I wish, Sir, to make a statement of some importance with reference to a particular branch of the proceedings of this House, and to which I have called the attention of this House, by a Notice upon the Paper, in order that neither the Members of the Government, nor of the Secret Committee upon the Post Office, should say that they were taken by surprise. It is not the practice or rule of this House to refer to or interfere with any business under discussion in a Committee, but I think that there are special cases in which the proceedings of a Committee may be investigated, or attention drawn to them without trenching upon the usual and proper practice, because, in my judgment at least, it would be preposterous and absurd to lay down such a rule as that if a Committee of this House has committed any great injustice or any great error, that you shall not inquire into that injustice or that error until the report be made, when it will be too late to remedy the one or correct the other. Therefore, with the permission of the House—and without any intention of entering into the subject matter of the Committee—I beg to call attention to proceedings which I take to be of great public interest and importance. On Saturday last I was summoned before the Post Office Secret Committee; upon 1011 being so summoned, I was then and there asked whether I had any statement to make to the Committee? I replied that I had no particular statement to make, and that I had not expressed to any one a desire to make any such statement; but that as respected any information which it was in my power to give the Committee, I should be very happy to put them in possession of it. I was then asked whether I was prepared to prove certain charges which I had made in my place in Parliament. I stated to the Committee that I was so prepared, and by evidence. I was then asked to repeat the charges which I had made in my place in Parliament. I did so repeat them. And here I request the attention of the House, as I think that having so acted I have placed myself in quite a new position, in quite a different position from that in which I stood while making the charges in my place here, because, having repeated those charges before the Committee, charges which every Member of that Committee took down as well as the short-hand writer, I have in fact preferred a Bill of indictment, not only against the system of opening letters, but against the Government, which I accused of having acted upon that system. I do not know whether it be necessary for me now to repeat to the House what I stated on a former occasion, in my place in Parliament, or to go over the charges which I then stated I was prepared to prove to the House. These were briefly that the letters of foreign Ministers have been, and are now, opened in the Post Office; that a most unscrupulous use had been made for the last two years of the power of secret opening of letters, conferred, under certain circumstances, upon the Home Secretary; that a roving Commission had been sent down, in 1842, to open letters throughout the manufacturing districts; that the letters of many individuals had been opened; that, as I believed then, and believe now, and am in a condition to prove—my own letters have been opened—that some fifty or sixty letters of Mr. Mazzini had been opened since Christmas last—that Stolzman's letters had also been opened—that the letters of many foreigners besides had been similarly treated, and, finally, that I believed that this had been done at the instigation of Foreign Powers. These were the charges which I made in this House, and repeated 1012 to the Committee. I also described to them the mode in which I believed that the proceedings were carried on in the Post Office, and stated that I could prove the existence of what I termed a secret or inner office, where these operations were perpetrated. Having made these statements to the Committee, I was asked for a list of the witnesses by means of whom I proposed to prove them. I replied that I had such a list, and was ready to produce it on condition that when the parties named in it should be examined I should be present. I made this condition because I considered that if I really had been, as I was termed in the House, an accuser of the Government, in having originally brought forward the charges in Parliament, I was much more so then, having repeated these charges to the Committee, and answered questions put to me by one of its Members, founded upon a report of my first speech, which he held in his hand. When I proposed, then, to be present during the examination of these witnesses, the Committee informed me that they believed they had no power to permit my presence without first asking leave of the House. In that opinion I concurred then and concur now. I said, I did not think that they possessed the power of allowing me to examine witnesses, or be present at their examination, without the permission of this House, and with that feeling I made a formal application to the Committee to apply to this House for permission to enable me to be present—pledging myself, as of course I was prepared to do, in case I was allowed to be present, to profound secrecy in common with every Member of the Committee. Having made this application, I