HC Deb 15 March 1848 vol 97 cc617-26

on rising to move the Second Reading of the Election Recognizances Bill, said he would first briefly state the circumstances under which it had been introduced. The House would remember that a petition was presented against the return of the hon. Member for Cheltenham, and that the recognizances were discovered to be invalid. In accordance with the advice of eminent counsel, it was supposed that if that petition were allowed to proceed, accompanied by defective recognizances, either the proceedings would be vitiated in toto, or the sitting-Member would not have that security for the payment of his costs which the Legislature had intended that he should possess. For this reason, he (Mr. Walpole) had moved that this matter should be referred to a Select Committee, not that the Members of that Committee might decide on the law of the case, but that they might report on the facts, and bring them under the notice of the House. Since that petition was presented, six or eight others had been referred to the same Committee. On examining into the facts, the Committee were of opinion that serious legal doubts existed as to the validity of the recognizances. He must here remark that when recognizances were defective, it would not become the House to allow the petition to proceed. By so doing they might bring themselves into collision with the courts of law; and those courts might say, "Although these recognizances have been certified by the Speaker, we cannot give to them a legal effect when they do not possess any validity in themselves; we consider them bad both in form and in substance; and if a sitting Member be injured by our decision, the blame rests not with us, but with the House of Commons." He thought such a result would be very much to be deprecated. The authority of the House could not but be seriously impugned by it, and at the same time the rights of sitting Members would be materially affected. Such being the position in which the matter stood, the question which the House had to determine was, whether the petitions should go in their present form and with the existing recognizances, or whether such a Bill as that which he had introduced was not necessary to settle the matter effectually? The House would allow him to remind them that they were then sitting in a judicial character, and that they must, therefore, determine the question before them, not according to their predilections or feelings, but strictly with reference to the justice of the case. What, then, were the rights which they were bound to regard, and who were the parties interested in their decision? There were the sitting Members on the one hand, and the different constituencies on the other. The sitting Members had undoubtedly a right to ask that the petitions against their return should not be allowed to proceed until they had received a guarantee for the payment of their costs in case the petitioners should fail. On the other hand, the constituencies had a right to demand that a mere defect of form, which had arisen, not from any neglect of theirs, but from an inadvertence on the part of the officer of the House, should not be suffered to preclude them from questioning the validity of a return; that they should not be debarred from proceeding merely because an officer in the House had certified that the recognizances offered were in accordance with the Act of Parliament, when, in point of fact, they were not, more especially as, had their attention been called to the defect at the time, there would have been ample opportunity of remedying it. There were two cases by which that matter was placed beyond all possibility of doubt—the Leicester case and the Walsall case. In the former a defect in the recognizances was brought specifically under notice. The examiner took time to consider the matter; and, thinking the recognizance a good one, certified accordingly. It was clear that, if the examiner had declared that the recognizance entered into was one which could not be accepted, the parties would have had ample opportunity of setting the matter right. To say that constituencies should be deprived of all power of questioning the validity of a return, on account of a defect to which the examiner's attention had been directed, would be to say, in effect, that a petition against a sitting Member should not be proceeded with if any technical objection could possibly be urged. The Walsall case was still stronger than the Leicester case. In that case a good recognizance was entered into before the Lord Mayor, but it was not signed. Any legal Member of that House would confirm his declaration, that no recognizance need be signed at all; that the absence of a signature would not, in fact, invalidate it. Yet, in the case of which he was speaking, the examiner thought that, inasmuch as it had been his practice always to require that recognizances should be signed, he was bound to send back the recognizances in question for signature. The parties, in their hurry, then entered into new recognizances, which proved so ambiguous that they could not be acted upon. The consequence was, that although they had done what was perfectly right, unless this Bill were passed they would be unable to proceed. It should be remembered, in considering the case, that the recognizance was burnt, not by the parties themselves, but by the examiner's clerk. Now, he might take it for granted, that it was the opinion of the House that the various petitions should be proceeded with in some form or other. It was, however, a very important and difficult question in what way they should proceed. On that subject the report contained four suggestions; and one of those suggestions was embodied in the present Bill. He proposed that the petitioners should have an opportunity of entering into valid recognizances—that they should submit their recognizances to the examiner—that objections might then be made by the sitting Member—and that when recognizances had been put in which gave to the sitting Member full security for his costs, then, and not till then, the petition should be allowed to proceed. To this proposal there was one objection, which he confessed he was unable to remove, namely, that the petitioners might refuse to enter into fresh recognizances, and that in that case the sitting Member would not be able to obtain the costs already incurred. But he believed that the Members concerned would be willing to sacrifice a small sum as a consideration for having their seats secured to them. Under all the circumstances, he could not but think that the House ought to pass some such Bill as that which he recommended. An hon. Member had given notice of an Amendment, which would have the effect of preventing any further proceedings; but would it be desirable for the House to adopt such a course, when by the Bill before it security was given for the payment of costs? He was of opinion that the only method by which they could do justice, both to the sitting Member and the constituents, was to introduce some such Bill as that recommended by the Select Committee. Let another mode by which they could effect their object in a more equitable manner be pointed out to him, and he, for one, would be most willing to accept it; in the absence of such, he would, however, entreat the House to adopt the present measure.


