The Sun.
London, England, 1863-03-05 00:00:00

'sTFIE SUN, LONDON., THURSDAY EVENING, MARCH 5, 1863.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT. I IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

--~- -

NEW COURT.
(Before Baron Bramwell.)
THE ALLEGED MURDER BY A CHINESE.
Sequi, aged 32, a Chinese, and cook on board a Chinese
merchant ship, was indicted for the wilful murder of one
Aliqui, also a Chinese. Mr. Orridge prosecuted, and Mr.
Langford efended the prisoner.
It appeared that the p ironer and the deceased were both
Chinese seamen and about to proceed to Shanghai, but
in difierent ships. Thay had been lodging in Lime-
hodse, but at different places, and had been together
during the evening of the 12th of February, about
half-past ten o'clock. A quarrel took place between
them, the prisoner accusing the deceased of having stolen
and pawned his coat, and some other trifling articles ; and
so far as it could be ecllected during the quarrel, the pri-
soner, without any provocation, suddenly stabbed the de-
ceased in the abdomen, the bowls protruding. He was able
to walk a few yards, but then sank down exhausted. He
was shortly afterwards found by a police constable welter-
ing in his blood. He was then conveyed to the London
Hospital, but after the lapse of thirteen days died from the
effects of the wound.
Mr. Langford addressed the jury for the prisoner, and
pr called
prisoner
esv
rleeaaerrnga
learned
dowd i
Jet nuh es
Judge,
tCienrh in
fora
sue se )
summing
in and h
peaceable
uo tp,e
repeated
de:V quietthe od gv
that
e man. e
t the
h e
case was in inevitable confusion, but if the jury believed
the prisoner wilfully inflicted the wound which caused the
deceased's death, they could find no other verdit than wil-
ful murder.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.---Yesterday.
The SPEAKER took the chair at five minutes after 12
o'clock.

SECOND READINGS.
The following bills were read a second time :—Hayling
Railways (Abandonment)—North Staffordshire Railway
(Madeley and Drayton Branches)—South London Market.

PETITIONS.
Mr. HUMBERSTONE, from Chester, in favour of the
equalization of the sugar duties—Sir B. BRYDGES, Mr.
PARKER, and COI. GILPIN, to the same effect—Mr. Cox,
from various parts of the metropolis, complaining of the
enclosure of portions of Epping and other forests near the
metropolis, and praying for inquiry—also from the parish of
S t. Luke' s, pray ing for the removal of the telegraph in the City-
road—Mr. N. MARTIN, from Rochester, in favour of the re-
duction of the fire insurance duty—Mr. MALINS, from War-
wick, to the same effect—Mr. PEASE, from Stockton-on.-
Tees, against the Prison Ministers' Bill—Mr. KINNAIRD,
from the Scottish Reformation Societies, and Mr. LoCKE,
from Bermondsey, to the like effect—Mr. WESTHEAD, from
the lord mayor and 1,600 of the inhabitants of York, pray-
ing the house to interdict the sale of intoxicating liquors
between eleven o'clock on Saturday night and six on Mon-
day morning, except to travellers—Mr. ;I‘l'Mmiorr, from
various places in Ireland, in favour of the Salmon Fisheries
Bill,

CHURCH RATES COMMUTATION BILL.
Mr. NEWDEGATE postponed the second reading of
this bill until the 6th of May, _ _ _

The jury, after a few minutes' consultation, returned a
verdict of not guilty.
The learned Judge said that he thought the jury had
done quite right.
Mr. Orridge said the prisoner had admitted he had
stabbed the deceased,

CHURCH RATES BILL.
Mr. ALCOCK li,ewise postponed the second reading of
his bill until the same day.
THE LICENSED VICTUALLERS OF LIVER-
POOL.
On the motion of Mr. C. TURNER,^2 copy of the memo-
rial addressed by the licensed victuallers of Liverpool, pur-
suant to a meeting held at Liverpool on the 11th of Feb-
ruary last, was ordered.
QUALIFICATION FOR OFFICES ABOLITION

The learned Judge said certainly the prisoner ought to
be detained ; he ought to be tried upon his own confession,
with corroborative evidence, of unlawfully wounding. The
prisoner was ordered to be detained until next session for
that purpose, the Judge remarking the prison was the best
place for him.