was ordered to withdraw. The Committee deliberated, and upon my return I was informed that they did not intend to make any such application as I had requested them to make to the House. I was then pressed—I do not use the word invidiously, in fact I have no reason to complain of the bearing of the Committee towards me, they were indeed not only indulgent, but actually coaxing. Well, as I was saying, I was pressed to furnish the Committee with the list of witnesses, which I declined to do on the conditions proposed. It was then suggested to me whether I had not confidence in any particular Member of the Committee with whom I could leave the list, 1013 and thus put him in the same position as myself. I replied, with the most profound respect for the Committee, that I had equal confidence in every one of its Members, and that what I was prepared to tell one I was prepared to tell all—I said that I did not think that one Member could do justice to my case, without being guilty of a breach of his duty; because, if I furnished him with the list of witnesses, and told him upon what points each witness could speak, then suppose a witness in his first examination did not exactly come up to what I had told him to expect, that Member would be guilty of a breach of duty did he communicate the matter to me, so that in fact no cross-examination of the witness could take place. Let it be observed, too, that although some of my witnesses would, I have no doubt, repeat to the Committee what they repeated to me, yet that there are others amongst them who would be reluctant, most reluctant witnesses, but without whose evidence it would be quite impossible to enter into the merits of the case. Still the Committee pressed me to give up this list, and asked why I could not put them in the position in which I stood myself. I said it was quite impossible—that I must most respectfully, but as firmly, decline giving up the list unless I was to be present at the examination of the witnesses. I do not know if I need go into further details as to what took place before the Committee. If I have stated anything incorrect I see several Members of that Committee present who can correct me; and if they entertain any doubts as to what I have said, they can move for the short hand writers' notes. But I wish the House to look at the present state of the question. I am called upon to furnish a certain list of witnesses in support of certain charges, and I am not to be permitted to be present while these witnesses are examined. This Committee was appointed by the right hon. Baronet opposite. It is a tribunal appointed to investigate certain charges and accusations against the Government of which he is a Member. Now this Committee, as it appears to me, turns round and becomes a tribunal for trying my accuracy and veracity, as to certain statements, and that too behind my back, so that it is not so much a tribunal for trying the Government as for trying me. I am perfectly ready to submit my credibility to the Committee in the presence of 1014 my witnesses, but it is totally impossible—and I say it as a Member of this House who has taken much pains to investigate the subject—it is totally impossible for the Gentlemen of that Committee to examine the witnesses as I, knowing the subject as I do could examine them. Let it be remembered, also, that no lawyers were allowed to be Members of that Committee. Now, I have the greatest respect for the Gentlemen who do compose it; but here are nine or ten of these Gentlemen turned into a room, quite ignorant of the whole subject, and the chief witnesses whom they have examined, are the different heads of the Department. Sir, I maintain, that as far as they have gone, or are indeed likely to go, they have merely skimmed the surface of this question—that they must go much deeper into it, and that they can do this by having evidence which I can lay before them in support of the allegations which I have made. Sir, the public will not be satisfied to allow the question to rest as it now stands. The public do not want a report which shall exhibit a great deal of historical and antiquarian research: they want to know to what extent the power of opening letters has been exercised, and under what circumstances it has been exercised, both by the present and the late Government. That is the subject which the Committee was appointed to investigate. We were to have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Now, I say, the truth cannot be ascertained unless I am present during the examination of certain witnesses. I have done. Having made this statement, it is for the House to deal with the subject as they think proper. They may give such instructions to the Committee as they think light, or they may let the matter alone; but I can tell them that, if they adopt this latter course, it is not one which will be satisfactory to this country. As a Motion is necessary, I will move, That it be an Instruction to the Secret Committee on the Post Office, that they do allow Thomas Slingsby Duncombe, esquire, Member for the borough of Finsbury, to attend before the said Committee, and produce and examine witnesses in support of the petitions of Joseph Mazzini and others, and of Charles Stolzman, referred to the said Committee.