said, that if his hon. and learned Friend who had just sat down found the present question difficult and embarrassing, how much more so ought he to feel it, unskilled as he was in matters of legal detail? He had often contemplated such a revision in the law; but he considered that the subject was of too vast an importance not to attract the attention of more eminent men than himself, and he accordingly delayed until the last moment making any proposition to the House. He must now say, after a full consideration of the subject, he had come to the conclusion that the present Bill could not pass, as it would not remedy the evils which existed. He was also of opinion that Parliament would not be doing its duty if it contented itself by merely negativing the measure. By pursuing such a course they would not be grappling with the difficulties of the question in an efficient manner, the grievances would still remain, nor would the difficulty be lessened. The proposition which he was about to make, although he knew that it was not perfect, appeared to him to be best calculated to meet the difficulties under which we at present labour; admitting, as he did to the fullest extent, the legal knowledge and the brilliant talents of his hon. and learned Friend, yet he felt himself conscientiously bound to dissent from his proposition. His hon. Friend had said that they were now to act in their judicial character; he completely agreed with him—in that character, and in that alone, had they come to the consideration of the subject—party views, party feelings, party considerations, party intimacies, or friendships, should all be laid aside; and he, for one, felt the same weight of responsibility to rest upon him as if he were in a jury-box. The preamble of the Bill stated that "Whereas certain doubts existed." He should like to know what doubts these were. Surely not upon the law; that was sufficiently clear and explicit. The Committee were sent to investigate into certain facts, and to report upon them. What were those facts? By the law as it at present stands no petition can be received unless certain recognizances are entered into; and their sufficiency or form is not left to the opinion of the parties interested, but a specific form is required, which, if not complied with, all the proceedings taken upon the petition are void ab initio. They had been told by some hon. Gentleman that they had not to do with a question of form, provided the substance was maintained. Now, he begged most entirely to dissent from such a proposition; for if there was one thing more strictly required in courts of justice than another, it was this attention to forms, which proved the safeguards and barriers to the introduction of many abuses. But there was one objection to the present Bill, which he believed the House would concur with him in believing was insuperable—and that was, that this law was an ex post facto law. He thought that the House would not lay down the principle that because a law existed about which there could be no doubt—a law clear and lucid in its requirements and definitions—and because certain parties desirous to avail themselves of the advantages it conferred did not choose to regulate their conduct by its provisions, that they were, therefore, to come and alter that law in order to cure the laches committed. They surely were not to presume every thing against the sitting Members, merely because they were so. On the contrary, being Members de jure, they had the right to have much presumed in their favour. They were also told that they would inflict no injury upon the sitting Members if they consented to this proposition, because, if they were rightly returned, they would only be placing them in their proper position, having been misplaced by the neglect of an officer of that House. But was it no injury to a sitting Member, who by the law as it at present stands cannot have his seat arraigned, to alter that law in order to have it arraigned? Nor was it the fact that the primary neglect had been committed by an officer of that House. The petitioners and their legal agent were first in fault, as they did not comply with the provisions of this Act; for the examiner was not to point out the method in which it ought to be prepared; it was his duty merely to see that it was properly executed. It had been proved with respect to the Cheltenham petition, that the recognizance had been sent in a correct form from London to Cheltenham, and that the material words binding each of the parties to pay his share of the expenses of prosecuting the petition, had been altered in the latter place. The only safe plan for the House to adopt was to abide by the law as it stood, and that they should make the circumstances to meet the law, and not alter the law to meet the circumstances. He deprecated any alteration for an ex post facto purpose; and, hoping the House would agree with him in that opinion, he would move the following Amendment:— To leave out all the words after the word 'that,' in order to add, 'the orders referring the petitions presented against the returns of Members to this House for the boroughs of Bodmin, Cheltenham, Leicester, and Walsall, the city of Dublin, and the county of Longford, to the General Committee of Elections, which petitions are mentioned or referred to in the said Bill, be discharged, and that no further proceedings he taken on the said petitions.'


