HC Deb 22 March 1849 vol 103 cc1161-75

rose, pursuant to notice, and said, after the time occupied in the discussion of the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone, he would content himself with a mere outline of the facts of the case upon which his notice was founded. In the year 1844 a court-martial had been held upon seventeen sepoys, private soldiers in the Madras cavalry, for an offence committed, or alleged to have been committed, in the year 1843. He disputed the fact that any offence had been committed, and was prepared to show that it was a case of the greatest tyranny. According to the Madras pay regulations, copies of which he had moved for, the sepoys, when leaving their stations for field service, were in the habit of receiving an increase of batta to enable them to bring their families with them. The Marquess of Tweeddale refused to allow this addition to the regiment in question, on an occasion when they had been ordered on field service, and for four days the regiment would not move, not consenting to saddle their horses. The Marquess found subsequently that he had committed a mistake, and gave orders that they should receive the batta as before, and the consequence was that the men returned to their duty. The Marquess of Tweeddale, however, expressed his dissatisfaction with their conduct, and informed them that, in consequence of what had taken place, they should not be selected for some post of honour for which they had previously been destined, but should be detained where they were. They were then put on ordinary duty for nine months without interruption, and, to the astonishment of every person in India, after that period had expired they were tried by a court-martial on a charge of mutiny. Some native officers who had been examined at that court-martial for not giving evidence of mutiny, conspiracy, and administering of oaths, of which they might not have been cognisant, had been subsequently dismissed the service. The men had been tried for a capital offence by a court consisting of only seven officers, although it should have consisted of nine members; and, moreover, the accused had been refused copies of the charges against them, as well as the assistance of professional men for their defence. So strong a sensation had been created by the affair, that an old peninsular officer had asked the Marquess of Tweeddale not to enforce the sentance. However, two of the mutineers had been shot, one acquitted, and one pardoned for giving Queen's evidence, and thirteen had been sentenced to banishment for life. All had been, however, subsequently pardoned, except two, who were transported for seven years, and it was for the recall of these two latter persons his present Motion was made. He had no interest in the present matter. It was chiefly promoted by persons of high respectability in India, who had no possible quarrel with or pique towards the Court of Directors, or the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Control. He contented himself, then, with moving for the papers of which he had given notice, but he could promise when they were produced to institute a more searching inquiry into the matter to which he had referred. The hon. Member concluded by moving— That there be laid before this House, Copies of the Proceedings in the Court of Inquiry and the Court Martial held at Arcot in the year 1844, in the case of the alleged mutineers of the 6th Regiment of Madras Light Cavalry, and of all Memorials and Correspondence relative thereto, or to the punishments or commutations of the punishments of any such mutineers; and also, of the Madras Pay Regulations, and the Native Mutiny Act.


seconded the Motion.