BILL.
Mr. HADFIELD, in moving the third reading of this
bill, alluded to the large attendance of members on so in-
convenient a day for an attendance as a Wednesday. No
less than four times this bill bad been passed by the House
of Commons, and no less than 72 peers—comprising names
of the highest historical renown—had voted in its favour.
None of the Ministers of the Crown, nor, indeed, any of
the other officers of the State, from the highest to the lowest,
bad, on taking office, signed the existing declaration for the
last 30 years. He was therefore at a loss to understand why
it should be retained in the case of municipal authorities, to
many of whom its application was exceedingly offensive.
He warned those who opposed the bill that, by rejecting it,
it might stir up discord among, as now, au united people.
The boon sought by the bill was but a small one to ask,
and ought to be granted.
Mr. BAINES seconded the motion.
Mr. NEWDEGATE moved that the bill be read a third
time that day six months. Each session the majorities
against the bill had augmented, showing the feeling of
the house on the matter. The real object of the measure
was to enable members of corporations to use their cor-
porate power to attack and undermine the Church of Eng-
land. _ _

---- -
Mr. SELWYN seconded the motion.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I am un.•
willing to give to this measure only such support as is ac-
corded by a silent vote, because I confess I not only feel
myself bound by former acts and present convictions to vote
in its favour—(cheers)—but I cannot help expressing my
very great regret at the error which I think the hon.gentle-
man opposite has committed in opposing the bill. (Hear,
hear.) The hon. gentleman who has moved that the bill
be read a third time this day si x months has founded his
objection on this ground—that the present arrangement is
of the nature of a compact. (Hear, hear.) Ido not deny that
there are certain Acts of Parliament which may more or less
approximate to the character of a compact,but that doctrine
even in its application to particular cases ought to be treated
with great jealousy,b,cause the effect of it would be to throw
into abeyance the whole power and responsibility of the Le-
gislature for the time being. (Hear, hear.) It is a very diffi-
cult and dangerous doctrine to hold that there may be ar-
rangements made by former Parliaments in matters of gene •
ral legislation. I do not refer to acts which contain particular
remises to particular persons for particular purposes, but
it is exceedingly difficult to hold that it is competent for the
Legislature at a given moment to tie up the hands of the
Legislature of a subsequentperiod,wbich must always remain
under the paramount obligation of determining what is for the
interests of the country. I must say I have rarely known
a case in which the argument of a compact has been mole
hardly dealt with than in the present instance, The hon.
gentleman has quoted the words of Lord Russell to show
that this is a matter of compact. I cannot admit that it was
in the power of my noble friend (Lord Russell), even if he
had the inclination, to give the character of a compact to
such a declaration ; but there is not the slightest evidence
that such was his intention. The words simply amount to
this, that the arrangement then proposed was a fair arrange-
ment for the Parliament of the time to make, (Hear, hear.)
There is no evidence that ho accepted it as a perpetual and
unalterable settlement, in which light it is that the hon.
gentleman now urges it as an objection to the bill. But if
there be nothing in the nature of the case that affixes to it
the character of a compact—and I, for my part, would say
that the nature of the case almost defies the idea of a com-
pact—l ask the house to consider the policy of the question.
And here I place myself in the position of one wh,o in addi-
tion to his general duties of a Minister of the Crown and
member of Parliament, has a special duty as the represen-
tative of a large portion of the clergy of the Church of Eng-
land, and I confidently say, holding the language I have
held ever since I had the honour to represent them—now a
period of 15 years—that there is no benefit to the Church of
England from he maintenance of such a declaration.
(Cheers.) For what does this declaration do ? Ido not
deny that in 1828 it was wise of Lord Russell, or of those
who supported him, to accept the declaration ; but the cir-
cumstances of 1828 were different from thoseof 1863. (Hear,
hear.) Look at the changes which have occurred in our legis-
lat on—the admission of the Roman Catholics to Parliament,
the admission of the Jews. (Hear, hear.) Look at the man-
ner in which, since 1828, the whole system of the adminis-
tration of the State has been altered—how it hasbeen founded
