HC Deb 16 February 1849 vol 102 cc771-83

On the Motion that the Report on this Bill be considered,

MR. J. O'CONNELL

proposed the introduction of the following clause:— And whereas doubts have arisen whether the powers of the Act of last Session, 11 and 12 Vic. c. 35, which are continued by this Act, may not be improperly applied to the restriction of the right of the subject to petition Parliament and to address the Queen in a legal and constitutional manner, and to convoke, hold, attend at, and take part in meetings for the purposes of preparing and adopting peacefully and legally such Petitions and Addresses: And whereas such restriction is and would be contrary to the spirit and purposes of the aforesaid Act, and of this present Act continuing the same, as well as to the Constitution of these Realms; Be it therefore declared and enacted, That nothing contained in this Act, or in the beforementioned Act of 11 and 12 Vic, the powers of which are continued in this Act, does, ought to, or shall he construed or taken to warrant the application of the said powers, or any of them, to the cases of parties convoking, assembling, holding, attending at, and taking part in such legal, peaceful, and constitutional meetings, for the aforesaid legal and constitutional objects and purposes. He rose to offer what he feared would be a fruitless opposition to the further progress of this Bill. He disclaimed all idea of factious resistance, his only object being to preserve for the Irish people the privileges of the constitution. He wished even to delay the Bill in order that English Members who had inconsiderately supported its earlier stages, might have time for reflection, and for becoming fully aware of its unconstitutional character. He wished this clause to be added, in order that all doubts as to the meaning of the Act might be removed. He submitted that they had a right to have a clear definition, and that the greatest grievance of which the subject had to complain was uncertainty as to the penalties which he might incur. Such definition was all the more necessary when they recollected the letter of the Earl of Clarendon, the document on which the Bill was founded, and the comments which the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary had made on that letter. The noble Earl would become a despot under this Act, and the Home Secretary would be despotic by deputy, notwithstanding the disclaimers they had heard. The House knew how clear and lucid were generally the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary's statements when introducing Bills; but in this case, notwithstanding several questions, he (Mr. J. O'Connell) had been unable to get any clear explanation. He had put it to the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) in every possible shape, and the right hon. Baronet had always evaded his questions. There was yet some hope for the constitution when a Minister was ashamed to avow the unconstitutional character of his measures. What straits must not the right hon. Baronet have been reduced to, when he read a newspaper letter from an Irish adventurer as a ground for preferring an indictment against the Irish people! They might, and no doubt they would, carry their Bill; but they would triumph over the honour of their own country when they struck down the liberties of Ireland. He (Mr. J. O'Connell) appealed to the liberal Members to act up to the examples which their great leaders had set them. They were in this position, that they must either say that those to whom they looked up as the great light of their party, had been wrong in opposing former suspensions of the Habeas Corpus, or they must admit that he was right, and must support him in his present opposition. He would appeal to the Solicitor General (Sir J. Romilly) in the name of his honoured father, and would ask him not to give a vote unworthy of the illustrious name he bore. In 1817 there was a proposal to suspend the Habeas Corpus under circumstances esteemed much more urgent than the present—so urgent, indeed, that a Secret Committee was appointed, and Government did not propose their Bill until fortified with the report of that Committee. Sir S. Romilly on that occasion said— Our ancestors never consented to the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act but in cases of extreme danger; the proposal, therefore, of such a measure now is the more alarming on account of the precedent it will establish. It is now for the first time laid down that under any circumstances of alarm the rights of Englishmen are to be dispensed with. Is there no danger in empowering a few individuals to imprison their fellow-citizens, and that, too, without the slightest responsibility? The noble Lord has said, that all who had before voted for this measure must necessarily concur in it now. Even had I been friendly to the Bill before, I should be decidedly against it now. If there be circumstances of danger, what does it prove, except that the Suspension Bill has not only been inefficient, but has even fomented evil? Before, the grievances of the people might in some sense be said to be imaginary. But now there is a positive and present evil—their liability to the privation of personal liberty without notice and without trial. This measure is giving to the Ministers a power most dangerous to the constitution, and I care not in whose hands that power may be placed. It is one of the melancholy signs of the times, that while day after day new encroachments are making on public liberty, the answer to every complaint is, that the power which is given will be placed in gentler hands. The noble Lord talks of the great responsibility under which Ministers bring forward this measure. Sir, they know they will incur none. They are quite sure this House, whenever they ask for it, will give them a Bill of Indemnity. The violent faction, by their violence, afforded a pretext to the Ministers to destroy or suspend all that is most valuable and sacred in the constitution, while Ministers by their arbitrary measures provoke the people to acts of violence and insurrection. He (Mr. J. O'Connell) now asked the son of that great and good man, whether he would consent to establish the very precedent which his father had described? He complained that the hon. and learned Member the Solicitor General had commented on some former observations of his in a manner more dexterous than candid; all he had said or meant to say was, that the subject had a constitutional right to agitate by means of legal meetings for any legal or constitutional purpose. The hon. and learned Member the Solicitor General had said, that the Act had not interfered with the Repeal Association; but he would remind the hon. and learned Member that that body had suspended its sittings, and that therefore Government need not take credit for any leniency towards it. Besides, they had the authority of the Dublin Evening Post for thinking that it was the intention of the Lord Lieutenant to apply the Act to the Repeal Association. Now, there was a vast difference between the circumstances of the times when the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended in England in 1817, and the circumstances in Ireland at present. Then there was an apprehension of a general rising of the people in Manchester; but had there been a single allegation made now that leaders were going among the people in Ireland, and getting up a general rising in that country? Was it because Ireland was called Ireland that her liberties were now to be taken away? The present Marquess of Lansdowne had opposed the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in 1817, and declared that it was a bad precedent for the evil imitation of future times; but in a few days more, when the noble Marquess would be found supporting the present Bill in another place, let him be asked whether the time had now arrived for the evil imitation of a former bad precedent—whether that which was wrong in 1817 was right in 1849—whether the difference between the two periods was not traceable to the fact that the case in 1817 was the case of England, and that the case in 1849 was the case of Ireland? Of that in 1817 the noble Marquess was in Opposition; of that of 1849 he was in the Ministry. The Duke of Bedford had also opposed the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in 1817, and declared that nothing had been urged in favour of its suspension but necessity, which had in all periods been the tyrant's plea. Either, then, the great men, whose names he had quoted, were wrong in 1817, or the Ministry were right now. He hoped his clause would be allowed to be inserted in the Bill, if it were only to show that although Her Majesty's Ministers were ready to pass a measure of unconstitutional severity for Ireland, they were willing to hedge round the right of the subject to meet for constitutional objects, and not to permit any man to take away that right. He told the representatives of the people of England in that House, that, without any justifiable cause, they were about to violate the constitution in the sister country, and that the Bill would not be productive of the beneficial results anticipated from it. It had been said that capital would find its way to Ireland; but this Bill would scare away capital from that country, for the capitalist would naturally say that there must be something rotten in the state of Denmark when such a Bill was passed, and that there must be something monstrous in its condition which would not bear the light of day; and, therefore, he would be afraid of going there. The circumstances which were said to cause the enactment of such a measure would indeed be ludicrous and absurd, were it not for the indignation which must arise in the mind of every man at seeing such a Bill passed. It was said that one of its effects would be to put down agitation; but were not the leaders of one faction in Ireland at present in prison, and were not the leaders of another distrusted? Irish agitation had only arisen because of English injustice; and now when it was dying away in the dead apathy of utter despair, Her Majesty's Ministers were applying a stimulant to it, for the consequence of the present measure would be, that a burning sense of injustice would rankle in the minds of the Irish people. The people would bide their time, and resuscitate violent agitation, which would waste the strength of England, and exhaust her finances. England had now made her election. She had chosen to hold Ireland by force. She had resorted to the old weapons of coercion. She had declared again for injustice, and violence, and the rule of force, and she must pay for her choice. She was acting towards Ireland as Russia had acted towards Poland. Poland had been left a semblance of her constitution, but an insurrection was got up in 1830, and her constitution was utterly destroyed. The policy of Nicholas, the monster of Russia, was exactly the policy which the Whig Minister was now adopting in Ireland. In the latter country there had been an abortive attempt at insurrection by a small portion of the people, and it remained to be seen whether the A division of police—the detectives as they were called—had not something to do with that insurrection; but, at all events, that attempt was made the groundwork for passing the present measure. He (Mr. J. O'Connell) complained that a Member of the Ministry had been allowed to retain his seat, although it was well known that he had been lately writing article after article in his own newspaper, urging the utter and permanent extinction of the constitution in Ireland. He alluded to the Secretary of the Board of Control (Mr. J. Wilson), the proprietor of the Economist; and he thought that things had come to a pretty pass when a Minister, paid out of the revenues of Ireland and England, should write articles of such a description. But the suggestions of that hon. Gentleman were being now adopted by the Ministry. Immediate oppression and injustice was the doom of unhappy Ireland; but the disgrace would be to that House, which had assisted a liberal Ministry in carrying the Bill, and the permanent evil would be to the constitution of Great Britain.