said, that when he saw the notice which had been originally given, he was in hope that the hon. Gentleman would not bring forward this question. For the many years that he had been in Parliament he did not think that he recollected a single instance in which the proceedings of a court-martial either in England or in India had been the subject of an inquiry before a Committee. In this instance, the inquiry was in 1843 and the court-martial in 1844; and why was it that this transaction, if it was so monstrous, had hitherto slept? Why had not the indignation which was so universal in India reached this country? He thought he could explain to the House of Commons why it was that, after having slumbered and slept, it had been brought forward on the present occasion. Although the parties who gave the hon. Member for Youghal information might be most respectable gentlemen, yet the hon. Gentleman must permit him to remind him that the commencement of this attack on the Marquess of Tweeddale began with the presentation of a petition to the House of Commons, which being referred to the Committee that sits on petitions, the same petition was found to be so libellous that they refused to place it upon the table of the House. It was perfectly true that the hon. Gentleman had, with a wisdom for which he was to be applauded, proceeded upon the statement, as far as the House knew, of the petition; but it was his (Sir J. Hobhouse's) duty to state to the House, in defence of the Marquess of Tweeddale, what he believed to be the case—viz., that had it not been for some unfortunate transaction which took place with respect to the petitioner, Mr. Malcolm Lewin, the House would not have heard of this transaction. There was some unfortunate difference between the Marquess of Tweeddale and Mr. Lewin; that gentleman, having been in several places of high trust in Madras, having been made a member of the council, being in the enjoyment of consideration in the presidency, and against whose private character he had not a word to say, pursued a course of conduct which forced him (Sir J. Hobhouse) to perform a most painful duty—he was removed from the provisional council of Madras, and was obliged to quit India. This was the plain and unvarnished statement of the facts as to this gentleman, the petitioner against the Marquess of Tweeddale. If the hon. Gentleman who had brought forward this case, chose on any future occasion to call for papers, it would be his (Sir J. Hobhouse's) painful duty to present papers signed by the gentleman, which would be a full justification for the course pursued by the Marquess of Tweeddale and the Court of Directors and the Board of Control. The hon. Gentleman's statement was founded almost verbatim on the statement made by Mr. Malcolm Lewin. He had told the hon. Member privately what he now said publicly, that he was confident there was no case, and that the moving of this matter originated from a great deal of private feeling. Having said this with reference to Mr. Lewin, who first presented the petition to the House, which could not be printed on account of its libellous matter, he would advert shortly to the statement made by the hon. Gentleman. He held in his hand the general order which the Marquess of Tweeddale published on the 2nd November, 1844, in which he found an hitherto uncontradicted report of the whole of this transaction. The reason why these men could not be tried at the time their mutinous conduct took place was this, that a great portion of the whole regiment was implicated in the transaction, in consequence of the disappointment arising from the batta question; also, because they were stationed, not in the Madras presidency, but in the Bengal presidency; and it was thought it would not be right that they should be there tried and afterwards marched into the presidency to which they belonged. At the time the transaction was going on, it was expected that a general action would take place, which did shortly afterwards happen, viz., the celebrated battle of Gwalior. If an immediate inquiry had taken place it would have been necessary to have had artillery on the ground to enforce the orders of the Commander-in-Chief, for it was not certain it might not be necessary to fire upon them. In this state of things was it not right that the regiment should be removed from the scene of dispute; and that before the inquiry took place it should be in such a quarter that the result of the inquiry could do no mischief? As to the time that had elapsed he granted that it was a misfortune; but that arose from circumstances over which the Marquess of Tweeddale had no possible control. The mutiny was one of the most serious character. It embraced not only the privates but a great number of the native officers. Secret oaths were taken, meetings were held; there was a positive refusal to go upon the line of march; they would not parade upon duty; there was the violation of all duty, without which it was impossible that any discipline could be maintained. Was it not rather an awkward time to make these complaints against the mode in which military discipline was maintained in India? If it were true that the Marquess of Tweeddale was guilty of injustice, and tyranny, and cruelty—if that could be proved, and the hon. Gentleman had moved only for the papers, it would have been a proceeding more conformable to common usage. Was this the time that any man invested with so high a character as the Marquess of Tweeddale could be guilty of that with which the hon. Gentleman charged him? The real fact of the case was just the contrary. The Marquess of Tweeddale was too much of a gallant soldier to be a cruel man, and too honourable to shift from himself the responsibility which fairly belonged to him. There were no less than 13 men condemned to be executed, and of these 13 the Marquess of Tweeddale required the execution only of two, and they were the two who had administered these illegal oaths, or who had endeavoured by combination to destroy all discipline in the Army, and to march back this regiment to a quarter where it was to be headed by a zemindar or subahdir of its own. He thought it must be clear to any dispassionate judgment, therefore, that under the circumstances of the case, no unnecessary severity of punishment had been visited upon these men. He deemed it a fortunate thing that this case was one of no recent occurrence. It was almost unnecessary for him to remind the House that the first representations upon the subject were addressed to the Home Government, at a period when it was presided over by the right hon. Baronet opposite, the Member for Tamworth. Now, although he (Sir J. Hobhouse) had not at that time, of course, any official connexion with the Ministry of the day, yet from former associations and old connexions with the Government of India, he naturally felt a great interest in the affair, and took care, at that time, to institute inquiries into the particulars in quarters which he thought the most likely to furnish him with the desired information. The result of those inquires had satisfied him that the views which he had ever since entertained upon the state of those transactions were correct. He believed he was not mistaken in affirming that the Home Government of that period referred the case to the Duke of Wellington for his Grace's opinion. He held in his hand a copy of the minute which his Grace the Commander-in-Chief thereupon had drawn up; and without occupying the time of the House by reading extracts from it, he would only remark that that distinguished personage had handled the question with all that clearness, precision, and sound judgment which he was so well known to bring always to hear upon any military topic. There were many others in the regiment who were proved to have been guilty of acts of decided insubordination; but the thirteen whose offences had been adjudged to amount to mutiny were condemned by the court-martial to death. The minute adverted to the fact that many of these parties had been sent down to take their turns, in the regiment, of certain duty after the inquiry had taken place; and it seemed to be assumed that they must have had reason, therefore, to suppose that no sentence would be enforced against them. But it seemed very doubtful whether they had at any time done anything more than mount guard about the tent of their commanding officer. There was no pretence to assert—and he believed no evidence of the fact—that, in all the interval which elapsed before the execution of the capital sentence on the two mutineers condemned to death, they were brought under fire. Had they been brought under fire, the Duke of Wellington admitted that, in the event of the question having been referred to him, it would have been the inclination of his mind to recommend them as objects of mercy. But this state of things could not be pleaded as their case. He did not think it necessary to go much further into this distressing subject. ["Hear, hear!"] Well, it was a distressing subject, though not to him in particular, except in so far as he regretted that the hon. Gentleman from whom that cheer had just now proceeded, should have thought fit, at a period like the present, to dring forward a Motion of so untenable and so mischievous a character. For his own part, he must certainly object to the production of the papers moved for. He believed it was not very often indeed that the minutes and proceedings of courts-martial were ever called for in that House, and they were certainly never laid before it except on grounds of far more weight and expediency than any which the hon. Gentleman had been able to assign in calling for those now in question. It must be assumed—and he thought it only fair to assume—that military courts generally administered military law with fairness and impartiality; nor could he be brought to believe, except upon the most clear and positive evidence, that British officers, in high military stations, had any such political tendencies to exercise the authority with which the law invested them, in dealing with offences of this nature, with such unnecessary harshness or tyranny as should induce the House to support an application like that before them, which went to revive, before Parliament, the proceedings of a case so long by-gone, without any adequate reason stated to justify such an appeal. The pardons granted to the other parties who had been proved guilty of mutinous practices, were extended to them at a subsequent period, simply on account of the good conduct afterwards manifested by them. It was thought necessary after justice had been done upon the two criminals, who, in addition to specific acts of personal mutiny, had been detected in administering oaths to their comrades, binding them to refuse discharging their duties of rendering obedience to their officers in future, and thus attempting to debauch the fidelity of whole regiments, that the pending sentences against the other parties should be tempered by mercy and consideration manifested for those who by their confessions had not been drawn into the same malpractices. Upon these grounds, then, he could not consent to the production of the papers.