upon the general recognition of the equal civil rights of the
members of all religions. (Hear.) I admit this declaration
does contain in it more or less of an acknowledgment of civil
inequality. It does constitute a civil inequality when. ceps
tain persons are singled out to make a declaration limiting,
or tending to limit, the discharge of their obligations as
members of Parliament, or as holders of any other office
of trust. (Hear. hear.) But let me look at this declaration
as a security. If it be a security it is one which. each person
may interpret for himself, and I must confess it appdeasrso f toa
be such that, while it may possibly fetter the han
them-
selves very scrupulous man, those persons who assume to
an ordinary freedom will find very little difficulty in
exercising under the pressure of it nearly all the liberty
which they would exercise even if there were no such re-
straint. Now, it is not good policy to depend upon decla-
rations the whole force of which depends upon private in-
terpretation. (Hear, hear.) But, Sir, Ido not admit that
the Church of England has any occasion to take a security
of this kind. (Hear, hear.) It is admitted that the pres-
sure of this declaration is intended to be upon Dissenters;
but I do not see any danger to the Church of England aris-
ing from Dissenters to Roman Catholics (Hear, hear.) If
the Church of England has dangers—and I fear she has—
they arise from internal dissensions. (Loud cries of " Hear,
hear.") I most sincerely trust she may outlive and over-
come them—(hear, hear),—for, in my opinion, it would be
a sad thing for the nation, and for all persons, Dissent-
ers included, if she ceased to exist, (Hear, hear.) But
for the last thirty years I have not been able to trace
any danger to the Church of England from the Dissenters.
If Dissenters haae shown on special occasions a particular
desire to secure privileges for their own bodies, the effect of
that is to create a reaction favourable to the Church on the
part of the immense majority of the nation. (Hear, hear.)
The great increase of the anxiety to defend the Church of
England for several years past is due to the fact that some
pressure has been attempted to be exercised on the Chureh
by particular members of Dissenting bodies in measures
which they have promoted or introduced. (Hear, hear.)
But if that be so we have, I think, a security for the
Church of England in the zeal of its own members, as in-
dicated by what has taken place in this house, and proved
by sure experience—a security of a thoroughly natural and
wholesome character because produced by the very action of
free discussion, because it implies no inequality, because it
affixes
system by which the tendencies to excess, of which every
party must be conscious, are checked and controlled by the
reaction which they create. (Hear.) It is manifest that a
strong feeling of z al does not prevail among many mem-
bers of this house for treating any measures that may be
introduced in a manner favourable to the Church ; but I
must say that a vigorous indication of that feeling would in
the end prove unfavourable, unless it were mildly and tem-
perately used, and there is no mode in which it could be
more mildly and temperately used than in dealing with
such a measurethis. (Hear.) If this be a declaration
notinvolving any security to the Church, but if it be felt to
be painful to an
in important part of the community, and if we
long ago recognised the truth that there is no use in impos-
ingany shape civil disabilities on account of religious
opinions, then I think the mode in which the house deals
with such a bill as this would aff,rd the country no unsure,
no fal'acious test of the way in which those who are at-
tached to the Church of England aro disposed to use their
strength. (Hear.) At any t ate, having myself for so many
years represented a largo body of the clergy of the Church
of England, and having on various occasions submitted my
claims to represent them to their revision, I have no hesita-
tion in saying that whether my hon. friend who is the pro-
poser of this bill, and the hon. gentleman who has seconded
the third reading, have any ulterior views or not, they are,
by the course which they have taken, in point of fact acting
the part of true and prudent friends of the real interests of
the Church of England. (Cheers.)
I\l r. WAL l' OLE (who rose amid cries of "Divide!)
said—l am well aware that the house is anxious to come
to a division, and there has been, I believe, a sort of under-
standing that a diVid92l With,ollt a dif3011144011 wels likelY to

SALMON FISHERIES BILL.

On the motion for going into committee,
Mr. M'MAHON stated, in reply to Mr. Maguire, that
he had no objection to introduce certain amendments,

emanating from the corporation of Cork.

