and prosecute the press. He would not go at length into that question on the present occasion, but wait another opportunity to bring it before the House, and he should not, therefore, trouble them with more than one observation on the subject. He could not avoid remarking, that the law of conspiracy affecting the press, as it had been laid down in Ireland, was not the law that was laid down by the Attorney General for England and Baron Rolfe in 1842, when trials took place at which the question was brought forward. They had seen on the late trials Mr. O'Connell made responsible for articles which appeared in Dublin newspapers that he had not read, and they had seen the proprietors of those newspapers made responsible for speeches delivered by Mr. O'Connell which they had not heard. Now it had been laid down by the Attorney General for England and Baron Rolfe, at the trials at Lancaster in 1842, that the only person who was responsible for articles in a newspaper, was the proprietor, and that even the editor was not to be held responsible for those articles, though he might be one of the parties charged with conspiracy. That was not, however, the branch of the subject to which he wished more immediately to direct the attention of the House. He wished to apply himself particularly to the employment of Reporters by the Government—to the employment on the part of the Government of hired spies—to the employment for that purpose of persons connected with the press; for if the object of these prosecutions had been to create a great moral effect, all the proceedings connected with them, should have been of such a character as to bear the light of day. There should not be in such transactions the slightest appearance of treachery, or the slightest appearance of meanness. The conduct of the Attorney General for Ireland and the Government towards Mr. Bond Hughes, had been most extraordinary, and in moving for a return of the money paid to that gentleman for his services, he did not mean to cast the slightest imputation on his character. It was quite clear from the speeches of the several Counsel for the traversers at the late trials in Ireland, that they acquitted him of any improper proceeding, and the party that Mr. Bond Hughes had the greatest cause to complain of, was the Government. The Attorney General assigned as a reason for not furnishing certain names, the feeling that had been excited amongst the traversers and the public generally, in consequence of the mistake which Mr. Bond Hughes had made with respect to Mr. Barrett, one of the traversers, and yet, the Attorney General and the Crown Solicitor, and his Clerks allowed Mr. Hughes to suffer all the consequences of that mistake long after Mr. Hughes had explained it, and had shown that it had not been a wilful mistake. A few days after the occurrence of the mistake, Mr. Barrett attended at the Police-office to swear informations against Mr. Hughes for perjury, on which occasion Mr. Kemmis attended on the part of Mr. Hughes; and although Mr. Kemmis, the Crown Solicitor, knew that Mr. Hughes had acknowledged his mistake, he persisted before the Magistrates, in maintaining the truth of Mr. Hughes's first statement with respect to Mr. Barrett. Now, that was, in his opinion, most discreditable to Mr. Kemmis, and to the Crown that employed a Solicitor who acted in that way. How was Mr. Barrett to know that Mr. Hughes had not wilfully made a statement that was not true?—that he had not been wilfully swearing falsely? When Mr. Barrett, in the month of October attended before the Magistrates for the purpose of swearing informations against Mr. Hughes, Mr. Kemmis, the Crown Solicitor, attended on the part of Mr. Hughes, and gave no indication that Mr. Hughes had admitted his error. He would read to the House from the Pilot newspaper, what took place on that occasion. When Mr. Barrett came to read the informations, he found the false statements that had been made against him. No doubt, it turns out they were not wilfully false; but how was Mr. Barrett to know, that, all explanation on the point had been most studiously, ay, and most improperly, withheld? Immediately on making this discovery, Mr. Barrett put the matter in a train of legal investigation. A summons to answer a charge of perjury, was issued against Mr. Hughes, and copies of it are served at the residence of Mr. Hughes and the Crown Solicitor. That summons is discussed before the Magistrates of College-street Police-office, on Saturday, the 21st day of October, and one of the persons in attendance is the Crown Solicitor. Nay, what is more, on the same occasion that Gentleman made a speech to the Bench, in which he not only withheld all explanation on the subject of the mistake which he then knew had been made by Mr. Hughes, but he had the indelicacy and the indiscretion to indirectly maintain the truth of the then impugned, and the now admittedly false portions of the informations. Readers, mark what Mr. Kemmis said on that occasion, Yes! we say, mark it, and remember, that when making the observations we now give, Mr. Kemmis had five days pre- viously heard from Mr, Hughes's own lips, that he had sworn in mistake, We quote from the Freeman's Journal of the 23d October, 1843:—'Mr, Kemmis, (Crown Solicitor) stepped forward, and said, that Mr, Hughes was not at present in the Kingdom, and he (Mr. Kemmis) could pledge himself to the truth of this statement. He considered the present proceeding as a most extraordinary one, for Mr, Hughes had remained several days in Dublin after he had sworn his informations, and yet the prosecutor, during that time, never thought proper to take any exception to his depositions; but now that the gentleman had left the country, certain parties came forward to make allegations against his veracity, when the accused, not being present, could not possibly rebut the accusations made against him.' The application to receive the informations was refused by the Magistrates, on the ground that the reserving the informations against Mr. Hughes would prejudice the State Prosecutions. Would the House believe it—would the country believe it, that Mr. B. Hughes left Ireland at the desire of Mr. Kemmis, he was told to leave it, or that his life would not be safe. Why should his life not have been safe? Could they not have made it so by stating to the public the way in which the fact stood? Could they not have put an end to the denunciations against Mr. Hughes by saying that he had made a mistake in his information? He understood from the friends of Mr. Hughes that he was not at all aware that he was to be a party to informations, and that he would rather have cut off his right hand than consented to such. Mr. Hughes was not a person who would descend to be a common informer. The fact was that he was deceived in that matter, having been told by the Solicitor for the Crown that he was only swearing an affidavit verifying his notes, instead of which he was swearing to an information upon which a number of parties were to be arrested. When Mr. Hughes went over to Ireland he had instructions to wait on the Attorney General; but the Attorney General was not at home, and then he went to Mr. Brewster to receive instructions; and he now asked for a copy of those instructions, and a return of the sums of money paid to Mr. Hughes, not that he believed any sum of money could repay Mr. Hughes for the anxiety of mind which he must have suffered and the injury that had been inflicted on him during the period whilst he was allowed to remain under a cloud. From October until January he was allowed to remain under a cloud, although the Attorney General and the Crown Solicitor were aware that he had corrected the error into which he had fallen. He had been brought before the Grand Jury, and he then stated his error; yet until January it was not made public. Mr. Hughes had a right to complain, and by the returns for which he (Mr. Duncombe) moved, the House would be able to see whether Mr. Hughes had received the same compensation which had been given to another—to a favoured individual, Mr. C. Ross. He had now done with Mr. Hughes, and he hoped that in the observations which he made he said nothing derogatory to that Gentleman's character. He now came to the Carlisle Patriot, or rather to the case of the late Editor of that Journal; Mr. Charles Ross it appeared had lately been employed as a Reporter for the Morning Chronicle, and in his evidence, at the trials in Dublin, being examined by Sergeant Warren, he stated that he arrived in Dublin on the 3rd of July. He was asked, Did you come to this country (Ireland) for any particular purpose?"