thought that no clearer evidence could be adduced of the weakness of the case which the Government had undertaken to vindicate, than that the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Control, with all his ingenuity and talent, could make out no better one than he had attempted to establish in excuse of these proceedings. It was idle to press upon the House the length of time which had elapsed before this grave complaint had pressed its way to the ear of Parliament. That delay was quite sufficiently accounted for by the general inattention or indifference which was paid in England to Indian affairs, and by the necessary lapse of time that would always intervene before such complaints, from such distant quarters, could reach their destination. But there was one important point in the case on which the right hon. Baronet's speech had not touched at all. The whole of these sentences were necessarily illegal, because they had been passed by a tribunal manifestly not constituted according to the Articles of War. Article 7 expressly required that no court-martial should be competent to pass sentence of death unless it was composed of thirteen officers, except within certain limits. This court was assembled at Arcot, and therefore not within the jurisdiction which alone could have made any lesser number of officers a competent tribunal to pronounce a capital sentence; and it consisted only of seven officers. But there was yet another informality. It was declared that the court should not consist of less than nine officers to give effect to its sentence. Now, how the sentence of seven could comply with this condition, he was yet to learn. The plea of inconvenience was one he had been surprised to hear urged by the right hon. Baronet against a case which involved questions so important to law and justice. He should support the Motion.