Lord FERMOY then moved that the bill be submitted
to a select committee. This bill was a far more objection-
able measure than the one introduced by the hon. member
tor Wexford (Mr. M'Mahon), That was a far more simple
and comprehensive measure than the one now before it
The old measure referred chiefly to the deep sea fisheries,
whereas the one now before the house proposed to mate-

rially interfere with the vested rights of the owners of the

river fisheries. The committee to which the bill of last year
was referred was not properly constituted; therefore he

desired to have the bill submitted to a new committee more
properly balanced, fairly representing all the fishery in-
terests in Ireland, and if the house acceded to his motion
he would take care that this was done. The hon. and
learned member for Wexford stated the other night that
the bill was hurried through the house. Why, he had a
painful recollection of sitting during the summer of 1842,0 n a
Salmon Fisheries Bill,so that the hen, and learned gentleman
spoke in ignorance of the subject. He read the names of
the committee of 1842, and characterised the list (with the
exception of his own name) as good and competent a one as
could well have been struck at that time. (Hear, hear.)
The subject was then thoroughly investigated. New
interests were created by a bill of 1842, and
they could not well be put aside by a bill
of this kind. If it was true that, since 1842, the produc-
tion of salmon had diminished, then let the powers given
by that bill be modified ; but he was prepared to contend,
and to demonstrate by the unerring test of figures, that
during the last 20 years the production of salmon had
gradually increased, and especially during the last
and two preceding years. He therefore challenged
the hon. and learned member to descend to particulars,
as the Scotch said, instead of making the haphazard state-
ments he had put before the house. It was quite true that
the operations of the millers destroyed spawn and greatly
injured the productions of salmon, but the bill would
not deal at all with evils of this kind. The
effect of the bill would be to take money out of the pockets
of the owners of the lower fisheries, and to place it in the
hands of the owners of royalties and the millers, who would
doubtless be much obliged to the hon. and learned mem-
ber for getting them a one-sided measure of this kind. The
owners of the fisheries desired to have their rights in-
vestigated by a properly constituted tribunal up stairs,
though he would rather that the matter were taken by her
Majesty's Government. The owners of the fisheries in
Ireland ought not to be legislatively garotted in the way
proposed. They did not think the present law was quite
perfect, and were prepared to amend it. The owners of the
fisheries would consent to take up their stake nets if the
upper proprietors would throw open their lax weirs. The
lower proprietors got a bad supply of fish. (Hear, hear.)
The proprietors of the lower fisheries would, however, meet
the supporters of this bill half way. If any man in Ireland
thoroughly understood the nature of the salmon fisheries it
was Mr. Redmond—(hear, hear),—and he was at a loss to
understand why he was not examined before the committee
of last year.
Sir H. BRUCE seconded the amendment. He under-
stood that the committee of 'last year only sat five days,
whilst that of 1842 sat 23, so that its labours could not
justly be compared with the other. He charged the Irish
Fishery Society of London with illegally destroying more
fish than the sea fisheries. He denied, too, that the bill,
as was said by its originator, would assimilate the law in
II eland to that of England. All who liked good dinners
were interested in this matter, and ought to vote for the
select committee. (Hear, and laughter.)
Sir F. W. HEYGATE complained that the bill would
confiscate the rights of the proprietors, without awarding
them any compensation.
Mr. COX, as deputy-chairman of the Irish Fishery
Society of London, should support the bill,
believing that
these stake and Lag nets materially injured the production
of the fish. (Hear, hear.) The society were the largest
owners of fisheries in Ireland, and expended the whole
of their profits in the improvement of the towns of
Londonderry and Coleraine, and in the promotion of educa-
tion in the country, but they considered that,
b whatever
might be the immediate loss to the society, it would
lefsoon
counterbalanced by the increased yield of salmon. the
fish were allowed freely to go up the rivers to spawn,
the production of salmon would be far greater, and the
price would again return to its former moderate rate.
Ile attributed the small take of salmon in the vicinity of
Derry, to the nets placed by the hon. member for Cole-
raine (Sir H. Bruce) at the mouth of the bar.
Sir F.W. HEYGATE said the bill would utterly neu-
tralise the provisions of the act of 1842, and supported its
reference to a select -commiteee.
Colonel VANDELEUR supported the amendment.