reminded the House he had opposed the original reference of the petitions to the Committee, whose report was then under consideration, on the ground that the decisions of the examiner of recognizances should be final, and was intended by the Legislature to be so considered. The discussions that had taken place on this occasion had not tended to make him doubt the correctness of that opinion; but as the matter had been referred to the Committee, and as they had fully considered in what way the grievances of which the sitting Members complained might be most conveniently redressed, he thought the Amendment of the hon. Member should not be adopted, and concurred in the suggestion of the hon. Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole) with respect to bringing in this Bill, which provided a total remedy for the evils which they desired to alleviate. As a Member of the Committee, he was prepared to support the report they had made, and to vote for the second reading of the Bill; but in saying so, he merely offered his individual opinion, and had no wish to bias the course of any hon. Member. It would set a most dangerous precedent if the House interfered with an Act by a mere resolution; and hereafter any strong party or Government, acting on the example set before them, might come down and endeavour to shake the security of the seats of their opponents, and to rescind the acts of the Legislature. If the Bill were thrown out, the General Committee would he bound to nominate Election Committees forthwith, and the sitting Members would be in exactly the same state as they were two months ago.


considered that the House was much indebted to the Committee for the labour which they had bestowed upon the subject now under discussion. He thought they were also much indebted to the hon. Member who had brought forward the Bill; and he must say it would be very desirable that the hon. Member for Warwickshire should put his Motion in a different shape. As to the recognizances, they would be invalid in a court of law. The mode to place all parties in a proper position would be, to give by way of Bill to the General Election Committee the power to inquire into the validity of the recognizances; for it was that validity alone which gave them jurisdiction. He objected to the form of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, because he would not set up a resolution of that House against the law of the land.


said, the question before the House was, first, whether the Bodmin election petition should be discharged, for that was the question put from the Chair on the Motion of the hon. Member for Warwickshire. Now, in this case, the objection was not to the recognizance, which was admitted to be good, but to some ambiguity in the affidavit as to the solvency of the person who had entered into the recognizance; and no opinion of counsel had been taken by the Committee upon this subject. Now, the question was, whether, on such a ground, the petition for Bodmin ought to be discharged, which, it was to be borne in mind, alleged extensive bribery and treating in that borough at the last election. He admitted the sitting Members had a right to all the protection the law gave them, and that the petitioners must comply with the Act of Parliament. But, besides the petitioners and the sitting Members, there were the interests of the public to be attended to. With regard to the general question, he still entertained very considerable objections to the House interfering at all. His great objection to an Act of Parliament was, that they were taking a ques- tion of the privileges of the House out of the hands of the House. It was not a matter of general election law, but the Bill contained a schedule of particular boroughs; and, suppose the House of Lords were to strike out the borough of Walsall, for instance, that would give to the House of Lords the right of returning one of the Members of this House. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Recorder for London, he thought it was far better even to run the risk of occasional mistakes than to incur the expense of inquiring into the recognizances before the Committee, after witnesses were summoned on both sides. If then he was bound, as he feared he was bound, to stifle his objections to this question being sent to the House of Lords, he thought the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst was the least objectionable course that had yet been proposed. If this Bill was thrown out, he apprehended no resolution of the House could repeal an Act of Parliament; and even if the House were to resolve that these petitions should be withdrawn, he apprehended it would still be the duty of his hon. Friend to go on and strike the Committees, and to try the merits of these petitions.