was anxious, as Chairman 1015 of the Committee, not to lose the opportunity of adverting to the facts of the case. He thought that he might be allowed to complain a little of the terms in which the hon. Gentleman had couched his notice of Motion in the paper. They were, that he intended "to call the attention of the House to the course pursued by the Secret Committee on the Post Office, in refusing to allow him to produce evidence in support of the charge he had made in his place in Parliament." In this notice the hon. Member seemed to complain of the conduct pursued by the Committee in refusing to allow him to be present at the examination of certain witnesses, although the hon. Member admitted in the course of these proceedings, that they could not admit him without the consent of the House. The hon. Member had disavowed, in the course of his speech, that which he had thought right to circulate through the House by the terms of his Motion. With respect to the statement which the hon. Member had made, he had no ground to complain of a word which had fallen from him. The hon. Member had fairly stated what had passed, but he thought that the hon. Member had not done justice to the reasons which compelled the Committee to exclude him. The Committee were very anxious to hear the evidence of which he was in possession. They knew that he himself could have had no personal knowledge of these affairs—that he must have derived the information which he possessed from others; but they also felt that it was competent for him to put any of them in the same position—they felt, too, that the House had refused to put the hon. Member upon the Committee, and that for them to admit him, to allow him to sit listening to all that was said—looking out for fresh evidence—observing where it was most needed, and from whence it could be most easily procured—for them to allow all this, was doing that which the House had refused to do—was, in effect, putting him upon the Committee, without the responsibility attaching to membership. That was the feeling which guided the Committee in refusing to entertain his request. They felt that they had no right to contravene a decision of this House, and to admit the hon. Member was virtually to nullify it. They all of them conceived that, after many days' patient investigation, they were 1016 quite capable of examining witnesses upon any point in the inquiry. The security of the witnesses would be as much cared for by them as it could be by him. They certainly would have been happy to have received further information; but at the same time they did not believe that any information which the hon. Gentleman might be able to give them was actually essential to the success of the inquiry. They, therefore, felt that they were not in any way defeating the object of the investigation by refusing to admit the hon. Member. The matter was now before the House for it to act as it thought best. If the House should think it right that the hon. Member should be admitted, they would be most happy to have the advantage of his assistance. They had the highest confidence in his honour, and if the House thought proper to admit him, investing him with all the responsibility of a Member of the Committee, none of them would have the slightest objection. The Report would ere long be on the Table, and the House would then see whether the subject had been fully investigated or not.
was sorry that this question had been managed as it had been. It had thrown a great deal of scandal on the British Government abroad, and the present proceeding was likely to add to it. He was sorry he was not in the House when the Committee was appointed, or he should have opposed the omission of his hon. Friend's name. He believed in the annals of Parliament no similar instance would be found of a person coming forward as his hon. Friend had done, and giving himself all the trouble he had done, for which the country owed him a great deal, and his being refused to be allowed to attend the Committee appointed to investigate the subject of which he was so completely master. The Committee had only official men before them, and could know nothing of the persons who had given the information to his hon. Friend. The noble Lord said, his hon. Friend wanted to be aware of all the secrets of the Committee; but his hon. Friend never wanted to be a Member of the Committee, and he only wanted to be present during the examination of those witnesses who were to support those charges which he made on his own responsibility. His hon. Friend did not want to vote. He only wished to be 1017 present during the examination of the witnesses in support of the charges which he made on his own responsibility. What would be the result? Either the Committee would come to a resolution condemning the charge of his hon. Friend, without his being allowed an opportunity to substantiate them, or they would make a Report on other matters quite beside the real question. If the request of his hon. Friend was refused, he had no other alternative than to call his witnesses to the Bar of that House. The country would be satisfied with nothing short of that; and he must say that, in his opinion, to refuse his hon. Friend an opportunity of substantiating his charge, was to do him an act of injustice.