Captain T 414301: hold that the aot of iiiwoo---pasaed

take place upon this occasion. But unfortuna'ely, as I I with great deliberation, and should not be lightly dis-
think, that understanding has been broken by the promo- turbed.
ter of this bill—(cries of "No, no !")—and, after the dis- Mr. M'CANN called attention to the fact that hundreds
cussion which has taken place, and after the remarkable of poor fishermen on the Shannon had been deprived of
speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I don't think their livings by the use of stake and bag nets.
the debate ought to be terminated without some answer Mr. BLAKE supported the bill, and read statistics to
being attempted to that speech. The hon. gentleman who show that there had been of late years a great falling off in
moved the third reading quoted myself on a previous occa- the yield of salmon in consequence of the operation of stake
slim, as having said that the declaration which this bill and bag nets. (Divide.)
seeks to abolish was no great security to the Church. Mr. BUTT opposed the bill, because it was proposed to
(Hear, hear.) lam of that opinion still. (Hear, hear.) I confiscate, by a legislative, enactment, the vested rights of
think this bill is of an insignificant character, either as re- a number of proprietors secured by the act of 1842. Such a
gards any relief to be given to Dissenters on the one hand, thing was unparalleled in the annals of Parliament. The
or as regards danger to the Church on the other. Then, it act of 1842 was deliberately passed, and put an end to the
will be asked, why oppose it ? (Cheers.) My answer is, why irritation, disputes, and bloodshed that formerly prevailed.
do you propose it? (Counter cheers.) That would be the The bill would take away private property, in many cases
first answer, and I believe the legitimate one, for Ido think the sole subsistence of the parties, without propos:33g a
that this declaration was a compact made at the time when tittle of compensation. Even the spirit of Baron Nun-
the Test and Corporation Acts were repealed. (Hear, hear.) chausen could not invent such absurd statements as those
Ido think it is in the nature of a compact, in this sense at uttered in the course of this dispute. He read statistics to
least, that when you grant a great measure of relief and show that some of the rivers were more stocked with sal-
propose to append to it any conditions which are considered mon then during the last 20 years. This bill would rob
as securities, whether they be so or not, those who receive the many for the benefit of the few. (No, no.) Well, let
the benefit of that relief ought not to come to Parliament to the house give him a committee and he would prove his
try to de away with the conditions upon which the relief asse tion. (Hear.) The best I hing to be done was to refer
was granted. (Hear, hear.) My right hon. friend the Chan- the whole matter to a select committee. (Divide, divide,)
cellor of the Exchequer says, and says truly, that no corn- Sir H. CAIRNS opposed the bill, because it would ma-
pact can be made by one Parliament which is to bind an- terially interfere with the rights interpreted and secured
other, (Cries of "Hear, hear.") That is perfectly true ; but by a carefully considered act of Parliament in 1842.
there are understandings with respect to measures of this Private property could not thus be interfered with
description which, unless adhered to, will prevent us from without compensation, yet the bill contained no provisions
making those reforms which may be desirable, but which of the kind. The bill should be sent to a select committee,
will not be made unless conditions like those in question be in order to afford the owners of vested rights an opportu-
maintained. (Hear, hear.) It is in that sense that I think nity of being heard against the bill. (Divide, divide.)
the compact ought to be maintained, and I think also that Sir R. PEEL said it appeared that the majority of the
the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the very last person who Irish members who had spoken were in favour of the
ought to use the argument he did, for if ever a compact was motion of the noble lord (Lord Fermoy). He reminded
made by man it was made by my right hon. friend—l allude the house that when the bill was last under
to the repeal of the income-tax. (Cries of " Oh, oh," and discussion, great objection was manifested by the
"Hear, hear.") So much for the maintenance of compacts. house neither to refer the matter to a committee or royal
Well, why wish the law to be maintained ? My right hon. commission. Nothing had since occurred to induce him to