must oppose the second reading of this Bill, but he could not vote for the Amendment. He concurred with the Attorney General that the only way in which the House could get out of the difficulty in which it was placed, was by legislation; but he thought the Bill now under consideration was not one which ought to receive the assent of the House. The hon. and learned Member by whom it was introduced, admitted that if it could be shown that the measure was liable to the objection of ex post facto legislation, he was not prepared to defend it. Now he (Mr. Hildyard) did not pretend to say that of necessity this Bill would involve ex post facto legislation; but it was impossible to say that that might not be the case. Assuming that the recognizances were utterly void, then he contended that the Bill would involve ex post facto legislation. It was required that persons petitioning against the return of Members of that House, should enter into certain recognizances. The compliance with that requirement was a condition precedent; and he thought no one would contend, that where there had been a total and palpable non-compliance with the law in this respect, the proceedings were not vitiated. The 10th Section of the Act of Parliament provided, that no election petition should be received, unless, at the time it was presented, it was endorsed by a certificate, under the hand of the examiner of recognizances, that the recognizances required had been entered into. If such recognizances had not been entered into, in his judgment this clause would prevent the petition from being received. The course he would recommend the House to pursue was to negative the second reading of this Bill; and then that another Bill should be introduced giving to a competent tribunal—he would suggest the Court of Common Pleas—the power to determine which of these recognizances, if any, were ipso facto void, and, if void, to determine whether, under the operation of the Act of Parliament, all proceedings ought legally to be stayed. But if this tribunal should be of opinion that the recognizances were not void, then he had no objection to compelling the petitioners to enter into such perfect recognizances as would secure the object contemplated by the Act.


would not pass any opinion upon the suggestion which had just been made. The real difficulty which existed, and from which he was desirous to see the House delivered, related to the means by which the House was to be replaced in the position in which it stood on the 10th of December last, when the matters were first submitted to the Select Committee. Four propositions were contained in the Committee's report, and to each of them he had great objection. With the exception of the first, all of them related to legislation, and if that course was adopted, ex post facto legislation was inevitable. Adverting to the opinion which had been expressed by the Attorney General in his individual capacity, the hon. Gentleman said he did not think the House would be discharging its duty were any portion of the peculiar jurisdiction conferred upon it by statute parted with, and transferred to the House of Lords. He could not consent to the Amendment, and he objected to the Bill as it involved ex post facto legislation. He thought the better course would be to allow matters to stand as they did; and towards the end of the Session a Bill might be introduced regulating the whole question.


could not hesitate to vote in favour of the Amendment. The question did not involve any large question, it merely related to six constituencies and eight seats. He feared no contradiction from hon. and learned Gentlemen when he said, that in the judgment of a court of law the Bill would not be considered a public Bill, but a private one; it was to all intents and purposes a private and an ex post facto Bill. Should the House reject the Bill, the only course then open was to agree to the Amendment.

The House divided on the question, that the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the question:—Ayes 124; Noes 126: Majority 2.