was unwilling to throw any technical difficulty in the way of the Motion which the hon. Gentleman had made, although he thought he was justified, according to the rules of the House, in objecting to a Member of that House stating anything with respect to the proceedings of a Secret Committee. But he was unwilling to debar the hon. Gentleman the opportunity of making his statement. He was at a loss to understand the grounds upon which the hon. Gentleman had made the present Motion. The House would recollect the circumstances under which this Committee had been appointed. When the proposal first was made, almost unqualified satisfaction was expressed with respect to the formation of that Committee, He did not mean to say that it was universal, but the Committee was allowed to be appointed without previous notice. That Committee was composed of men well known for their impartiality and intelligence. In that Committee the majority of the Members were opposed to Her Majesty's Government. Four Members were in the habit of voting with Her Majesty's Government, and five with the opposition, and the whole of those five Members voted for the Motion of the hon. Gentleman for a Select Committee. That Committee had sat for several days, and he left it to every Member to judge whether Her Majesty's Government had withheld a single fact from the knowledge of the Committee bearing on the inquiry, and whether they had thrown the slightest obstacle in the way of the inquiry, or threw the slightest difficulty in the way of the examination of any person, whether under their control or not. Personally, 1018 the Government had no objection to the hon. Gentleman's being present, or being on the Committee; but he should feel it his duty to advise the House to adhere to that course on which they had always acted. The question was, whether the House repented the confidence it had placed in the Committee, He had explained to the hon. Gentleman, and he thought had satisfied him, that, in adopting that course no disrespect was meant to him. He should oppose the addition of the hon. Gentleman's name to the Committee, on the ground that the House had already refused it, and he should equally resist the proposal that he be allowed to attend the investigation, as such a proceeding must imply a distrust in the capability of the Committee to conduct the inquiry, and their desire to pursue it in a searching manner, even into the secret office. As the parties accused, it was the first thing which he or the Secretary for the Home Department should have asked, to be present during the time the witnesses were under examination; but they trusted with confidence that the inquiry would be a searching one, and that justice would be done to all parties; and never thought of asking to hear the evidence given against us, and suggesting questions which we might consider necessary for our vindication. That was felt to be so just, that the hon. Gentleman acquiesced in the suggestion. But such a course would be a total departure from the usual practice on all such inquiries; but as he claimed no such privilege for the accused, he should resist both Motions—either that the hon. Gentleman should be present, or that he should be a Member of the Committee.
said, it would be well for the House to recollect the principle they had adopted in the appointment of this Committee. They had departed from the usual precedents in forming Committees; for they had determined that they would have no lawyers on the Committee—that the accuser himself should not be present—and also that they would exclude from it all those who did hold or had held high office in Her Majesty's Council. He confessed, that at the time he thought this was a fair principle, but circumstances took place a short time afterwards which excited in his mind, and in the minds of many other Members, the greatest possible surprise. He found from the usual 1019 organs of information that a Committee on the same subject had been appointed by the House of Lords, which Committee was formed on a totally different principle to that suggested by the Ministers for the House of Commons. For on the Committee of the Lords were three ex-ministers, two of them being ex-chancellors, men, of course, accustomed to the most skilful mode of examination either for suppressing or for eliciting information. He owned he then regretted the vote by which the hon. Member for Finsbury was rejected; for he felt it was establishing a precedent for excluding any man from a Committee who was active and energetic in investigating the subject of it. He did not suppose the Government would labour under any anxiety as to the result; but he thought they had treated the House of Commons with something like disrespect. The present constitution of the Committee must have the appearance of a different principle being adopted in the Lords, because there was no one there in the situation of his hon. Friend, to be excluded. He hoped it would not be considered inconsistent with the duty of Ministers to give some explanation on this point. As to the Motion before the House, he thought his hon. Friend should either be put on the Committee or altogether excluded.