—Answer: Yes, I came to take notes of Mr. O'Connell's speech at the meeting at Donnybrook. Did you come of your own accord, or who suggested it to you—I do not ask you who suggested it?—It was suggested to me. Did you attend that meeting?—I did. For whom did you attend that meeting?—On the part of the Government. The House would perceive that the Government suggested to Mr. Ross to go over, the Government at that time knowing that he was employed as a Reporter for the Morning Chronicle, a Paper opposed to the views and Politics of the Government. He was asked by Sergeant Warren, Had you any other object in coming over but to Report on the part of the Government?—I had not; but I was engaged on a London Paper at the time I was sent over by the Government. The House would recollect that the witness was in the pay of the Morning Chronicle at the time he went over to Ireland. He was cross-examined by Mr. Henn, who asked him the following questions:— I believe you have stated to my learned Friend, that your mission to Ireland was suggested on the part of Government?—Yes. Now Government you know is a very comprehensive word. Have you any objection to tell us who it was, on the part of the Government, suggested this to you? When this question was asked, up jumped Counsel for the Crown, Mr. Sergeant Warren, and directed him not to answer, that he was not allowed to tell the Court or the Irish people, or the English people, who sent him over to those trials. He stated that a high person—a person high in office, sent him over. Now he wanted to know, and he thought he had a right to ask who that high personage was that sent him over? He had a right to know, what Member of the Government condescended to employ Mr. Charles Ross, who was a Reporter for, and the servant of, a Newspaper opposed to the Government. Could the Government find no other persons but persons connected with Newspapers (and those Newspapers not in the interest of the Government) for this base purpose?—could they not find other persons, instead of employing this individual? Of course the Government knew perfectly well that this man going over under false colours—going as the representative of the Morning Chronicle—would hear secrets, if there were any to be told, which an avowed Reporter of the Government could not obtain. That was an advantage they were desirous of securing, and to show that it was so, he could state that, after the meeting at Mullaghmast, Mr. Ross, who was known to be connected with the Liberal Press at this side of the water, was treated with every sort of courtesy by the traversers. After the Mullaghmast meeting, so little idea was there that Mr. Ross was a Government spy, that one of the traversers, Mr. Steele, as he had secured no means of getting home, took him back in his own carriage, forty-two miles, to Dublin, Mr. Ross had by these means the opportunity of hearing secrets disclosed, and of possessing himself of private information to be used in aid of the proceedings adopted against the Repeal Association. He wanted to know whether this sort of proceeding was fair, upright, or honourable to the Government which had employed this man? Mr. Ross admitted that he had received 350l. for his services; 50l. for the Donnybrook meeting, and 300l. for the rest. He came back to England. He believed Mr, Ross's connection with the Morning Chronicle ceased at the close of the last Session of Parliament, but he returned to Ireland as a reporter for the Standard, being at the same time employed to do the dirty work of the Government; and he again asked who was the high personage that had employed this man to do this dirty work? He said it was necessary that the country should know this; and, more than that, it was necessary that the people should know who had appropriated 400l. of their money in payment of such services. He could not believe that the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had any hand in such transactions, nor could he think the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department had any hand in it; because, on a former occasion, the right hon. Gentleman had said that the Government had never employed spies in the outbreaks in Lancashire, and that if any had been employed in such a character, it must have been under the countenance of some local magistrate; and he said that the Government never sanctioned the employment of spies, and that every thing done by him should be plain and above board. Well, he could not believe that the right hon. Gentleman was the "high personage," and he wanted to know whether it was a Member of the other House of Parliament, Was it any individual who was a Member of the Cabinet? This he would say, that, let it be whom it might, they had inflicted eternal disgrace upon themselves. So much for the Carlisle Patriot, otherwise Mr. Ross. He was now an ornament to the Standard newspaper. He was now, he (Mr. Duncombe) believed, a reporter on that paper; and as an agent of the Government, he should like to know what be had received as a remuneration for the services he had rendered. Before he went to the case of Mr. Jackson, he would read to the House what was the opinion of the Irish press upon these transactions. There was an account of Mr. Charles Ross in the Dublin newspapers which he would read to the House:— Mr. Ross (said the Dublin Monitor) came to this country, and sought and obtained access to public meetings avowedly as a reporter, first for the Morning Chronicle, and secondly for the London Standard. In his character as a newspaper reporter he was associated with by Gentlemen connected in that capacity with the Dublin press, yet all the while he concealed the real purpose that brought him to Ireland—he concealed the fact that he was a paid agent of the Government, to spy and ferret out information that might afterwards be rendered available in procuring the conviction of individuals. The plain truth is, Mr. C. Ross acted a treacherous, and therefore an ungentlemanly, part—a part that no person actuated by feelings which are characteristic of a gentleman would consent to act. He deceived those with whom his professional duty brought him in contact—he represented himself to those with whom he associated in this country to be here in the honourable capacity of a newspaper reporter, whereas he was secretly working in the capacity of a hired informer for the Government. No sophistry can palliate, let alone justify, such duplicity. He concurred in every syllable of those observations. There was also a letter from the correspondent of the Morning Chronicle itself, which stated that former Governments had called upon newspaper reporters as witnesses for the Crown, but that those gentlemen had refused to attend. The letter said— Frequently before now have those in office attempted to compel reporters to become witnesses for the Crown; but in no one case have they ever succeeded. In 1824, when Mr. O'Connell was prosecuted for sedition by Lord Plunket, then Attorney General, amongst the witnesses summoned to support the indictment before the Grand Jury were two of the reporters—Mr. Leech and Mr. Kelly. Both refused to appear, and were called upon fines of 100l. each. They left Dublin. The bill was thrown out; but it is to be mentioned, to the credit of Lord Plunket, that he did not afterwards attempt to enforce the penalties incurred by them. Several other reporters were summoned on the occasion, before the magistrates; but they all declined giving the slightest information; and the principle on which they acted was this—that newspaper reporters are the representatives of the absent public—that their duty is