friend said, and said truly, the Church of England is in alter the course he on that occasion stated he pro osed
some danger from internal dissensions, but in none from adopting—namely, to support the second reading, and to
free discussion. But what is it that has provoked these dis- introduce various amendments, so as to make it useful and
cussions? Is it any attack on the part of the Church of workable. (Hear.) So many divergent feelings prevailed,
England? Have not the members of that Church on every that he feared great difficulty would be experienced in
occasion manifested the utmost desire to give in the fullest, satisfactorily legislating on the matter. The beet plan
freest manner, all that my right hon. friend calls religious would be to amend the b,ll and discuss its provisions in a
liberty ? (Hear, hear,) Well, then, what has provoked committee of that house. Nothing would accrue save de-
these discussions ? Unhappily, I think I may say they are lay in sending the bill to a committee up stairs. (Divide,
owing to this—that the Dissenters in a series of measures divide.)
advocated by some from good and conscientious motives, Mr. HASSARD rose, amid loud cries of "divide," to
by others with the avowed object of attacking the Church, propose the adjournment of the debate. The Government
have brought forward bill after bill until they have raised ought to take up the matter. The best plan to adopt was
a resistance which they will not easily quell. (Cheers.) to refer the bill to a committee up stairs.
But my right hon. friend says that this declaration Major EDWARDS seconded the motion.
partakes of the nature of civil inequality. But was that the It now being varier to six o'clock, the debate, accord-
language used by Lord Russell in 1828 ? (Hear.) That ing to the rule of the house, was adjourned until that day
noble lord said that the object of the declaration was simply three weeks.
this—that those who made it should not use the power ELECTIONS DURING RECESS.
which they derived from any corporate office to the preju- Mr. COLLINS obtained leave to introduce a bill to
dice of the Church of England. If there be any civil in- further limit and define the time for proceeding to election
equality in that then the argument of my right hon. friend during recess.
comes to this—that the Dissenters ought to be freed, that BOROUGH RESIDENCE MEASUREMENT.
they may be at liberty to act to the prejudice of the Church Mr. COLLINS obtained leave to introduce a bill to de-
of England. (Hear, hear.) Sir, every argument that I fine and render uniform the mode of measuring the resi-
have heard in support of the bill becomes of serious im- dente required for electors in cities and boroughs.
port, because it shows, or tends to show, that there is The orders were then disposed of, and the house rose at
something more in the background. (Hear, hear.) I will a few minutes before six.
add only one word more. I was not in my place last
evening, but I see that a certain measure was resisted then
by so high an authority as the First Minister of the Crown
upon the ground that it might lead to anothermeasure which
he always opposed. (Hear, hear.) If that be a legitimate
ground of opposition, and if the argument of the noble lord
which opened up the question of ulterior measures be good,
can there be a stronger reason for treating this bill as some-
thing very serious, something more than appears upon the
face of it ? (Hear, hear.) I shall, therefore, cordially
support my hon. friend in his motion for the rejection of
this bill. (Cheers.)
After a few words from Mr. FORSTER and Mr. NEWDE-
GATE in explanation, the house divided, when there ap-
peared--
For the third reading
Against it 172
Majority —3
The numbers were announced amidst loud cheering.
The bill was consequently read a third time and passed.
REGISTER OF VOTERS BILL.
On the motion for going into committee,
Mr. HOWES moved that the house go into committee
that day six months.
Mr. VANSITTART seconded the amendment.
After a short discussion the house decided on the motion
for going into committee, when there appeared—
For going into committee 129
Against it
Majority
The house then went into committee.
On the first clause, •
Mr. HOWES proposed an amendment to the effect that
the magistrates at quarter sessions be empowered to direct
when the index to the lists of voters shall be made.
After a short discussion the committee divided, when
there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority against it —23
••••
The remaining clauses were agreed to, and the house
resumed.