MR. O'FLAHERTY

seconded the Motion. He thought that a great mistake had been made in the introduction of this Bill, which should have been delayed until it had been found to be absolutely required. He could not subscribe to all the praise which had been lavished upon the Earl of Clarendon; for the town which he (Mr. O'Flaherty) represented had been proclaimed without the shadow of a reason. As chairman of the grand jury which was sitting at the time, he knew that the Lord Lieutenant had received memorials from all quarters to withdraw that proclamation, but without effect. At the conclusion of the assizes, the presiding Judge had confessed that, from all he could see, there was not a more peaceable or tranquil district throughout Ireland.

Clause read a first time.

SIR G. GREY

said, that the only question before the House was, whether the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. J. O'Connell) should be added to the Bill. He would, therefore, confine himself to the question immediately before the House, and not go through the different arguments which the hon. Member had used. The clause now proposed was identical in substance with the instruction moved by the hon. Gentleman on going into Committee on the Bill, which instruction was withdrawn after a very full discussion; and it was also identical in substance with a clause which the hon. Gentleman had proposed in Committee, and which the House had refused to receive. As the reasons against the instruction and the clause were then stated very fully, and the reasons which induced Her Majesty's Government and a largo majority of the House to reject the one and the other were also fully stated before, he (Sir G. Grey) would be occupying the attention of the House to no purpose if he were to re-state the arguments. He would only remind hon. Members that this was the identical clause which on two occasions had been before them already, and which the House had refused to entertain; and he certainly had not heard any arguments that night to induce them to alter their decision.

MR. GRATTAN

said, he should record his protest against the Bill on its third reading, but that at present he would not occupy the attention of the House with any remarks upon the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. J. O'Connell). He wished, however, to state, that he had received information respecting some individuals who were now confined in prisons in Ireland for political offences, and who were said to be harshly treated. He was sure the Lord Lieutenant would not willingly inflict any harsh treatment on them; but it certainly had been reported to him (Mr. Grattan) that harshness had been used towards them; and if that were intended for their reformation, it would fail in its effect. He wished to ask whether those individuals who were now imprisoned, and who would be entitled to their liberty on the 1st of March, when the present Bill suspending the Habeas Corpus Act would expire, would be continued to be kept in gaol under the measure now proposed? He (Mr. Grattan) hoped Her Majesty's Ministers would consider his question attentively; for some of the individuals to whom he alluded had been taken up on slight information, and it was very hard on them to be imprisoned for months. He understood that there were six or eight individuals in prison who did not appear to be convicted. [Sir G. GREY: Only six.] He hoped Her Majesty's Ministers, upon whom rested the entire responsibility of suspending the Habeas Corpus Act, would administer the present measure fairly, and not adopt the spy system.

MR. F. O'CONNOR

said, he quite agreed with the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department that the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. J. O'Connell) was, in substance, the same as that submitted on two former occasions; but as he had always opposed every infraction of Irish liberty, it was his intention, on the third reading, to give this Bill the most strenuous opposition, It was not his intention to offer any further opposition to the measure in its present stage; but as the noble Lord at the head of the Government seemed to anticipate a very rapid run for the Bill through its several stages, he (Mr. F. O Connor) called upon the Irish Members to oppose it manfully on the third reading. He would say that, during the period he represented an Irish constituency in that House—from 1832 to 1835—there was not a greater set of slaves in the House than the Irish Members were. He hoped, now, that the Irish Members would not sit there and allow such an attempt on Irish liberty as the present to pass, and that those who had the honour of seats in the House for English constituencies would offer every obstruction in their power to the Bill. He recollected the time when, if the Tories sat on the other side of the House, and the Whigs on the Opposition side, so gross an attempt on Irish liberty as the present would not be allowed to pass. He would not offer a factious opposition to the Bill, but at the proper time he would resist it; and he hoped the noble Lord at the head of the Government would not leave it to the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department, or any amicus curiœ, to advance arguments in favour of the measure, but that he would himself get up in the House and boldly state his reasons for bringing it forward. It had been stated that the real cause of disaffection in Ireland had ceased—that there was perfect tranquillity in the country; and, therefore, the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) ought to give the House some hotter authority in favour of the measure than had yet been cited before he destroyed the constitution enjoyed by the Irish people.