a simple one, to give information of all that is said or done that it may be interesting to the public to know—that to perform that duty facilities are afforded to them which would be refused, and properly refused, if persons were led to suppose that they were dealing with witnesses for the Crown. It went on to say, 'Change newspaper reporters into Crown witnesses, and freedom of discussion is at an end. Men will fly from public meetings into secret conspiracies; and the first intimation which a government will receive of its danger, will be like to that which was given to Otho of Greece, when his palace was invested with an armed population, and he was 'requested' to give to his subjects a new form of government.' There had also been a meeting of newspaper reporters, at which very strong resolutions were adopted, condemnatory of reporters becoming witnesses for the Crown. He came next to Mr. Jackson, of the Morning Herald, who, it appeared, was not a regular reporter, but a correspondent of the Morning Herald, and who used to write some very interesting and entertaining reports for that paper, or to use his own terms, "rather spicy reports" for those readers who indulged in the Morning Herald. At the close of that person's examination he stated that the Morning Herald had then lately changed hands, and that it was a short time previous to the change of proprietors he had been directed to put himself in communication with Mr. Kemmis, the Crown Solicitor. The witness then said that he wished to say something, as comments might he made on his conduct. The Lord Chief Justice then asked him what he wished to say? Mr. Jackson; Those manuscript documents, (Mr. Jackson's reports), my Lords, were given by the proprietors of the Morning Herald to Mr. Kemmis, the Crown Solicitor, and, so help me God, I never saw them, or knew he had them, until he produced me the letter of those gentlemen, stating that they had furnished him with them, and requiring me to initial them. I considered it was due to my character before the world to make this plain explanation of the truth. No person could cast the least blame upon Mr. Jackson after this statement. It was evident that Mr. Jackson was ashamed of the conduct of the Crown, and that he was very anxious to cast the odium of the transaction from himself. Those documents were handed over by the proprietors for reasons best known to themselves. He knew it might be said that this took place before the transfer of the Morning Herald, which happened on the 1st of January. But there were reasons for handing over these documents before the money was paid, and before the Government assisted in advancing the money. The Government no doubt had very equitable claims to the documents which they found in the Morning Herald office before that establishment was transferred, and before it was incorporated with The Standard. But it was clear Mr. Jackson was ashamed of the transaction, though it appeared the Morning Herald was not ashamed of handing over the documents. He said that the Government ought to be ashamed of their conduct in availing themselves of those documents. He would read some of the opinions of the press on this subject. The opinions were strong, but not stronger than the conduct of the parties would justify. The Dublin Monitor of the 22nd January, says— It may be right to inform our readers that the Morning Herald was purchased about a mouth ago; and we presume, therefore, that the present proprietors and editors are not responsible for the perfidious conduct we are now deprecating. Be this as it may, the Morning Herald stands charged with an offence which we believe is wholly unparalleled in the history of the public press. The charge is clear and unmistakable. The Herald received communications under the seal of confidence, and then traded on those communications with Government in a prosecution against its subjects. This strikes at once at the root of all confidence in public journalists. Instead of maintaining a character for principle and honour, they become spies and informers—for to this it comes. The words are harsh, but they faintly express the perfidious conduct to which we allude. In fact, it is a 'toss up' in turpitude between the Herald and the Crown; for the Crown is as inexcusable in availing itself of such sources of information as the Herald is in their betrayal. He (Mr. Duncombe) concurred in that opinion, and he thought that even if The Herald was base enough to hand over the documents to the Crown, the Crown ought not to avail themselves of them in a trial of such importance. The trial became tainted by such conduct; and they had better have left the prosecution alone than conduct it by such means, which reflected so little credit on the Government. The noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies informed the House the other night, with more candour than discretion, that the right hon. Gentleman wrote a letter to the Attorney General for Ireland, commending him for the judgment, the firmness and the good temper with which he conducted the prosecution. As Ministers had thus passed a vote of thanks to the Attorney General for Ireland, he hoped that others connected with the trials would not be excluded. He hoped the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench would receive a vote of thanks for the charge he bad delivered. He hoped that Mr. Kemmis, too, the Crown Solicitor, would be thanked for his services in procuring the jury. No doubt the proprietors of the Morning Herald and Standard found a sufficient recom- pence in their own consciences, and were above any idea of remuneration; but he must say they would not do justice to the Chief Justice and Mr. Kemmis if they only thanked the Attorney General for the judgment and temper with which he had conducted the prosecution. Now, he wanted to know if a verdict so obtained would gain any moral influence whatever? He doubted it very much; it certainly had not produced that effect in England. The impression, from one end of England, to the other was, that Mr. O'Connell had not had a fair trial. At the close of last Session, the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department told the House that, if it did not strengthen the hands of the Government, and assist them in putting down what he called the "rebellious spirit in Ireland," England—all glorious England—would exhibit a melancholy spectacle in the eyes of surrounding nations, if there was the slightest shadow of a shade of foundation for that opinion. The Government must now be in a sad state of alarm, because looking at what had occurred during these Debates, and to the general opinion of the conduct of the Government, he must say he had never known a Debate so damaging to a Government. They must be on the eve of the fulfilment of the prediction of the right hon. Baronet, if there was the slightest foundation for his assertion of last Session. He had no apprehension of that prediction being fulfilled. The only apprehension he had of their becoming a melancholy spectacle in the eyes of other nations was a fear that Members of Parliament would not speak out on this question, and would not do their duty; but if hon. Members on both sides of the House would do their duty in this matter, there need be no alarm. He knew it was perfectly competent to Her Majesty's Ministers to refuse the returns he moved for, and that without adducing one single argument in support of their conduct, just as they had the other night the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend near him, for a copy of a memorial to the Lord Lieutenant. On that occasion they relied not on argument, but on their numerical majority. They might do so on that occasion, they might refuse the information he sought for, and which Ireland had a right to have, but if they did so, the country would not be satisfied, but every impartial man would come to the conclusion that these pro- ceedings had been conducted, from first to last, in a way which reflected no honour on them, either as men or as Ministers of the Crown. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for the returns.