expressed a similar intention. There were some points connected with these transactions which loudly called for explanation. What he wanted to know was, why were their several sentences suspended over the heads of these men for nine long months—most of the men in that interval, too, being allowed to do duty of a certain kind—if it was intended finally to punish them? No man was better aware than he was of the absolute necessity for maintaining discipline and subordination in an Indian army, and repressing by exemplary punishment any attempt at mutiny. But to keep such sentences as these in abeyance for such a period, appeared to him a proceeding as illegal as it was cruel. Then came the next question. If there was anything in the excuse that it had been attempted to plead for the delay—namely, the difficulty of finding an adequate number of officers properly to constitute the court which was to try the offenders—why were not the men marched at once into some one of their numerous military stations, in any of the three presidencies, wherein the assistance of an abundant supply of officers could have been immediately secured? Far from thinking that this was, for reasons which the right hon. Baronet who had just spoken had rather hinted at than stated, an improper time for instituting such an inquiry as it was the object of the Motion for these papers to establish, he contended that this was, of all others, the most proper time for such a purpose. It was now most essential to impress the minds of all our native soldiers in India with the conviction that the British Parliament would insist on their being treated according to the institutions of law and justice. Here had been great responsibility incurred, in the first instance, by the extraordinary conduct of superior authorities somewhere. He wanted to know, first, who ordered the war batta allowance to be withdrawn? Was that withdrawal—afterwards repudiated by the act of the Indian Government themselves—a legal or an illegal act? He, for one, attached no sort of value to the report of Mr. Lewin, on which the right hon. Baronet had laid much stress in his speech. He thought it had been introduced into the debate rather for the purpose of distracting the attention of the House from the main question before it, than affording any information to guide the judgment of hon. Members upon it. The point which neither the right hon. Baronet nor Mr. Lewin's statement had touched, was the all-important one—had the Marquess of Tweeddale exceeded his powers and the law by ordering the execution of those two men, so long after their sentence had been passed without being acted upon? He was strongly of opinion that these papers should be granted.


desired to explain the manner in which the discussion had originated about the order for the reduction of the batta allowance. No doubt, such an order was issued by a mistake on the part of the official finance authorities at Madras; but the mistake was discovered and rectified within two days. In that time a new order was promulgated, retracting that which had diminished the batta, and putting the allowance on the old footing. When it was argued, therefore, that this reduction had been the cause of the meeting of these sepoys, it should be understood that they continued under such misapprehension for no longer a time than forty-eight hours. How could such a plea, then, be urged for the insubordinate courses to which the men committed themselves? It was quite impossible that the mutinous conduct of the troops could have passed unnoticed. The natural course would have been, to institute an inquiry on the spot; but, for certain reasons, it was necessary that a removal should take place. They were marched into their own territory, and the trial took place immediately on their reaching Arcot. Until that time the ringleaders were unknown. Thirteen of them were then arrested, tried by a court-martial, and sentenced to be shot; but the Marquess of Tweeddale confined the punishment to two cases. The example was found to have had a good effect; and the regiment having returned to its duty, the noble Marquess determined to make the punishment as lenient as possible. He was not then prepared to offer any explanation with respect to any of the other points that had been raised in the course of the discussion.


supported the Motion. He thought it due to the characters of all those connected with the prosecution of the court-martial, as well as the character of the proceedings itself, that some further explanation should be given. The right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Control intimated that he had the means of giving an explanation—that he had the papers in his possession—but he declined to do so. It would have been as well now, perhaps, after the lapse of so many years, that the subject had not been revived; but as it had been raised, it was absolutely necessary that the public mind should be satisfied, and that the matter should be set at rest. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick, quoting from the Articles of War, clearly showed that the court-martial itself was illegal—that injustice had been done, and that the law had been transgressed—yet, not one word of explanation had been offered with respect to that subject by the right hon. Baronet or the Secretary of the Board of Control. The public mind would require to be satisfied, and after a public discussion of the matter in Parliament the papers relating to it should certainly be produced.