MR. REYNOLDS

said, that having on a former occasion expressed his belief that the Earl of Clarendon had acted temperately and mercifully in the administration of this Act, which was undoubtedly the fact, he wished now to recall the attention of the House to the statement just made by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Grattan), with regard to the hardships said to have been inflicted on certain State prisoners in the gaol of Kilmainham. He desired to know whether severity had been practised towards them; and, if so, under whose authority and by whose directions? It was said that they were confined in cells for sixteen hours out of the twenty-four—that they were refused all access to newspapers—and that their friends were refused permission to visit them except under an order from the Under Secretary. Now, it occurred to him (Mr. Reynolds) that there were evils enough in the Suspension Act without adding unncessarily to its severity; and that, holding in view the safe custody of these prisoners, they ought not to be treated with any unnecessary severity, the more particularly as they had now been incarcerated upwards of eight months, and that, although anxious to be brought to trial, they had been refused that indulgence. He felt it his duty to make these remarks, in order to ascertain if the severity were really practised. He knew that the custody of the prisoners in Kilmainham was not alone entrusted to the sheriff of Dublin, but that a board of superintendence was in existence, who made the orders; and he wanted to know on whose shoulders the blame in the present instance should rest?

SIR G. GREY

said, if he had known that it was the intention of the hon. Member (Mr. Reynolds) to put any question with reference to the treatment of the prisoners in Kilmainham gaol, he would have brought his memorandum with him, as he would then have been enabled to answer the question more in detail; but he might state that the Lord Lieutenant had not shrunk from whatever responsibility might attach to him with reference to the circumstance in question, because his Excellency had approved of the steps taken with regard to the small number of prisoners alluded to. Those prisoners had been placed on the debtors' side of the prison, and they had availed themselves of the facilities there afforded to communicate with the public papers, and to write articles in fact which were inhibited. They refused, when requested, to desist from that practice, and in consequence they were removed from that part of the prison to another part.

MR. F. O'CONNOR

wished to ask a single question. Was it the fact that one of the State prisoners, Mr. Meany, who wrote in December what was published in the Freeman's Journal in January, was told by Mr. Shaw, the high sheriff, in the presence of the five other prisoners, that if he wrote again he would be removed to the criminal side of the prison? Mr. Meany, it appeared, stated in reply, that he would make his grievances known to the public; and then Mr. Shaw called in six policemen, the governor, and the under-governor, and had the whole of the six prisoners removed to the criminal side. There was not room for them at the criminal side; but five pickpockets and thieves were removed from the criminal side to the marshalsea, in order to make room for those who had been removed from the marshalsea to the criminal side. Mr. Meany, it was said, had not published anything more than the one communication; but he certainly had informed the sheriff that when a grievance occurred, he would take the opportunity of making it known to the public. [Cries of "Spoke!"] If hon. Gentlemen who cried "spoke" had such an injury as this to complain of, would they be silent, and come to the cautious conclusion of "Spoke, spoke, spoke?" If the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) would grant a Committee, he (Mr. P. O'Connor) would undertake to prove that what he had now stated was true, that the whole six prisoners had been removed to the criminal side, not because they had each published, but because Mr. Meany only had done so.

SIR G. GREY

said, that he had not before heard the hon. Member for Nottingham's account of the affair, and that he did not believe it to be a correct version. This he had heard—that being in one part of the prison, where they would be entitled to certain indulgences, they, in the opinion of the authorities of the prison (and the Lord Lieutenant approved of the manner in which the authorities had acted), abused the indulgences granted them. The authorities told them that their removal would be rendered necessary unless they discontinued their practices. They refused to discontinue them, and said that force must be used to effect their removal to the other side of the prison. Force was accordingly brought in. The police were introduced; but when they saw the force, which they themselves had called for, they yielded to the order of the authorities, and no force was used. The course adopted by the authorities seemed to be indispensably necessary.