Sir J. Graham

Sir, I should indeed entertain a melancholy opinion of the future prospects, not only of Ireland, but of the whole United Kingdom, if I could believe that the majority of this House sympathized with the opinions of the hon. Member who brought forward this Motion; and, let me add, that under ordinary circumstances, after the speech which the hon. Member has delivered, and more especially after the invectives and accusations in which he has indulged when speaking of the Government, I should consider it my duty, as a Member of that Government, to oppose altogether the Returns for which be has moved. But, considering the whole circumstances of the case, the particular time at which the Motion is made, and the necessity of a Vote of Money during the present Session connected with the late trials, I could not bring myself to give to the whole of the Motion a direct negative; I am willing to assent to a certain portion of it. I would beg of the House to consider in what light the hon. Member presents himself with this Motion this evening. If I mistake not, the hon. Member was last night attending a meeting of his constituents in Finsbury, where, after a warm discussion, a motion was carried instructing him to obstruct the progress of the Supplies in this House. [Mr. T. Duncombe: No such motion was made.] The debate I understood was a stormy one, and after the great variety of topics introduced and the various opinions expressed with respect to them, it was somewhat difficult to say what did or what did not pass. [Mr. T. Duncombe: I will tell the right hon. Gentleman.—Cries of "No, no."] The hon. Member will have ample opportunity of explanation, if he will allow me to proceed. I wish also to remind the House that the hon. Gentleman has been advertised as the chairman of a dinner about to be given to Mr. O'Connell. The hon. Gentleman has informed the Government that they were very much damaged in the late debate—that we are not so strong as we think ourselves to be—and that a change has taken place on his own side of the House. I wish him joy of that change and of the new compact alliance which he and his friends have entered into. Sir, I will now proceed to touch upon some of the topics to which the hon. Member has adverted, but it is not my intention to reopen those questions which for nine nights have occupied the attention of this House. Sir, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridport is about to ask me this evening when it is the intention of Government to proceed with measures of great importance, and respecting which much anxiety prevails in the public mind. I allude to the Factory Bill and the Poor Law Bill. Now, I beg to remind the House that since the protracted debate on Irish affairs we have had two Supply Days, and on each of those days the hon. Member for Rochdale has made a Motion on the question of going into Committee of Supply for the avowed purpose of obstructing the Supplies. The hon. Member who has moved the Motion now before the House, adopting the same line and pursuing the same course, has on this one Motion reopened all the questions referring to the conduct of the late trials, which have already undergone a protracted discussion. Under these circumstances I feel it my duty to anticipate the question of the hon. Member for Bridport by stating, that it is impossible for Her Majesty's Government thus designedly obstructed to fix any precise time for going on with the Measures to which his question refers. Now, Sir, with reference to the hon. Member's Motion, I at once avow that Her Majesty's Government, observing in the course of the last summer the language that was used at large meetings in Ireland, which were assembled in rapid succession, did think it their imperative duty to obtain clear, full, authentic, and satisfactory evidence as to the speeches, which were addressed to those vast assemblies. I contend that I should have been wanting in my duty to the public if I had omitted every fair opportunity of obtaining such information. Sir, I see hon. Members on the Benches opposite who are opposed—bitterly opposed, I am afraid—to me in politics; but I would ask them if, at all times, it has not been the practice of the Executive Government, when popular excitement has run high, and immense public meetings have been assembled, to obtain authentic information, by means of shorthand-writers, as to the language addressed to such meetings? The simple question, therefore, is, whether the means used by Her Majesty's Government were fair and legitimate? The hon. Member has thought fit to use, I will not say offensive, but cer- tainly very strong language, with respect to the course which has been pursued in the case which the hon. Member has brought under our consideration. Sir, I do not hesitate to avow that all the means which have been adopted to obtain information in the case have been adopted by me, and on my own individual responsibility. I do not wish to throw any portion of my responsibility on my Colleagues. I am the person who is responsible, and from that responsibility I will not shrink. Now, I will state the course which I pursued, and I will do so in the first place with respect to Mr. Bond Hughes. I applied to the person at the head of the Stenograph Reporting Department for the Government and both Houses of Parliament (Mr. Gurney), and requested him to select an intelligent person, versed in shorthand-writing and competent to verify his shorthand notes and to give evidence in a Court of Justice specifying the words spoken in his presence; and I directed Mr. Gurney to send, on the usual terms of remuneration, some such person to Ireland, in whom he could place confidence, and which he safely could recommend. Mr. Gurney, in accordance with those directions, selected Mr. Bond Hughes, and that gentleman was accordingly sent over to Ireland for the purpose of attending the meetings there, and taking a shorthand note of the whole of the proceedings. I am perfectly willing to produce a return of all the monies paid to Mr. Bond Hughes, and also the instructions given to him. In a short time there will be laid before the House a return of all the sums paid to Mr. Gurney on account of the persons now employed in taking notes of the proceedings of the Landlord and Tenant Commission in Ireland, and on account of the shorthand writers who attended the Special Commissions in South Wales, and it will appear from that return that Mr. Bond Hughes did not receive for his services in Ireland a greater remuneration than that which is usually paid to shorthand writers employed by the Government on similar service. I feel quite satisfied that even the hon. Member for Finsbury will say, that the remuneration is not extravagant, and that the instructions are unexceptionable. The hon. Gentleman has referred to what has occurred in Dublin, with respect to the information sworn by Mr. B. Hughes; but with the single exception of a mistake about the presence of Mr. Barrett at a par- titular meeting, not one point of his evidence was shaken in the slightest degree. Excepting the mistake with reference to the presence of Mr. Barrett at one of two meetings which were held, I think, at a particular place on the same day, though Mr. Hughes was subjected to the closest cross-examination, no portion of his testimony was shaken; nothing was wrong in his statement except that one particular in which he fell into an error. But the fact of the presence of Mr. Barrett at those meetings—and my hon. Friend the Attorney General will correct me if I am wrong—did not rest singly on the evidence of Mr. B. Hughes; there was the evidence of other witnesses, who clearly proved that on one occasion at least Mr. Barrett was present at a meeting specified in the indictment. Now, with respect to Mr. Ross, I will tell the House exactly what occurred. The first occasion on which the Government thought fit to send a shorthand-writer to Ireland was in the month of June, I think. I avow at once that I have known Mr. Ross for many years. I know him to be a most accurate reporter. I believe him to be a trustworthy and honourable man; and, knowing him to be such, I, on my own responsibility, sent for Mr. Ross and told him that it was desirable that a shorthand-writer should proceed to Ireland for the purpose of attending at a particular meeting to be held at Donnybrook. My directions to him were—"You will proceed thither; you will take accurate notes of what is said, and be prepared to verify upon oath your report of the speeches you hear." I think the pecuniary arrangement was made that he should receive 50l. and the payment of his expenses. Mr. Ross did proceed to Ireland, he attended that meeting, and he furnished a verbatim report of the proceedings. Subsequently, towards the end of the Session of Parliament, before Mr. Hughes was sent, a further arrangement was made with Mr. Ross, that he should proceed to Ireland and remain there during the whole of the recess, from the first or second week in August, I think, until the first week in February, and for his services during that period he was to receive the sum of 350l. Now, it will appear, when the return of the payments made to Mr. Gurney is presented, that the rate of payment to Mr. Ross was considerably less than that made to Mr. Bond Hughes and others employed in Mr. Gurney's establishment. But the accusation made by the hon. Member for Finsbury is, that Mr. Ross was sent by me to Ireland as a spy. I, in the most solemn and positive manner, deny that accusation. My instructions to Mr. Ross were to go to Ireland and avow himself to be a reporter for the Government. I knew that at that time he was connected as a reporter with one of the morning papers, the Morning Chronicle, I believe; and subsequently I was aware that at the end of the Session he was connected with the Standard; but my instructions were, "You will proceed to Ireland as the reporter for the Government." I did not sanction any concealment whatever of his avowed mission for that purpose; and I believe I may say, even after all the hon. Gentleman has stated, that it was well and perfectly known in Ireland that Mr. Ross was employed as a Government reporter. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say, that Mr. Ross concealed the fact, that he was a Government reporter, that he travelled with Mr. Steele and other parties forty-two miles, they not being aware that he was a Government reporter—that, in point of fact, he was employed as a spy for the Government. Now, that I absolutely and positively deny. [Mr. T. Duncombe: It is his own evidence.] Any concealment used by Mr. Ross was not in obedience to my instructions. I am ready to produce an account of all monies paid to Mr. Charles Ross and Mr. Bond Hughes, and the instructions given to them, which I have already said were verbal. But I, on my own responsibility, for the satisfaction of the hon. Gentleman, will state the terms of the instructions. I will put them in an authentic form and lay them on the Table. With regard to the case of Mr. Jackson, with him neither directly nor indirectly have I had any communication. It appears that he was a reporter employed by the Morning Herald, and resident in Dublin, and the Crown Solicitor in Dublin, as was his bounden duty, in seeking evidence to corroborate the testimony of Mr. Hughes and Mr. Ross, ascertained that Mr. Jackson had taken notes at some of these meetings at which language had been used which was about to be questioned in a Court of Justice, and be communicated with Mr. Jackson, and with the editor or conductor of the Morning Herald, in whose service Mr. Jackson was. A return shall be made of all the law expenses incurred in this prosecution on the part of the Crown Solicitor, and by that return it will appear what money was paid to Mr. Jackson. I must again declare, that excepting by the Crown Solicitor, on the part of the Government, there has been no communication directly or indirectly with Mr. Jackson. [Mr. T. Duncombe: Nor with the Morning Herald.] I will state what communication was made to that Journal. I do not disavow this. The House must determine whether, in a case of this description, when everything turned upon the strict proof of the language which had been used, it was not the duty of Her Majesty's Government to have clear and irrefragable evidence, and to put the words used beyond all question by obtaining corroborative testimony, provided always that it was obtained openly and honestly. I frankly avow then, that a communication was made to the proprietors of the Morning Herald and Standard to allow the corroboration to be obtained by means of the reports made to them, of the speeches delivered at the meeting and about to be brought into question. It was necessary that corroborative testimony should be obtained of the short-hand notes of the reporters employed by Government; and I say it was the duty of the Government to obtain that evidence. I have told the House, on the part of the Government, that I am prepared to assent to a portion of this Motion. I am prepared to make a return of all monies paid, of all instructions given; and shall add, either now or on some future occasion, a return of the rate of payment to the reporters employed in Mr. Gurney's establishment, both in Ireland and in Wales, on similar occasions. But I now come to a portion of the Motion which I feel it to be my duty most decidedly to resist. I must oppose the last two returns. The right hon. Gentleman made an insinuation not to be misunderstood, that either the Morning Herald or the Standard, or even both of them, had received a sum of money from Her Majesty's Government,—that some corrupt practices had taken place between them and Her Majesty's Government. Now, in the most solemn manner, as a gentleman, I deny the truth of that statement; and I do maintain, that the hon. Gentleman has no right, in the shape of a Motion fur a return, to make so base an insinuation. I might as well make a Motion for an account of the money obtained by any Member of this House for a vote which he has given. This species of insinuation is calculated to convey an indelible stain. I say the gentlemen connected with the public papers are gentlemen of high and honourable feeling. I will not use the same expressions as the hon. Gentleman—though I might—and say that it is dirty and dishonourable to convey a contrary insinuation; but I do say it is unworthy of any Member of this House to do so. I am quite resolved, therefore, to take the opinion of the House against that part of the resolution. I am aware I give the hon. Gentleman an advantage, of which, perhaps, he will not be slow to avail himself, and because I refuse the return he will repeat the insinuation with double effect; but, I again assert, in the most solemn manner I can use in this House, that there is not the slightest foundation for the aspersion of the hon. Gentleman. So, with regard to the last return, the names of the persons now employed by Mr. Gurney for the purpose of taking notes of the present proceedings at the Corn Exchange in Dublin—after the experience we have had of the posting of Mr. Bond Hughes as a spy, I am not prepared to hold up those persons to public execration, and, possibly, to place them in danger of sustaining personal injury. [Mr. T. Duncombe: Not the names of those employed at the Trial.] The words of this part of the hon. Gentleman's Motion are, Also the name or names of the short-hand writers appointed to furnish the Government report of the proceedings at the Trial of 'The Queen against O'Connell and others.' Well, but I say those persons are still employed by Mr. Gurney; they are still attending meetings at the Corn Exchange, and I am not prepared to hold them up to public resentment, and probably to popular fury—I shall oppose therefore this part of the hon. Gentleman's Motion. But before I sit down I will just observe, that it is, in these times, no easy task to insure public justice against great offenders without incurring some public obloquy. I have thought it my painful duty to risk the incurring of such obloquy; but it is my pride and satisfaction to know that, upon the whole, I have succeeded in administering the law without asking for any extraordinary powers; putting down dangerous turbulence in England, and bringing to condign punishment great public offenders in Ireland. I have faithfully and honourably, I trust, pursued the path of duty, and I am not to be deterred by any taunts or attacks of the hon. Member. I will remind the House, that the hon. Gentleman has, in his accustomed manner, given his own account of the proceedings. At one time he attacks the Judges, at another the humblest officer of the law—the parish constable; sometimes he appears as the advocate of his friend, the doctor, who is now an outlaw and who spouted sedition from the pump at Deptford; sometimes he attacks the public prosecutor, at others the jury; nay even the witnesses, are the objects of his attacks. Upon the whole, the hon. Gentleman has a most morbid sensibility, which is excited on behalf of political offenders; he has, as it were, an instinctive dread of political trials, and he wishes to bespatter everybody who—as it would seem, to his great terror—has been instrumental in causing justice at last to overtake those who violate the law. I wish him joy if that line of conduct recommends him to any portion of the community out of this House; but my appeal is to the majority in this House. [Cheers from the Opposition.] To this majority, I say, on both sides of this House. Yes, I see ranged opposite to me, not without some preparation, a strong muster of the party opposed to the Government. We have made no such preparation. But still I am very confident, of the success of an appeal to the sense, the good feeling, and the judgment of this House. I am convinced that the hon. Gentleman will not succeed in his Motion.

