The Sun.
London, England, 1865-03-22 00:00:00

CONSULAR REPORTS.

Mr. BAINES asked the Under Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs whether it was intended to issue the con-
sular reports of the secretaries of legation, for the infor-
mation of the mercantile public, at shorter intervals ?
Mr. LAYARD said arrangements had been made at the
Foreign-office for the more speedy issuing of these reports.
Re hoped they would be laid on the table in future at the
end of every month.

OFFICE OP WOODS AND PORESTS.
Mr. A. SMITH rose to move for a select committee to
inclidirein to the Office of Works and the Office of Woods
and Forests and Land Revenue. He stated that the ex-
penditure of the two offices some years ago was £36,000,
whilst in the last 10 years they cost £68,000 a year, showing
that there was a regular increasing amount from year to
year. Tho hon. member urged that the general
management was so defective and inefficient that the
most searching inquiry was imperatively demanded.
There were errors connected with with the demolition of
the State Paper-office
re-building of the
of the new Government offices in Downing-street-ith which
ought to be strictly inquired into. Then w
respect to
the woods and forests, there had been many of the estates
disforested at the expense of the public which ought
not
to have been permitted. The moneyreceived forthe timber
which had been cut down and sold, when these forests were
converted into building land, ought to have been paid into the
public exchequer, instead of which it had been appropriated
by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests just as they
pleased, without the slightest attempt to obtain the sanc-
tion of Parliament for its outlay. (Cries of "Divide,
divide.") He should be extremely happy to divide, but
he should not proceed to the division until he had concluded
his statement,and it would be well for hon. members to give
him their attention for a :short time, because then they
would know which side to take when the division came.
Mr. NEATE thought it very desirable that the COM-

mittee should be granted, believing from personal experi-
ence it was certainly necessary.
Mr. F. PEEL said there had been several iaquiries into
the working of these two departments, and that there was
no need for any further examination.