said, that after the allusions that had been made to him in the course of this debate, he could not remain altogether silent whilst the discussion was proceeding. He had not expected this Motion to come on, or he would have made himself master of the facts of this case, so far as the Government with which he had been connected was concerned; and he was bound to say that he had not now such a recollection of those facts as would enable him to hear his testimony with reference to these transactions. He could not, however, agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last, who thought it a great misfortune that this matter should now be brought forward after so long a time had elapsed; and yet, because one single Gentleman chose to bring it under discussion, considered that the Parliament must be fettered by the indignation of a single individual, and had no option but to proceed to an inquiry. [Mr. AGLIONBY: No, no!] He did not quarrel with the hon. Member for Youghal for bringing forward this Motion. He was doubtless actuated by his own sense of justice; but other persons might be less discreet and less prudent; and if any other Gentleman chose to bring forward a Motion for inquiry of a similar nature, and if the House were unanimously of opinion that it would be unwise and improper to discuss the question, and yet were to be told that the question having been started, they had no option but to vote for the inquiry, he must say he could not assent to such a doctrine without the utmost reluctance. In the first place, with regard to courts-martial, it would be very inconvenient if that House were to be made the court for the revision of the decisions of every military tribunal. Military men were frequently compelled to assume grave responsibility, and proper allowance ought to be made for the position of those who being intrusted with the management of military affairs, were called upon to meet particular emergencies. From all he had known or heard of the Marquess of Tweeddale, and from his long and distinguished career under the Duke of Wellington, he (Sir R. Peel) felt a strong conviction, that he was the very last man who would be guilty of oppression or cruelty. He believed all his tendencies were tendencies to kindness and forbearance towards his brother soldiers, and not to any undue or excessive harshness of military discipline. Now, what were the circumstances of this case? Certain soldiers were tried and found guilty of administering illegal oaths, binding the privates of a certain regiment not to perform their duties. There was no sudden, instantaneous act of severity. A long time—nine months—elapsed between the arrest and the trial. He was not to sit in judgment with regard to that delay—he was satisfied that many reasons might exist to cause that delay—gentlemen connected with India, and with military affairs, thought that such reasons did exist; and must he not act in some measure upon confidence in others in judging of such matters? If the sentence had been instantaneous, and the execution sudden, there might have been room for suspicion that an act of severity had been committed through excitement; but when nine months were suffered to intervene before the execution of the sentence, and when thirteen men having been condemned, two only, and those the ringleaders, were executed, he must say that such facts raised a strong presumption in his mind that, no unnecessary severity had been practised. He heard, moreover, that the Duke of Wellington, the Commander-in-Chief, had inquired into all the facts of the case, and pronounced a deliberate judgment that, upon the whole, the sentence was perfectly justifiable, and that no such—[Here some hon. Member made a remark, in interruption, but its import did not reach the gallery.] Hon. Gentlemen might disregard the opinion of the Duke of Wellington; and if it was to be a question of authority on military duties between this House and the Commander-in-Chief, they might certainly supersede him in the exercise of his functions if they thought proper; but he was perfectly convinced of this—that the British Army would be much less satisfied with their decisions. It was utterly impossible that this House could discharge all its other legislative functions if they were also to sit as a court of appeal upon matters of this kind; and, with a perfectly safe conscience, he should give a vote against the precedent for revising the sentence of an East Indian court-martial.


rose to explain that he had never said, that if any Member of this House chose at any time to reintroduce a matter of this kind, which had long been allowed to slumber, the House was bound, however ill-advised it thought the step, to agree to an inquiry: he had never wished to lay down any principle of this kind. What he said was, that he might regret, that at such a distance of time, and with very little prospect of advantage either to the parties or the service, a question of this sort should now be brought forward; but. that after the Articles of War, as quoted that night, showed that a number of men had been condemned by an illegally constituted tribunal, and two of them executed, it was desirable, in behalf even of the authorities themselves, to mention no other consideration, that, seeing those Members of this House connected with the Government of India had given no answer or explanation on the subject, that an investigation to clear up the matter should take place.


would appeal to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Youghal on the ground of his knowledge of the practice of the profession, and confidently ask him to withdraw this Motion. He (the Attorney General) hoped to be able to dispose of this Motion without the necessity of adverting to the facts, because by it they were called upon either to lay down a very bad precedent, or were bound to resist the attempt now made to lay such a precedent down. Assuming that they had the papers brought there to refer them to a Select Committee, for the purpose of appealing against a decision of the constituted military authorities, they would actually be referring it to a Select Committee of unpractised non-professional Members of the House of Commons to determine the question of the legality or illegality of the constitution of a court-martial. If the House were about to supersede the authority of the Commander-in-Chief, this effect would certainly spring from it, that they would be letting the soldiers of the Army know that, whenever they thought they had reason to be dissatisfied, they would always find this House open and ready to listen to their appeals. What must be the effect of a course like that which the hon. and learned Gentleman had taken? The result would be that in every case they would have appeals from military tribunals. It would be a most dangerous precedent to set, and destructive of all subordination in the Army. Were the soldiers in India to have a right of appeal on every question of this sort, and were they to assume that the Government had not done their duty? In conclusion, he again appealed to his hon. and learned Friend to withdraw his Motion.