Lord J. Russell

Sir, I certainly have made no preparation for taking part either in this debate or in the division upon the Motion; nor is it my intention to address the House otherwise than I think myself called upon in consequence of one part of the observations of the right hon. Gentleman. He says he believes it to have been the practice of those concerned in the Executive department of this country, so far as the Home Department is concerned, to send persons in an excited state of the country to obtain correct reports of what passes at public meetings. I must say at once, and I should be wrong if I were to declare what I should consider to be my duty, if there were an excited state of the public mind either in England or Ireland, if large meetings were held, and if it appeared, by reading the reports in the newspapers, that what passed at those meetings had anything of a seditious or dangerous tendency, I should consider it my duty if I were in office to send persons to obtain correct reports of the proceedings. I do not know that I should do it in any other way than the right hon. Gentleman says he took, namely, by ap- plying to Mr. Gurney, the short-hand writer, to ask him to name some person in whom confidence could be placed, and sending that person to the meetings, in order that he might take accurate notes of the proceedings. I should then be enabled to judge—consulting others, of course, and more especially the Law Officers of the Crown,—as to whether the language used, and the tendency of it, were such as to make it necessary to institute proceedings; and allow me to say, that I do not think there would be any security for the country if the Executive Government did not act so. Is it possible to allow that there shall be in all the newspapers of the country reports of meetings, at which language—I am supposing a case, I am not taking any particular case,—language of the most seditious, of the most disloyal, of the most revolutionary kind shall be used, and that be known, not only to the meeting to which it was addressed, but to the whole country—is it possible, I say, to allow all this, and that the Government alone should have no means of ascertaining and verifying the fact of such language being used? I should think the country would be placed in great danger if the Minister neglected his duty so much. I say, therefore, at once, it was the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to take the course he took; and I maintain, leaving it to his responsibility with respect to the meetings in Ireland, that it was his duty to ascertain correctly what language was used at those meetings. I know, that on a former occasion, persons have been employed in that avocation; when it has been the case, as it appears at present, that short-hand writers have been so employed and regularly paid a salary for their services, I know that a person so engaged has been termed a spy. But nothing can be more different. I understand a spy to be a person employed to act in secret, a person who goes, not to public meetings, but to the secret councils of discontented or disaffected persons,—a person who watches the language used at those secret meetings. The obvious danger of employing such persons is, that they not only may report beyond the truth, but they may excite that very disaffection, and sedition, and treason, they were employed to counteract. But a person who goes, executing fairly and faithfully the commands he has received, to take down a report of what passes at a public meeting, excites no one, he instigates no one to the commission of any crime. He merely observes what he sees, and takes down accurately the words he hears. How can people complain that a public meeting, held professedly to consider their grievances, should be attended by reporters for such a purpose? What right have they to complain of persons taking down their words and observing their conduct? But the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to the other part of his conduct, upon which I certainly should not be so willing, because I am not able, to give an opinion. He referred to the corroboration which he had required from the reporters and writers of certain newspapers. If that was merely asking that they who had taken down reports of these proceedings should appear at the trial and should give their evidence of what they had taken down, in order to verify what had been taken down by the Government reporters, I own I cannot see that there is matter for blame in that case. Whether or not the credit of a newspaper may be injured from its being known that their reporters are in the habit of assisting Government in State prosecutions—that is a matter for the consideration of the proprietors of such newspapers—that is a question of newspaper policy—a matter of newspaper morality. It is a question with which, I think, the Government has no concern. The right hon. Gentleman was not to consider the interests of the newspaper proprietors in the matter; but merely to ask whether or not they were prepared to corroborate the testimony of other witnesses. I must say, however, that the validity of his defence upon this point, with regard to Mr. C. Ross, depends upon the correctness with which Mr. C. Ross observed his instructions. If Mr. Ross said openly he was to make his report to the Government department, either in Ireland or in England, and if he did not conceal his character of Government reporter, why, then, the instructions given him were proper instructions, and properly carried into effect; but if, on the contrary, Mr. Charles Ross had concealed his character as a Government reporter, and if he had thus wormed himself into the councils and the projects of those engaged in the repeal agitation, then there can not be a doubt but the right hon. Gentleman himself must see that some injury has been done, and that his in- structions have not been properly carried out. I rose for the purpose, and no other, of stating what I should consider it to be my duty, had I been employed in the service of the Crown, and having dine that I should now sit down; but the right hon. Gentleman indulged in a taunt, which had been addressed to him, in that House, and he could not forbear from alluding to it. It was, when the right hon. Gentleman spoke of a "compact alliance," which, he says, has been made with Mr. O'Connell, and wishes me joy of it. Sir, I am perfectly aware of the effect that was produced during the existence of the late Government, by the constant reiteration of Mr. O'Connell being the director of the proceedings, and the disposer of the patronage of that Government, and how much injury was produced by that entirely unfounded slander. Although I may suffer—although the statement of the right hon. Gentleman of a "compact alliance" between Mr. O'Connell and myself has no foundation—yet, Sir, I will never shrink, if I see Mr. O'Connell or any one else—if I see Mr. O'Connell, or some one who has done less for the country to which he belongs—some one who has less talent than Mr. O'Connell—some one who is in a more humble situation in life than Mr. O'Connell—yet, whatever obloquy it may expose me to, I will never shrink from declaring that which I think, when it is my opinion that that person has not had a fair trial. No obloquy which the right hon. Gentleman may cast upon me—no obloquy which the right hon. Gentleman's party can cast upon me, shall deter me from doing my duty—nor from stating that which is my belief—nor what is my sense of the right hon. Gentleman's proceedings with respect to that trial. My belief is, that if the same offence had been committed in this country—supposing the Attorney General here had pursued a somewhat similar course to that adopted in Ireland—my opinion, I say, is, that there would have been a different charge from the judge, and a different verdict from the jury. That, Sir, is lay opinion, and I say that be the persons brought to trial who they may, never will I cease to endeavour to obtain for the people of Ireland the full enjoyment of all those rights and all those privileges of which the people of England are so justly proud.