The motion was then negatived without a division.
ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF AMENDMENT ACT.
Mr. MONSELL then rose to move, in committee of the
whole house, that the chairman be directed to move the
house that leave be given to bring in a bill to substitute an
oath for the oath required to be takenand subscribed by the
statute of the tenth year of the reign of George IV., for
the relief of his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects.
Though he could not appeal, he said, to authority on poli-
tical decisions, he thought he should receive the kind in-
dulgence of the house in the statements he was about to
make. However unimportant the matter was to the vast
majority of the members of that house, it was a question
which certainly affected the honour and disturbed the con-
science of many persons who had to take this oath. He
thought the time for bringing the subject forward was op-
portune, because very great changes had happened of late
years in the House of Commons in this particular. After
the passing of the Emancipation Act, hon. gentlemen
ranged themselves in groups under theological banners.
All that had in a great measure passed away. Gentlemen
now took their seats in that house according to their poli-
tical views. If that were so, it afforded an additional argu-
ment for as far as possible having the title of admission to
that house the same for every one who came into it. It
had frequently been said in former debates on this question
that some compact was made betweenthe Roman Catholics
and the Government of the Duke of Wellington before the
passing of the Catholic Emancipation Bill. That idea, how-
ever, had been entirely dissipated by the statement of Earl
Russell, that no communication took place before the pass-
ing of that bill, and therefore there could have been no com-
pact in the matter. He had been urged by many gentlemen
in that house, as well as out of it, to extend the scope of
his motion, and instead of dealing simply with the
Roman Catholic oath, to propose to substitute for all
the oaths now taken a simple oath of allegiance. (Hear,
hear.) He entirely agreed with the feeling expressed
by honourable gentlemen who said " Hear, hear" to
that proposition. He should very much desire
to have a simple oath of allegiance to take ; but there were
reasons why he did not think it expedient himself to in-
troduce such a bill. It was obvious that the oath still im-
posed on great functionaries of State, which dealt so
harshly with the Roman Catholic religion, should be got
rid of. (Hear, hear.) What could be more degrad-
ing than to make Lord Wodehouse, when surrounded by
Roman ,Catholic law advisers and privy councillors, take
an oath declaring the Roman Catholic religion to be
damnable and idolatrous ? (Hear, hear.) He would now
allude to the oath taken by members who did not belong
to the Roman Catholic religion, in which every one swore
that "no foreign prince, prelate, or potentate has any
authority in this realm." He would give Lord Plunket's
view of those words. That noble and learned lord said,
"My idea of the oath of supremacy is, I confess, that in
the strict and literal interpretation of the words it is
impossible to be taken by any one ; for it not only denies
that any foreign Power ought to have ecclesiastical or spi-
ritual authority within this realm, but it denies even that
any foreign Power has such authority. Now if we admit
that there are Roman Catholics in the country, the Pope
must have spiritual power here." He then went on to say
that " what is intended by the oath is, that no foreign
Power has any authority over the Established Church."
That was the interpretation given by Lord Plunket of the
oath taken by Protestant members of that house. He
recollected that the present Lord Chelmsford, when Sir
Frederick Thesiger, had given another interpretation. He
said that the oath meant that, " Legally, no foreign
Power had any authority." (Hear, hear.) But when
two such eminent authorities differed in opinion, it was
high time that. the oath should be abolished. At the
same time he thought it would be presumptuous in him
to deal with anything more than the very limited
subject which he was going to propose to the house.
In accordance with/the views of the late Sir Robert Peel,
he thought he might make an appeal to the house as to
whether the small number of Roman Catholic members were -
likely to do any injustice or injury to the country, even
if they were so disposed. But he confessed he rested his
motion on other and higher grounds. What had been
the Ministerial alterations made during the last 25 years
commencing with the emancipation of the Catholics and
ending with the emancipation of the Jews ? Those changes
had been due to the same confidence that made the house
extend the representation of the people, dispense with the
taking of oaths by Quakers, and the other liberal measures
which had been passed in that period. He asked the house
therefore to carry out this principle of confidence, and to
believe that the Catholic members of that house did not de-
sire to injure the institutions of the country, but to act in
perfect harmony with other members of the house on the
great political questions in which they were engaged. He
was sure there were not more than two gentlemen there
who would not agree that there should be one single mode
of admission to that house for members who occupied the
same position and discharged the same duties ; and that
nothing could be worse than to divide that house into reli-
gious and theological parties, leading to discussions which
it was desirable to avoid. He maintainedthat this oath was
an absolutely immoral thing, and tended to diminish the
value of truth in the public mind. Mr. Speaker Onslow—
who occupied the chair in that house for 30 years, and at
the time of the disputed succession, when the prevailing
toast at Oxford was,

" God bless the King, the faith's defender;
God bless—no harm in blessing—the Pretender.
Who that Pretender is, and who that King,
God bless us all, is quite another thing"—
said that oaths were never secure except by the justice of
them, and that no oaths should be put except in a judicial
manner. Now, he maintained they were bound either to re-
peal that oath, or to make it clear and unequivocal. By the
first clause they were required to renounce and abjure the
doctrine that princes excommunicated might be murdered
by their subjects, and they were to assent to this without
any evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation whatso-
ever. This was formerly the Protestant oath, but was re-
moved from them is 1858. The next related to the settlement
of property. Then they were required to " disclaim, dis-
avow, and solemnly abjure" any intention to subvert the
present Church Establishn ent as settled by law within these
realms, and not to disturb the Protestant Government in
the United Kingdom. Now many hon. gentlemen who had
paid attention to this subject—most conscientious and in-
telligent men—had taken opposite views with regard to
that clause. The Duke of Norfolk believed it prevented
Catholics from interfering with Church property at all.
Lord Althorp maintained the Catholics had the same rights
as Protestants in all matters that came before that house.
This oath, however, seemed to apply to the subverting of
the Church by violent and unconstitutional and not by
legislative means. It was imposed on students at Maynooth,
and on mayors, magistrates, and councillors. There was a
difficulty about the interpretation, and he thought it was an
absolute crime to allow such an oath to remain. The Dean
of Westminster in a recent speech had confessed that this
appeared to him to be a very dangerous and unjustifiable
system, and held forth a temptation to gulph it down with-
out inquiry, or else to act under the paralysing torture of
doubt. This was the oath imposed on Roman Catholic
members of that house ; but it was not so with the hon.
member for Birmingham or the hon. member for Sheffie LI
who believed the principle of this establishment was erro-
neous,and ought to be got rid of. (A laugh.) Was not that
a monstrous thing ? (Hear.) The Roman Catholic members
were actuated by every desire for the maintenance of the
constitution and the support of their Sovereign, and while
they joined in the prayer for support of the honour and
dignity of the Crown, he thought they ought not to be
bound by any differences which might interfere with the
duties they had to discharge as members of that Legisla-
ture. (Hear.)