thought it would have been much more consistent with the duty of the right hon. Gentleman, if he felt any objection to the constitution of the Committee, that he should have stated that objection when the Committee was appointed. If the hon. Gentleman thought that there ought to have been two Members of the present Government on it, and two of the past, or that there ought to have been lawyers, it would have been easy for him to have made a Motion to that effect. He merely wished to answer a question which had been put; and in doing so, he thought he should have extended to him the courtesy generally observed. The gravamen of the charge was, that the Committee was so constituted in that House, as to exclude the accuser. Now, the Earl of Radnor stood in the same position in the other House, and with his own consent he was not placed on the Committee. It was not for them to discuss the principles on which the House of Lords chose to act. It was a decisive proof Government did not fear inquiry when they placed so eminent a lawyer as Lord Cottenham 1020 on the Committee of the other House. But if it was asserted that the different constitution of the Committee was for the purpose of excluding the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Duncombe), such an assertion was utterly without foundation. He had already given the bonâ fide reasons for his exclusion.
They had nothing to do with the constitution of the Committee of the House of Lords; but they had with that of the Commons. If the Government acted differently in the two Houses, they had a right to complain. But he begged the House to consider the view now taken by the Committee, as to the nature of the evidence to be adduced. They had not pressed the hon. Member for Finsbury to supply them with the information which he could adduce. [Lord Sandon: We did not ask him to give evidence.] Yes; but you did not put him in the box and say, "if you do not answer, we will report you to the House." It was totally contrary to precedent to appoint a Member to watch the proceedings of a Secret Committee, but it was not impossible to add the hon. Gentleman to the Committee. And as many circumstances came out which tended to alter his former opinion, he should now be inclined to vote that the hon. Gentleman should be put on the Committee. He had the most perfect confidence in the gentlemen appointed; but if he were on the Committee he should consider it no reproach to be assisted by one who had brought forward the charges, and stood pledged in the face of the country to prove them. Mr. Roebuck had made the most serious charges against Members of that House with respect to bribery at elections, and when a Committee was appointed to inquire into the subject, so far from the hon. and learned Gentleman being excluded, he was in the Chair. He hoped his hon. Friend would withdraw his Motion, and allow him to move that his hon. Friend be added to the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman accordingly moved that Mr. T. S. Duncombe be added to the Committee of Secrecy in the Post Office.
It was not for him to say whether the hon. Member for Finsbury or any lawyers should have been originally placed on the Committee. The Committee offered to hear Mr. Duncombe, but he refused unless on certain conditions, 1021 with which the Committee could not comply. The right hon. Baronet appealed to the Members of the Committee to say whether Government withheld any information from them? The present and the late Government furnished all the information the Committee could possibly desire. He trusted that all opinions as to the extent of the inquiry would be postponed until the Committee had reported. The investigation was such as he thought would surprise his hon. Friend himself if on the Committee.
stated, that a Motion was made on the 2nd of July, "That Thomas Slingsby Duncombe, Esq., be one other Member of the said Committee;" that that question was put, and negatived upon a division; that he considered it was contrary to the usage and practice of the House, that a question which had passed in the negative should be again proposed in the same Session.
But, Sir, may not a Motion be renewed under new circumstances?
The House having once come to a decision on a specific Motion, it cannot be renewed. When a proposition is made and negatived, the House cannot again entertain one to the same effect.
thought it of the greatest importance that the public should be satisfied as to this proceeding. The Committee was composed of the friends of the late and present Governments, and he thought it most unwise to exclude the Member for Finsbury, if they meant that the inquiry should be satisfactory to the public.