List of the AYES.
Acland, Sir T. D. Hamilton, G. A.
Adair, H. E. Hamilton, Lord C.
Adair, R. A. S. Headlam, T. E.
Armstrong, R. B. Heathcote, Sir W.
Bailey, J. Heneage, G. H. W.
Bailey, J. jun. Henley, J. W.
Barrington, Visct. Herries, rt. hon. J. C.
Berkeley, hon. Capt. Hollond, R.
Bernal, R. Hume, J.
Birch, Sir T. B. Hutt, W.
Bourke, R. S. Jervis, Sir J.
Bouverie, hon. E. P. Lascelles, hon. E.
Bramston, T. W. Law, hon. C. E.
Brotherton, J. Lewis, rt. hon. Sir T. F.
Bruce, C. L. C. M'Taggart, Sir J.
Buller, C. Maitland, T.
Burroughes, H. N. March, Earl of
Carter, J. B. Marshall, W.
Cavendish, hon. G. H. Martin, J.
Cholmeley, Sir M. Matheson, Col.
Christy, S. Maule, rt, hon. F.
Clay, Sir W. Maxwell, hon. J. P.
Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G. Miles, W.
Clive, H. B. Mitchell, T. A.
Conolly, Col. Moffatt, G.
Corry, rt. hon. H. L. Monsell, W.
Craig, W. G. Morris, D.
Dalrymple, Capt. Napier, J.
Davie, Sir H. R. F. Norreys, Lord
Divett, E. Norrevs, Sir D. J.
Dod, J. W. Packe, C. W.
Duckworth, Sir J. T. B. Patten, J. W.
Duff, G. S. Pechell, Capt.
Duncuft, J. Rendlesham, Lord
Dundas, G. Ricardo, O.
Dunne, F. P. Richards, R.
Ebrington, Visct. Robartes, T. J. A.
Estcourt, J. B. B. Romilly, J.
Evans, W. Seymour, Lord
Ferguson, Sir R. A. Sheridan, R. B.
Ffolliott, J. Shirley, E. J.
Fitzroy, hon. H. Simeon, J.
Fortescue, C. Sotheron, T. H. S.
Gaskell, J. M. Stanley, hon. E. J.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E. Stansfield, W. R. C.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Strutt, rt. hon. E.
Gower, hon. F. L. Stuart, Lord D.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J. Stuart, J.
Greene, T. Sturt, H. G.
Grenfell, C. P. Sutton, J. H. M.
Grenfell, C. W. Tennent, R. J.
Guest, Sir J. Thicknesse, R. A.
Halford, Sir H. Thornely, T.
Hall, Sir B. Trollope, Sir J.
Hallyburton, Lord J. F. Turner, G. J.
Tynte, Col. C. J. K. Whitmore, T. C.
Verner, Sir W. Williamson, Sir H.
Vivian, J. E. Wood, W. P.
Wakley, T. Wyvill, M.
Walpole, S. H. Yorke, H. G. R.