PARLIAMENTARY DIVISION.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 4.
QUALIFICATION FOR OFFICES ABOLITION

BILL.

Order for third reading read. Motion made and question
proposed, " That the bill be now read the third time."
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word ' now,' and
at the end of the question to add the words "upon this
day six months." Question put, " That the word 'now'
stand part of the question." The house divided—Ayes,
175 ; Noes, 172.

. , .
AYES —175.
Adair, H. E. Ewart, J. C. North, F.
Agnew, Sir A. Ewing, H. E. C. Ogilvy, Sir J.
A'cock, T. Finlay, A. S. Onslow, Guildford
Anson, Major Forster, Charles D. O'Reilly, M.
Antrobus, E. Forster, W. E. Packe, Col.
Ayrton, A. S. For;:escue, Hon. F. Padmore, R.
Aytoun, R. S. Gasl-e'-J. •
l M Paget, C.
Gavin,
Barbour, J. D.'' .i Major Paget, Lord C. E.
Baring, A. H. Gihsan. T. M. Pease, H.
Baring, Thos. Geo. Gilpin, C. Peal, Sir R.
Barnes, Thomas Gladstone, W. E. Pender, j.
Baxter, W. E. Goldtmid, Sir F. Peto, Sir M.
Lazley, Thomas G)wet, G. W. L. Pilkington, James
Bei keley, C. C:eene, Cant. J. Potter, E.
Biddulph,-.,C01. R.M. Grenfell, 11. R. Powell, J.
Black, Adam Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir G. Pr:tchard, John
Blake, J. A. Grosvenor, Earl Raynham, Viscount
Blencowe, J. G. Gordon. B. Robartes, T. J. A.
Bouverie, E. P. Gurney, John H. Robertson, IL
Brand, H. B. Hanbury, IL, jun. Roebuck, J. A.
Briscoe, J. I. Handley, John Russell, A. J. E.
Browne, Lord J. T. Hardcastle, Jos. A. St. Aubyn, J.
Bruce, H. A. Hayter, Sir Wm. ~,colt, Sir W.
Buchanan, W. Headlam, Thos. E. Seely, C.
Buller, J. W. Henley, Lord Seymour, H. D.
Bulle7, Sir A. li ibbert, J. Seymour, A;
Butler, C. S. Hodgkinson, G. Shafto, R. D.
Butt, Isaac Howard, Hon. C. Shelley, Sir .T. V.
Calthtxpe, F. H. Ingham, It. Sheridan, R. B.
Cardwell, Rt. Hu. E. Jackson, W. Smith, J. B.
CarnePie,lln. C. King, Hon. P. Smith, J. A.
CavenCish, Hon. W. Kinglake, A. W. Somerville, Sir W.
Clifford, C. C. Kiuglake, Serj. J. Stacpoole, W.
Clifton, Sir I. hinnaird, Hon. A. Staniland, M.
CEve, George Knatelibull-Hugess Stansfeld, J.
Cobden, It. Layaid, A. H. Steel, John
Colebrooke, Sir T.E. Langton, W. H. Stuart, Col.
Coningham, Wm. Lanigan, J. Sykes, Col. W. H.
Cox, W. Lawson, W. Taylor, P. A.
Craufurd, E. 11. J. Leatham,- E. Tomline, G.
Crossley, Sir F. Levinge, Sir R.G.A. Trelawny, Sir J. S.
Dalg,lisii, Robert Lewis, Harvey Turner, J. A.
Davey, R. Locke, John Villiers, Rt. Hon. C.
Davie, Col. F. Lowe, Rt. Hon.R. Walter, John
Denman, G. Lysley, W. Warner, Edward
Dent John Dent M'Cann, J. Wemyss, J.
De,;ng, Sir E. McEvoy, E. Western, T. S.
Dillwyn, Lewis L. Mackinnon,W. A. Westhead, J.
Divett, Edward McMahon, P. Whalley, G. H.
Dodson, John G. Maguire, J. F. White, Jas.
Douglas, Sir C. Marjoribanks, D. C. White, L.
Duff, M. E. Martin, P. W. Wickham, H. W.
Dunbar, Sir Win. Martin,J. Williams, W.
Dundas, Frederick Massey, W. N. Wood, W.
Dundas, Sir David Merry, James Wrightson, W.
Dunkcllin, Lord Mills, J. R.
Ellice, E., jun. Mitchell, T. A.
Enfield, Viscount Moncreiff, J.
Evans, T. W. Morris, D.
Ewart, William Morrison, W.