The Members of the Committee were in a peculiar situation, for their mouths were closed as to the evidence. The Members for Northampton and Montrose argued on the necessity of a complete inquiry, it being quite impossible for the Members of the Committee to admit or deny that the present deserved to be so described. They could only say what was the truth, that they had pursued the inquiry without regard to either party, and that the most ample evidence had been placed at their disposal. It would be a most inconvenient course to allow any hon. Gentleman to attend on the terms of the original Motion; and to add him to the Committee would be more unreasonable, inasmuch as a great part of the inquiry had already been proceeded with.
replied. The noble Lord (Lord Sandon) said it would be a slur on the Committee if he were allowed to watch its proceedings. It would be, in his opinion, a greater slur on them to have his name added as a member of that Committee. But then it was said, if he were allowed to be present it would be tantamount to his being a member. It might just as well be said that the counsel proving the preamble of a private Bill was in the position of a member of the Committee. It was unnecessary to go over every single thing that had occurred in the Committee. All he knew was, that the witnesses he wanted to call had not been called; and there had recently been, at the instance of the Government, a very searching inquiry in the Post-office, and almost a prosecution, to prevent information being given. That being so, he (Mr. T. Duncombe) was bound to protect his witnesses, and he had no hesitation in saying what he said to the Committee, that this business must be examined through all its different ramifications, from the letter carrier to the person who opened and resealed the letters, and committed the forgeries. They must carry it through all the different steps to satisfy the public, and he knew the noble Lord and the Committee had not done so. He begged to ask the Secretary for the Home Department if his letters had been examined or not since the right hon. Gentleman came into office. He said that, as a Member of that House, he had a right to ask that question. If any letters had been opened it was a gross insult to the Members whose correspondence had been violated. The right hon. Baronet could have no hesitation in saying whether his letters had been opened or not. If they had not been opened by the right hon. Baronet's authority, he said they had been opened by some other persons, and therefore, he said, it was doubly incumbent that an inquiry and investigation should take place. As his right hon. Friend the Member for Northampton had observed, either the Committee were wrong in not allowing him to examine witnesses, or he was wrong in refusing the list of witnesses which he had tendered. Any other Committee having power to send for persons, papers, and records, if witnesses refused to give evidence before it, might commit them for contempt. Why should 1023 they not exercise that power in this instance? He still declined to give the list, which he held in his hand, and he would not give it; but he was ready to go before the Committee of the House of Lords, and make the same proposal to substantiate all the charges he had made. He would give the Committee every facility with the witnesses in his presence, to investigate all the charges he had made. They had no right to say that he refused facilities for investigating the charges; he was ready to afford every facility, but some of his witnesses were subordinates in the Post-office, and they might lose their situations, unless he was present to protect them. He knew their evidence would certainly compromise the conduct of their superiors; and their superiors, if called before the Committee, of course would not be very ready to give evidence that would compromise their own conduct. He said, therefore, it was necessary that some one should be present who should be acquainted with the whole circumstances of the case. It was totally impossible that the Committee, with every respect for their talents and abilities, could investigate the matter thoroughly, unless the witnesses he should propose to the Committee were examined, and sufficient information was laid before them to come to a proper decision. He should certainly take the sense of the House on the subject. The noble Lord complained of the Notice he had placed on the Paper, as calculated to create a wrong impression as to the real circumstances at issue. He contended, that the notice was correctly worded, and what he complained of was the Committee refusing to allow him to produce evidence before them in support of the charges he had made in his place. The House must recollect that he was doubly the accuser, because he was compelled to repeat those charges before the Committee, and they were taken down and placed formally before it. Before he sat down, he would repeat the question which he had already put to the right hon. Baronet, whether, since he had been in office, he had authorised the opening of any of his letters.