Sir G. GREY said her Majesty's Government gave a
ready assent to the motion that had been made as far as
regarded the preliminary step for the bringing in of the
bill which it was proposed to lay before the house. It
was impossible to deny that the subject was one which
demanded consideration. He could not help expressing
make
hoffisenopinion that these declarations were individually
encol
not baeticaonnssethethyecyoncwonlnded,nobtuctobnseeaciusene-
tiouslyvmek toe the some,
there were expressions imputing to them opinions which
they were supposed to be capable of entertaining. How far
that might apply to oaths imposed on Roman Catholic mem-
bers of that house might be the subject of after discussion ;
but as there was no objection to the bringing in of the bill,
it would be better, he thought, to postpone discussion until
it came to a secondreading, when there would be an oppor-
tunity of considering the position of the Protestant religion
as well as the claims submitted by Roman Catholic members.
Mr. NEWDEGATE did not think the present time was
ezceedinglyfavourableto this subject. The whole of Europe
was alarmed by a document from the Papacy called the
Encyclical Letter of the Pope, which was of so much im-
portance that the French Government had been called on
to interfere. No one would attribute to the Emperor of the
French the probability of being excited by slight circum-
stances to put himself into the position of fighting the clergy
of France on a question of that kind. Just at the moment
when the Legislature of France had been occupied with the
discussion
gravest of the best mode of dealing with the late
Papal aggression upon every Catholic State, it would be
most unwise for the Legislature of England to lend any
countenance to that aggression. He was sorry to find the
Home Secretary manifesting upon that occasion the same
leaning towards Ultramontanism of which he had already
given proof. (Laughter.) If the members of the British
House of Commons would not resist the encroachments of
the Pope, whence was a resistance to come? England ought
to be mindful of her duty. Hitherto she had maintained the
great cause of civil and religious liberty against the en-
croachments of a power which, although limited as her im-
mediate sphere of temporal government might be, was
never more active than of late in opposing the great prin-
ciples of civil and religious liberty throughout the world.
He might cite the action of the Emperor of the French—
he might cite the action of the Government of Spain—with
rceastclt. to the Encyclical Letter, to show that Roman
f ar morec powers found it necessary to impose restrictions
absolute than the restrictions maintained in this
oath. He felt he
was doing his duty, not only to bis
Protestant constituents, but likewise to his Roman Catholic

fellow countrymen, in deprecating such meddling with a
grave matter—in deprecating any interference with an oath
intended to prevent the disturbance of the Constitution.
England respected and admired the Emperor of the French
for the manner in which he had conducted the government
of a noble but exciteable people. Well, it behoved them
not to cast a slur upon the Emperor by discountenancing
a policy which he felt compelled to adopt in order to secure
order in his dominions. He felt, too, as a member of the
Church of England, he ought to do nothing that would
embarrass the Roman Catholics of France in the reasser-
tion of their old Galilean liberties.

Mr. WHALLEY desired to point out to the Government
that the proposal involved a constitutional change in the
organisation of that house. He would take leave to observe
that he for one would not discuss such a bill. He would
vote against it, and he would tell the Government that
they ought to take upon themselves the responsibility of
introducing a proposal of the kind.
Leave was then given to introduce the bill.
FIRE INSITRANCE DUTY.