MR. HUME

said, he wished to make an appeal to Her Majesty's Ministers respecting certain prisoners in this country, who were now confined and treated as criminals of the worst description, who were denied pen, ink, and paper, and who were dressed in a manner very unusual in England in the case of political offenders. He had laid before the Government a petition on the subject, and he hoped the case would be considered, and that while public justice was administered, great seventy would not be used.

SIR G. GREY

said, he thought the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume) was aware that it must be to the Judge who tried, and not to the Government, that the prisoners must make their application. The Act of Parliament provided that, in cases of misdemeanour, parties might apply to the Judge before whom they were tried, to be placed on the footing of first-class misdemeanants. Applications had been made to the Judges. In some cases, the Judges gave directions for the prisoners' removal to the first class of misdemeanants; in others they had not thought themselves justified in entertaining the applications. Those persons were now suffering the punishment which the law had awarded to them, and any appeal must be made to the Judges, and not to the Government.

MR. C. ANSTEY

was glad that the hon. Member for Montrose had had an opportunity of addressing the House on the present question, and that his sympathies were so exclusively confined to traitors on this side of the water. None of his (Mr. Hume's) sympathy, or that of his friends, was bestowed upon Irish prisoners, nor did they seem to have any respect for the rights of the Irish people, so far at least as from their conduct upon this measure they might judge. Whether the Irish Members of that House would lend themselves any longer to swell the ranks of the Manchester school, when they saw with what indifference that party treated the liberties of the Irish people, was a question which he (Mr. Anstey) would leave for their own good sense to determine. He (Mr. Anstey) had already stated his objections to this Bill, none of which had been removed, and he regarded them as insuperable. However, he would not further discuss that measure, but merely content himself with voting against it upon every fitting occasion. He trusted, however, that the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. J. O'Connell) would not divide the House upon his Amendment, because as the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) had stated, the hon. Gentleman himself first, and next the House, had already decided against that Amendment. In the long speech with which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. O'Connell) had favoured the House, no new argument had been adduced to authorise the House to entertain his proposition. He (Mr. Anstey) thought the Bill bad enough in itself, without its being necessary for the hon. Gentleman to exaggerate its defects or to misstate its mischievous tendencies. He had misstated the object of the Bill, and the mischief that would result from it. It did not propose to make the Lord Lieutenant a despot, by giving to his letters or proclamations the force of law. He (Mr. Anstey) could not listen to such a misrepresentation as this without rising to contradict it, because, if it went forth to the world unnoticed, and gained credence among the people, it might lead to mischievous results. The true and only effect of the Bill would be, that persons apprehended on suspicion of high treason would not be bailable without the order of the Lord Lieutenant in Council, and might be removed from gaol to gaol during their imprisonment. The measure was, therefore, a bad one; but it was scarcely open to any one of the objections urged by the hon. Gentleman that night. His speech would have been a very good one if it had been directed against some other Bill; but he (Mr. Anstey) was bound to say that it did not apply to a single feature of the measure before the House. With respect to the arrests to take place under this Bill, the hon. Member was clearly in error. If arrests took place without probable cause, then the party who ordered it or executed the warrant, would be liable at common law for precisely the same penalties as he would subject himself to if no such Bill as this existed. The only result of it would be, that no action would be against any judge or other magistrate for refusing bail. The hon. Gentleman was quite wrong if he supposed a warrant could be issued under this Bill, that could not be issued if this Bill had no existence. Again, supposing the Amendment to be adopted (and no one ought to vote for it, unless prepared for its adoption), what would be its effect upon the liberties of Ireland? Why, it would be a positive legislative declaration that might at some subsequent occasion have the most dangerous consequences. It would lay down as settled law, that the constitutional right of assembling for petitioning the Queen or the Parliament for the repeal of an unjust law, was a treasonable practice, or a ground of suspicion of treason. For that reason he (Mr. Anstey) must not only not suport the Amendment, but felt bound to vote against it if the hon. Member persisted in going to a division.