said, that it appeared to him that his hon. and learned Friend who had just sat down had completely answered what had been said by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth. The right hon. Baronet said that he (Mr. Anstey) had not made out a sufficient case for the production of the papers, while his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General seemed to think he had gone too far, and if the papers were granted, the House must appoint a Committee to show whether or not the Marquess of Tweeddale had been guilty of murder. He was sure hon. Gentlemen would recollect that he had given notice of this Motion before the receipt of the late disastrous news from India. On the receipt of that news, he consulted some friends whether he should persevere with his Motion, and, under their advice, he did so. He considered that the main point in his case had been altogether overlooked, namely, that the case was not tried till after the men had returned to their duty, and they had on their removal to Arcot been punished for their offence. They had been told that night that there was not an opportunity of the parties being tried before, but their removal to Arcot disproved that. The Marquess of Tweed-dale, and all the officers, knew who the men were who had been guilty of the mutiny, and yet they had been employed about him prior to the trial. The moment the men refused to mount their horses, the mutiny was committed. The administration of the oath was only an aggravation; and the evidence relative to those oaths completely broke down. The fact was, the troops were punished for their mutiny by being removed to Arcot, and deprived of the honours of Gwalior; and, therefore they ought not to have been tried a second time nine months afterwards. It had been said that there was no precedent for his Motion; but if there were not with regard to courts-martial, there had been inquiries with regard to higher courts, to consider the conduct of corrupt judges, unjust jurors, and profligate Attorney Generals. But the House had even inquired into the decision of a court-martial with regard to Lord Brudenel (now Earl of Cardigan), and it was owing to that interference that the noble Lord came out of the inquiry in a manner which was highly to his honour. The reason why these cases were not more frequently brought before the House was, that they very rarely occurred. This, however, was not the only case of mutiny which had occurred in India. There was a case in which the British troops, with matches lighted and colours flying, proceeded to take possession of a fort from the servants of His Majesty George III., in order to procure the payment of their batta. The senior officer in that case was dismissed the service, but two years afterwards he was reinstated, and last year—if he was not so now—he was the Chairman of the Court of Directors of the East India Company. With this example before their eyes, these poor men might think that they were not so much to blame. He did not say this with a view of excusing their conduct. He thought they ought to be punished, but he did not think they ought to be punished twice, and for that reason he must press his Motion to a division.

The House divided:—Ayes 14; Noes 54: Majority 40.

List of the AYES.
Aglionby, H. A. Pearson, C.
Fox, W. J. Pechell, Capt.
Hastie, A. Stuart, Lord D.
Hodgson, W. N. Thompson, Col.
Hume, J. Urquhart, D.
Kershaw, J.
Lawless, hon. C. TELLERS.
Meagher, T. O'Connell, J.
O'Connell, M. J. Anstey, T. C.
List of the NOES.
Acland, Sir T. D. Jervis, Sir J.
Arundel and Surrey, Earl of Lewis, G. C.
M'Gregor, J.
Baring, rt. hn. Sir F. T. Mahon, The O'Gorman
Bellew, R. M. Maule, rt. hon. F.
Blackall, S. W. Melgund, Visct.
Blair, S. Milner, W. M. E.
Brotherton, J. Newdegate, C. N.
Clay, J. Paget, Lord A.
Corry, rt. hon. H. L. Palmer, R.
Duncuft, J. Palmerston, Visct.
Ebrington, Visct. Parker, J.
Elliot, hon. J. E. Peel, right hon. Sir R.
Ferguson, Sir R. A. Raphael, A.
Fordyce, A. D. Rendlesham, Lord
Goddard, A. L. Rich, H.
Granby, Marq. of Romilly, Sir J.
Hay, Lord J. Russell, F. C. H.
Hayes, Sir E. Scott, hon. F.
Hayter, rt. hon. W. G. Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W.
Henley, J. W. Strickland, Sir G.
Herbert, rt. hon. S. Stuart, J.
Hindley, C. Tenison, E. K.
Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J. Thornely, T.
Howard, Lord E. Tufnell, H.
Verney, Sir H. Wyld, J.
Willcox, B. M. TELLERS.
Wilson, J. Hill, Lord M.
Wood, rt. hon. Sir C. Grey, R. W.