I must say there is no Gentleman in this House who is less accustomed, if I may use the expression, to vapour than the hon. Member for Finsbury; but, on the present occasion, he has put to me a question to which he 1024 knows it is not consistent with ray own sense of duty to attempt an answer. I have already stated to the House, respectfully and firmly, that consistently with my sense of duty, and bound by the obligation by which I am bound—and I am the judge of that sense of duty—I cannot answer, and will not answer this question. On the other hand, when I moved for the appointment of the Committee to which this question has been submitted, I stated that, as far as I was concerned, with the consent of Her Majesty, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, should be stated simply and without disguise by me on that Committee. In the utmost degree, and without reserve, I have fulfilled that pledge. I have been examined for three days before that Committee. My examination is not yet concluded; and I think the House—both sides of the House—will be of opinion that I am justified in positively refusing to answer the question.
wished to state that the Committee would be glad to receive any evidence which the hon. Member for Finsbury might offer; but the hon. Member would see that the Committee could not admit him without being authorised by the House. He believed the question was safe in the hands of the Committee.
§ The House divided on Mr. Duncombe's Motion:—Ayes 51; Noes 141: Majority 90.
Aglionby, H. A. Mitcalfe, H.
Aldam, W. Mitchell, T. A.
Barnard, E. G. Morrison, J.
Bellew, R. M. Murphy, F. S.
Busfeild, W. O'Connell, M. J.
Chapman, B. O'Ferrall, R. M.
Denison, W. J. Pattison, J.
Gibson, T. M. Ramsbottom, J.
Gore, hon. R. Scott, R.
Guest, Sir J. Sheil, rt. hn. R. L.
Hastie, A. Somerville, Sir W. M.
Hill, Lord M. Villiers, hon. C.
Martin, J. Wawn, J. T.
Acland, Sir T. D. Gordon, hon. Capt.
Adderley, C. B. Gore, M.
Ainsworth, P. Gore, W. O.
Allix, J. P. Goulburn, rt. hn. H.
Baillie, Col. Gregory, W. H.
Baring, hon. W. B. Grogan, E.
Baring, rt. hn. F. T. Hamilton, C. J. B.
Barneby, J. Hamilton, J. H.
Bateson, T. Hamilton, Lord C.
Beresford, Major Harris, hon. Capt.
Bodkin, W. H. Hayes, Sir E.
Boldero, H. G. Heneage, G. H. W.
Borthwick, P. Herbert, hon. S.
Botfield, B. Hervey, Lord A.
Bramston, T. W. Hogg, J. W.
Brisco, M. Hope, hon. C.
Bruce, Lord E. Hope, G. W.
Bruges, W. H. L. Houldsworth, T.
Cavendish, hn. C. C. Johnstone, Sir J.
Christopher, R. A. Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.
Colborne, hn. W. N. R. Lockhart, W.
Cole, hon. H. A. Lyall, G.
Collett, W. R. McGeachy, F. A.
Corry, rt. hon. H. Mackinnon, W. A.
Damer, hon. Col. Marsham, Visct.
Denison, E. B. Meynell, Capt.
Dickinson, F. H. Mildmay, H. St. J.
Douglas, Sir C. E. Neeld, J.
Douglas, J. D. S. Newport, Visct.
East, J. B. Newry, Visct.
Eastnor, Visct. Nicholl, rt. hon. J.
Ebrington, Visct. O'Brien, A. S.
Egerton, W. T. Packe, C. W.
Entwistle, W. Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Escott, B. Pennant, hon. Col.
Estcourt, T. G. B. Plumptre, J. P.
Farnham, E. B. Pollington, Visct.
Flower, Sir J. Praed, W. T.
Forman, T. S. Reid, Sir J. R.
Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T. Repton, G. W. J.
Fuller, A. E. Richards, R.
Gardner, J. D. Round, J.
Gaskell, J. Milnes Rushbrooke, Col.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E. Sheppard, T.
Sibthorp, Col. Thesiger, Sir F.
Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C. Trench, Sir F. W.
Smyth, Sir H. Trotter, J.
Somerset, Lord G. Verner, Col.
Spooner, R. Vernon, G. H.
Stuart, Lord J. Wodehouse, E.
Stuart, H.> Wortley, hon. J. S.
Sutton, hon. H. M. Young, J.
Tennent, J. E. Baring, H.
Forward to UNLAWFUL OATHS (IRELAND).