Walsh, Sir J. B.
Watkins, Col. L. TELLERS.
Wawn, J. T. Hayter, W. G.
Westhead, J. P. Rich, H.
List of the NOES.
Adderley, C. B. Hughes, W. B.
Alexander, N. Jackson, W.
Anderson, A. Jervis, J.
Anson, Visct. Keating, R.
Archdall, Capt. M. Keogh, W.
Arkwright, G. Kershaw, J.
Armstrong, Sir A. Knox, Col.
Bagge, W. Lacy, H. C.
Bagot, hon. W. Lindsay, hon. Col.
Bankes, G. Lushington, C.
Bennet, P. Lygon, hon. Gen.
Berkeley, hon. G. F. Mackenzie, W. F.
Blackall, S. W. Macnamara, Maj.
Blackstone, W. S. M'Gregor, J.
Blakemore, R. Magan, W. H.
Boldero, H. G. Mahon, The O'Gorman
Bowring, Dr. Maunsell, T. P.
Bright, J. Miles, P. W. S.
Brown, H. Milnes, R. M.
Cabbell, B. B. Mowatt, F.
Callaghan, D. Muntz, G. F.
Chaplin, W. J. Neeld, J.
Clay, J. Newry and Morne, Visct.
Clements, hon. C. S. Nugent, Sir P.
Cobden, R. O'Brien, J.
Cocks, T. S. O'Brien, T.
Codrington, Sir W. Owen, Sir J.
Coles, H. B. Paget, Lord C.
Crawford, W. S. Pilkington, J.
Cripps, W. Power, Dr.
Damer, hon. Col. Power, N.
Deering, J. Raphael, A.
Devereux, J. T. Reid, Col.
Dodd, G. Repton, G. W. J.
Drax, J. S. W. S. E. Reynolds, J.
East, Sir J. B. Ricardo, J. L.
Fagan, W. Roche, E. B.
Fagan, J. Rufford, F.
Floyer, J. Rushout, Capt.
Foley, J. H. H. Sadleir, J.
Forbes, W. Salwey, Col.
Forster, M. Scott, hon. F.
Fox, R. M. Seymour, Sir H.
Fox, W. J. Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.
Fuller, A. E. Smith, J. B.
Galway, Visct. Smyth, Sir H.
Gibson, rt. hon. T. M. Somers, J. P.
Goring, C. Stafford, A.
Granby, Marq. of Stanley, E.
Greene, J. Stuart, H.
Gwyn, H. Sullivan, M.
Hall, Col. Talbot, J. H.
Hardcastle, J. A. Thompson, Col.
Henry, A. Thompson, G.
Hervey, Lord A. Tollemache, J.
Hildyard, R. C. Turner, E.
Hildyard, T. B. T. Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Hood, Sir A. Villiers, hon. C.
Hope, H. T. Walmsley, Sir J.
Hornby, J. Willcox, B. M.
Howard, hon. C. W. G. Williams, J.
Willoughby, Sir H. Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.
Wilson, J. Wyld, J.
Spooner, R. Anstey, T. C.