Mr. T. Dancombe

wished to be permitted to say a few words, though he was not strictly entitled to reply. He wished to set the right hon. Gentleman right on one or two points. He had never accused the Government of employing spies, when a reporter attended on their behalf, and avowed what was his object at a public meeting. He had never connected the name of Mr. Bond Hughes with that of a spy. Mr. Hughes had attended public meetings, he acknowledged himself as a Government reporter, and at those meetings Mr. Bond Hughes declared that he was received there with every courtesy, and that every facility was given to him to report the proceedings of the meetings. He believed that such would be the case at any public meeting to which the Government might send a reporter, if the reporter only said that he came from the Government, and avowed the character in which he appeared. He believed that no objection would be felt against such a reporter attending—he considered that no objection ought to be felt against his attending; but, on the contrary, that every encouragement should be given to such persons, as it was sure means of making the grievances of the country known to the Government. To come, however, to Mr. Charles Ross, he was not in the same position with Mr. Bond Hughes; and when the right hon. Gentleman thought of employing Mr. Ross, it must have been perfectly well known to him that Mr. Ross was the servant of the Morning Chronicle—that he was in the pay of the Morning Chronicle. He must have known that Mr. Ross was employed in the opposite interest, and then to take such a person—to send him on a secret mission of this sort, it was for the right hon. Gentleman, if he could, to reconcile that to himself. The right hon. Gentleman, no doubt, before he did this, wrote to the proprietors of the Morning Chronicle to say, "I am about to employ one of your servants on a mission of the Government." Then, the right hon. Gentleman says he gave Mr. Charles Ross certain instructions. Did Mr. Ross obey those instructions? Mr. Ross was examined on the trial, and he was asked if, when he went to the meetings, he had given any notice of his being an agent or reporter of the Government? How was that question answered? With the words "Certainly not." Well, then, he said this was acting as a spy. He really thought that the right hon. Gentleman ought to attend to what had been said by his protegé. Mr. Ross was asked if he had communicated to the agent of the Morning Chronicle, that he was deputed by the Government to attend? To this his answer was, "Certainly not." Here, then, was another part of his examination. He said that he found no difficulty in getting a place on the platform—that he got in through the means of a Gentleman connected with the Dublin Evening Post, who thought that Mr. Ross was in the same interest with himself. He afterwards stated he was in the service of the Standard. He was then asked the question—"Did you apprise the Standard that you were employed by the Government?" Answer—"Certainly not." This, then, was the person that the Government had employed as their agent. He was the agent of the right hon. the Attorney General for Ireland and the right hon. Baronet. This man, he said, so acting, came under the description of a spy. The right hon. Gentleman might say that such a person was trustworthy; but he left it to the country whether such conduct was honourable—whether it was becoming, that he should have undertaken a duty and not avow it. He affirmed that it never was known in the country that Ross was a Government reporter until he was called to be examined as a witness. And now with respect to the Morning Herald and the Standard he wished to observe that he had never said one word against Mr. Jackson. On the contrary, he thought that the conduct of Mr. Jackson reflected great credit upon him; for he felt ashamed of the duty that had been imposed upon him. At the close of the examination, Mr. Jackson said, "So help me God, I was not aware of my notes having been given up." Mr. Jackson was compromised by no act of his own. It appeared from the statements of the right hon. Baronet, that he had applied to the Morning Herald and Standard for assistance to carry on his prosecution, and the right hon. Baronet now told him he should not have the Return he had moved for as to what money had been paid. When the right hon. Baronet gave it in the case of Mr. Ross, who was in the employment of the Standard, why refuse it with respect to others? Mr. Ross, in his evidence, says, "I would not have taken 50,000l. to come over, unless I had come in the capacity of a newspaper reporter." He afterwards said he might run the risk of being a Government agent for 100,000l., and then lowered it to 75,000l.; but by Ross's own confession, they had the fact acknowledged that he was not known to the Irish people but as the reporter of a newspaper, when he was, in truth, the agent of the right hon. Baronet. The right hon. Baronet had alluded to a meeting, at which he was present, and that had reference to the proposition of the hon. Member for Rochdale for stopping the Supplies. That meeting had come to the resolution that they had perfect confidence in him either in stopping or granting the Supplies. [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, seemed delighted with the idea, for the right hon. Gentleman knew that he was one who had no objection to granting the Supplies. His Motion that day had no reference to the Supplies, and it was uncandid of the right hon. Gentleman to make the assertion, because he knew that it had nothing to do with that subject. Notwithstanding the taunts of the right hon. Baronet—and he must say it was a bad vindication of the Government when the right hon. Gentleman had recourse to old stories—still he was determined to proceed, and whether it were a Judge, a Jury, a Public Prosecutor, or the right hon. Baronet who were mixed up with acts of oppression, he was resolved to submit such acts to the consideration of that House, as long as he had the honour of a seat in it.