MR. ROCHE

was glad to see somebody come forward at last to volunteer a defence of this measure, for although the hon. Members for England and Scotland generally seemed disposed to support it by their votes, still almost everybody but the Irish Members appeared inclined to fight shy, so far as proving the necessity of so unconstitutional a measure, in the present admittedly tranquil state of Ireland, was concerned. He (Mr. Roche) was not now going to repeat what he had already offered in opposition to this Bill. But the men now imprisoned under this Act in Dublin, although the Executive had refused to bring them to trial, were treated as felons, and in a much worse manner than was endured by the individuals whom the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume) was so anxious to serve. Could anything show more forcibly than this fact the horrible injustice of such a measure as this for Ireland? He was glad to see the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume) take the Government to task for the manner in which it had treated the political offenders in this country; but he was sorry to find him, at the same time, encouraging the same Government to continue the suspension of the constitution in Ireland against those who had committed no offence at all. This gave a strong-practical proof of the injustice of Englishmen in dealing with their Irish fellow-subjects, who were said to be entitled to the same laws and institutions as their English brethren. He (Mr. Roche) would solemnly warn the Government against the course in which they were embarking. He would earnestly tell them they were commencing a war against the Irish people, in which, in the long run, they would themselves get worsted; their popularity and their characters as public men, already greatly lowered in the estimation of the Irish people, would sustain much greater damage in the eyes of Ireland, if they obstinately persisted in the course they were pursuing, in spite of the Irish people themselves, and in defiance of the earnest remonstrances of their representatives in that House. By warning them of the danger attending so unfair and unjust a procedure, he (Mr. Roche) acquitted his own conscience; and if they refused to give heed to his own advice, and the advice of his friends in that House, upon the shoulders of the Government, and their aiders and abettors, would be the responsibility of such a measure, and all its consequences exclusively rest.

MR. J. O'CONNELL

referred to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. Anstey), and said he had never before heard the power vested in the Lord Lieutenant, of arresting any man at his own free will and pleasure, designated by any other name than pure despotism.

MR. ANSTEY

had never admitted that this Bill empowered the Lord Lieutenant to arrest any man at his own free will and pleasure. He had asserted quite the contrary.

Motion made, and question put, "That the said clause be now read second time." The House divided:—Ayes 12; Noes 94: Majority 82.

List of the AYES.
Fagan, J. Reynolds, J.
Greene, J. Roche, E. B.
Meagher, T. Scully, F.
Morgan, H. K. G. Sullivan, M.
O'Brien, T.
O'Connor, F. TELLERS.
O'Flaherty, A. O'Connell, J.
Power, N. Grattan, H.
List of the NOES.
Abdy, T. N. Heyworth, L.
Adair, R. A. S. Hobhouse, T. B.
Anderson, A. Hood, Sir A.
Anstey, T. C. Howard, Lord E.
Armstrong, R. B. Hume, J.
Arundel and Surrey, Earl of Humphery, Ald.
Lascelles, hon. W. S.
Baines, M. T. Lewis, G. C.
Baring, rt. hn. Sir F. T. M'Gregor, J.
Bass, M. T. Maitland, T.
Bellew, R. M. Matheson, A.
Berkeley, hon. Capt. Milner, W. M. E.
Bernal, R. Moody, C. A.
Bernard, Visct. Napier, J.
Birch, Sir T. B. Newdegate, C. M.
Blackall, S. W. Norreys, Sir D. J.
Bourke, R. S. O'Connell, M. J.
Brotherton, J. Paget, Lord C.
Brown, W. Paget, Lord G.
Butler, P. S. Palmerston, Visct.
Campbell, hon. W. F. Parker, J.
Charteris, hon. F. Patten, J. W.
Cholmeley, Sir M. Raphael, A.
Clay, J. Rawdon, Col.
Cobbold, J. C. Rice, E. R.
Cochrane, A. D. R. W. B. Romilly, Sir J.
Cowan, C. Russell, Lord J.
Cowper, hon. W. F. Scrope, G. P.
Craig, W. G. Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.
Cubitt, W. Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.
Davie, Sir H. R. F. Stafford, A.
Drumlanrig, Visct. Stanton, W. H.
Duncuft, J. Strickland, Sir G.
Ebrington, Visct. Stuart, Lord D.
Ellis, J. Tancred, H. W.
Elliot, hon. J. E. Taylor, T. E.
Ferguson, Sir R. A. Thicknesse, R. A.
Fordyce, A. D. Thompson, Col.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J. Thompson, G.
Granger, T. C. Vivian, J. H.
Grenfell, C. P. Ward, H. G.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. Westhead, J. P.
Grey, R. W. Wilson, J.
Harris, R. Wilson, M.
Hawes, B. Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Hayter, rt. hon. W. G. Wyld, J.
Heald, J. TELLERS.
Henry, A. Tufnell, H.
Herbert, H. A. Hill, Lord M.

Report agreed to.