The House again divided on the question that the words proposed by Mr. Spooner be added:—Ayes 78; Noes 165: Majority 87.

List of the AYES.
Alexander, N. Lushington, C.
Anderson, A. Lygon, hon. Gen.
Anson, Visct. Macnamara, Major
Armstrong, Sir A. M'Gregor, J.
Bagge, W. Mahon, The O'Gorman
Bennet, P. Maunsell, T. P.
Berkeley, hon. G. F. Nugent, Sir P.
Blackall, S. W. O'Brien, J.
Blakemore, R. O'Brien, T.
Brown, H. Owen, Sir J.
Cabbell, B. B. Paget, Lord C.
Callaghan, D. Pilkington, J.
Chaplin, W. J. Power, Dr.
Clay, Sir W. Power, N.
Clements, hon. C. S. Raphael, A.
Codrington, Sir W. Reid, Col.
Cripps, W. Reynolds, J.
Deering, J. Roche, E. B.
Devereux, J. T. Rufford, F.
Drax, J. S. W. S. E. Rushout, Capt.
Fagan, W. Sadleir, J.
Fagan, J. Salwey, Col.
Foley, J. H. H. Scott, hon. F.
Forbes, W. Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.
Fox, R. M. Smith, J. B.
Galway, Visct. Somers, J. P.
Greene, J. Stafford, A.
Gwyn, H. Sullivan, M.
Hall, Col. Talbot, J. H.
Hardcastle, J. A. Thompson, G.
Heathcoat, J. Tollemache, J.
Hood, Sir A. Turner, E.
Hope, H. T. Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Hughes, W. B. Walmsley, Sir J.
Jackson, W. Willcox, B. M'G.
Jervis, J. Williams, J.
Keating, R. Wyld, J.
Keogh, W.
Knox, Col. TELLERS.
Lacy, H. C. Spooner, R.
Lindsay, hon. Col. Anstey, T. C.
List of the NOES.
Acland, Sir T. D. Bouverie, hon. E. P.
Adair, H. E. Bowring, Dr.
Adair, R. A. S. Bramston, T. W.
Adderley, C. B. Bright, J.
Archdall, Capt. M. Brotherton, J.
Arkwright, G. Bruce, C. L. C.
Armstrong, R. B. Buller, C.
Bagot, hon. W. Burroughes, H. N.
Bailey, J. Carter, J. B.
Bailey, J. jun. Cavendish, hon. G. H.
Bankes, G. Cholmeley, Sir M.
Barrington, Visct. Christy, S.
Berkeley, hon. Capt. Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.
Bernal, R. Clive, H. B.
Birch, Sir T. B. Cobden, R.
Blackstone, W. S. Cocks, T. S.
Boldero, H. G. Coles, H. B.
Bourke, R. S. Conolly, Col.
Corry, rt. hon. H. L. Maule, rt. hon. F.
Craig, W. G. Maxwell, hon. J. P.
Crawford, W. S. Miles, P. W. S.
Dalrymple, Capt. Miles, W.
Davie, Sir H. R. F. Mitchell, T. A.
Divett, E. Moffatt, G.
Dod, J. W. Monsell, W.
Dodd, G. Morris, D.
Duckworth, Sir J. T. B. Mowatt, F.
Duff, G. S. Muntz, G. F.
Duncuft, J. Napier, J.
Dundas, G. Neeld, J.
Dunne, F. P. Newry and Morne, Visct.
East, Sir J. B. Norreys, Lord
Ebrington, Visct. Norreys, Sir D. J.
Estcourt, J. B. B. Packe, C. W.
Evans, W. Patten, J. W.
Ferguson, Sir R. A. Pechell, Capt.
Floyer, J. Rendlesham, Lord
Forster, M. Repton, G. W. J.
Fortescue, C. Ricardo, O.
Fox, W. J. Richards, R.
Fuller, A. E. Robartes, T. J. A.
Gaskell, J. M. Romilly, J.
Goring, C. Seymer, H. K.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Seymour, Lord
Gower, hon. F. L. Sheridan, R. B.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J. Shirley, E. J.
Granby, Marq. of Simeon, J.
Greene, T. Sotheron, T. H. S.
Grenfell, C. P. Stanley, hon. E. J.
Grenfell, C. W. Stanley, E.
Guest, Sir J. Stansfield, W. R. C.
Halford, Sir H. Strutt, rt. hon. E.
Hall, Sir B. Stuart, Lord D.
Hallyburton, Lord J. G. F. Stuart, H.
Hamilton, G. A. Stuart, J.
Hamilton, Lord C. Sturt, H. G.
Headlam, T. E. Sutton, J. H. M.
Heald, J. Tennent, R. J.
Heathcote, Sir W. Thicknesse, R. A.
Heneage, G. H. W. Thompson, Col.
Henley, J. W. Thornely, T.
Henry, A. Trollope, Sir, J.
Herries, rt. hon. J. C. Turner, G. J.
Hervey, Lord A. Tynte, Col. C. J. K.
Hildyard, R. C. Verner, Sir W.
Hildyard, T. B. T. Villiers, hon. C.
Hollond, R. Vivian, J. E.
Hornby, J. Wakley, T.
Howard, hon. C. W. G. Walpole, S. H.
Hume, J. Walsh, Sir J. B.
Hutt, W. Watkins, Col. L.
Jervis, Sir J. Wawn, J. T.
Kershaw, J. Westhead, J. P.
Lascelles, hon. E. Whitmore, T. C.
Law, hon. C. E. Williamson, Sir H.
Lewis, rt. hon. T. F. Willoughby, Sir H.
Mackenzie, W. F. Wilson, J.
M'Taggart, Sir J. Wood, W. P.
Magan, W. H. Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.
Maitland, T. Wyvill, M.
March, Earl of Torke, H. G. R.
Marshall, W. TELLERS.
Martin, J. Hayter, W. G.
Matheson, Col. Rich, H.

House adjourned.