Mr. R. M. Bellew

remarked, that on this occasion the right hon. Baronet had repeated a statement which had been made before, and to which a full answer had been given, namely, that placards had been circulated, describing Mr. Bond Hughes as a spy and informer. When did that proceeding take place? When Mr. Bond Hughes appeared to have been really guilty of perjury, swearing that to be a fact which was known not to be true. But what was Mr. Bond Hughes's own statement? That he went to Mr. Kemmis's, and to Mr. Kemmis's clerk to explain the mistake—that he did explain that mistake in vain to them—that what he had done was for the purpose of casing his own conscience which they had never disclosed. And now the right hon. Gentleman repeated his statement, whilst he lost sight of this fact with respect to Mr. Bond Hughes. And now, with reference to the conduct of the Crown Solicitor, it was one to which no explanation up to that moment had been given. He now called upon the Irish Attorney General to give an explanation of that transaction. It was certainly a very gross transaction. A witness deposed to a circumstance which he afterwards ascertained to be false. He told the Crown Solicitor of that fact, and yet, not only had the Crown Solicitor a warrant issued upon the false allegation, but he never allowed the matter to be corrected, and permitted a gentleman for a considerable time to remain under the imputation of having committed perjury. This was the Crown Solicitor's conduct, and up to that time there had been no explanation given of it. It was one of the many proceedings which had produced the impression that from the beginning to the end of those proceedings, there had not been fair play; and however large might be the majority for Ministers in that House, he said that this impression must remain in the minds of the people of Ireland.

The House divided on the question, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question:—Ayes 144; Noes 73: Majority 71.

List of the AYES.
Acland, T. D. Copeland, Ald.
A'Court, Capt. Corry, rt. hon. H.
Antrobus, E. Cripps, W.
Arbuthnott, hon. H. Damer, hon. Col.
Arkwright, G. Denison, E. B.
Astell, W. Dick, Q.
Baillie, Col. Dickinson, F. H.
Baillie, H. J. Douglas, Sir H.
Bankes, G. Douglas, Sir C. E.
Baring, hon. W. B. Duncombe, hon. A.
Barrington, Visct. Eaton, R. J.
Beckett, W. Egerton, W. T.
Bentinck, Lord G. Eliot, Lord
Boldero, H. G. Emlyn, Visct.
Borthwick, P. Escott, B.
Botfield, B. Estcourt, T. G. B.
Bradshaw, J. Farnham, E. B.
Bramston, T. W. Fitzmaurice, hn. W.
Bruce, Lord E. Flower, Sir J.
Buck, L. W. Follett, Sir W. W.
Bunbury, T. Fox, S. L.
Burrell, Sir C. M. Fuller, A. E.
Cardwell, E. Gaskell, J. Milnes
Chapman, A. Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.
Charteris, hon. F. Glynne, Sir S. R.
Chetwode, Sir J. Gordon, hon. Capt.
Clerk, Sir G. Goring, C.
Cochrane, A. Goulburn, rt. hon. H.
Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G. Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.
Collett, W. R. Greenall, P.
Greene, T. Mundy, E. M.
Gregory, W. H. Neville, R.
Grog0an, E. Nicholl, rt. hon. J.
Hamilton, G. A. O'Brien, A. S.
Hamilton, W. J. Oswald, A.
Hanmer, Sir J. Packe, C.
Harcourt, G. G. Patten, J. W.
Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H. Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.
Hardy, J, Peel, J.
Hayes, Sir E. Plumptre, J. P.
Henley, J. W. Pollock, Sir F.
Herbert, hon. S. Praed, W. T.
Hinde, J. H. Pringle, A.
Hodgson, R. Reid, Sir J. R.
Hope, hon. C. Rendlesham, Lord
Hope, G. W. Repton, G. W. J.
Hornby, J. Richards, R.
Houldsworth, T. Rous, hon. Capt.
Hughes, W. B. Rushbrooke, Col.
Hussey, T. Sanderson, R.
Irton, S. Sandon, Visct.
Irving, J. Scarlett, hon. R. C.
Jermyn, Earl Scott, hon. F.
Jocelyn, Visct. Seymour, Sir H.
Johnstone, H. Shirley, E. P.
Kemble, H. Sibthorp, Col.
Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.
Knight, H. G. Smollett, A.
Lascelles, hon. W. S. Somerset, Lord G.
Law, hon. C. E. Stanley, Lord
Lincoln, Earl of Stewart, J.
Lockhart, W. Sutton, hon. H. M.
Lowther, J. H. Tennent, J. E.
Lygon, hon. Gen. Tomline, G.
McGeachy, F. A. Trotter, J.
Mackenzie, T. Wall, C. B.
Mackenzie, W. F. Wellesley, Lord C.
Mackinnon, W. A. Wortley, hon. J. S.
Maclean, D. Wyndham, Col. C.
McNeill, D. Yorke, hon. E. T.
Mahon, Visct.
Mainwaring, T. TELLERS.
Masterman, J. Fremantle, Sir T.
Milnes, R. M. Baring, H.
List of the NOES.
Aglionby, H. A. Cave, hon. R. O.
Baring, rt. hn. F. T. Cobden, R.
Barnard, E. G. Colborne, hn. W. N. R.
Barron, Sir H. W. Collett, J.
Berkeley, hon. C. Crawford, W. S.
Berkeley, hon. H. F. Dalrymple, Capt.
Bernal, R. Dawson, hon. T. V.
Bernal, Capt. Dennistoun, J.
Blake, M. J. Duff, J.
Blewitt, R. J. Duncan, G.
Bodkin, J. J. Duncannon, Visct.
Bowes, J. Dundas, Adm.
Bowring, Dr. Ellice, E.
Bright, J. Elphinstone, H.
Brotherton, J. Fielden, J.
Browne, hon. W. Gore, hon. R.
Buller, C. Hastie, A.
Busfeild, W. Hay, Sir A. L.
Butler, hon. Col. Hill, Lord M.
Byng, rt. hon. G. S. Horsman, E.
Carew, hon. R. S. Layard, Capt,
Marjoribanks, S. Stansfield, W. R. C.
Martin, J. Strickland, Sir G.
Mitchell, T. A. Strutt, E.
Morris, D. Tancred, H. W.
Murphy, F. S. Thornely, T.
O'Connell, M. Troubridge, Sir E. T.
O'Ferrall, R. M. Villiers, hon. C.
Pattison, J. Wakley, T.
Pechell, Capt. Wallace, R.
Plumridge, Capt. Ward, H. G.
Pulsford, R. Wawn, J. T.
Ramsbottom, J. Williams, W.
Rawdon, Col. Wyse, T.
Ricardo, J. L. Yorke, H. R.
Roche, E. B. TELLERS.
Scholefield, J. Duncombe, T.
Stanley, hon. W. O. Bellew. J.

Order of the Day read.

On the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair—

Back to