Mr. H. B. SHERIDAN rose to move that, in the opinion
of that house, it was expedient that the reduction of fire in-
surance duty made in the last session be extended, at the
earliest opportunity, to houses, household goods, and all
descriptions of insurable property. The hon. member said
there was nothing new in the terms of such a resolution,
for the merits of the question at issue had been already
settled by the decision of the house on a previous occasion.
The whole question had been already fully debated and
argued over and over again, and therefore it would be un-
necessary for him to detain them now with any length-
ened observations. The house had already arrived at the
conclusion that the duty upon fire insurance was exces-
sive in amount, and that it ought to be reduced at the
earliest opportunity. He had had a conversation with a
right hon. gentleman, to whom he mentioned the fact
that he intended to introduce a bill upon the subject.
" Ah," said the right hon. gentleman, " you will make a
mistake. There is nothing so binding on the Government
as a resolution of the house, and, if you can only get the
house to pass a resolution, it will be all-potent in effect."
He accordingly had done so. The resolution was passed,
and he waited to see its effect. Last year there was some
attempt on the part of the Government to give effect to it,
for they all remembered how the Government proposed a
reduction of the duty upon a special item of insurable
goods. Now he submitted that in proposing that reduction
the Government had not fully and properly construed the
wishes of the house ; and he therefore asked the house to
remedy what he might term the oversight of the Govern-
ment in that last session by reminding them that they had
not correctly interpreted the wishes of 'the house. If the
Chancellor of the Exchequer were to reduce the duty to a
uniform rate of one shilling per cent. he would not only
earn the lasting gratitude of the country, but he would at
the same time be pursuing a course which would enable
him to eventually replace in the exchequer the amount
which he would temporarily lose. If the right hon. gentle-
man was not in a position to act upon the resolution this
year, it might nevertheless remain as a sort of standing
instruction to the Government that the duty on fire insur-
ances was the first duty which ought to be considered. He
had always looked upon resolutions of that house as bind-
ing on the Government; if they were not, of what use
they possibly be ? To show what was the feeling of the
country on this question of the fire insurance duty, he
need only call attention to the numerous petitions which
had been presented on the subject from all parts of the
kingdom.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then rose
amid loud cries of "Divide," and said he should move the
previous question, so the honourable member would per-
ceive he had no intention of entering on a debate with him
on the question at issue. His remarks would be simply
directed to the time at which the hon. member had pro-
posed this resolution. The hon. member had said that
some right hon. gentleman, whom he did not name, had
found fault with his infantine simplicity for submitting
to the house a bill for reducing the duty, and informed
Mm that a resolution would be all-potent and effective.
Now in his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) opinion,
the binding force of resolutions on the Government mate-
rially varied according to their subject-matter. No doubt
resolutions of that house deserved the respect and attention
of the Government, although they might not be precisely
in accordance with the views which the Government enter-
tained, and such resolutions formed a material element in
the consideration of financial proposals. (Hear, hear.) But
he was bound to say that the sanguine mind of the hon.
gentleman considerably overstated the all-potency and
effectiveness of these resolutions, and he must certainly
have forgotten the most famous among them all—that for
the repeal of the paper duty. He (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer) was not aware of any single instance in which
any public good or advantage had resulted from such reso-
lutions. Resolutions like the present, which picked out a
single subject of taxation when other subjects of taxation
were not before the house, were entirely contrary to the
principle of our arrangements, which required that the en-
tire financial condition of the country should be placed as a
whole before the country, and that the country should dis-
charge its duty and make the selection it thought fit be-
tween the respective burdens which had claims for relief.
(Hear, hear.) Then, again, this resolution was not leas hos-
tile to the principle which assigned the initiative in these
matters to the Government. If the resolution were passed
at this inopportune time, it would place the Government
in such a position that they would seem to exhibit disre-
spect towards that house. Ho agreed with the two proposi-
tions of the hon. member—first, that the feeling of the house
and the country had been against the duty, and secondly,
that the last reduction was made not altogether in compli-
ance with the expressed wishes of the house. Now, the hon.
gentleman said that the former decisions of the house
amounted to a verdict. If so, why did he want another ver-
dict ? He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) objected to the
particular form of the hon. gentleman's verdict. This was
a motion not merely indicating the reduction of the fire
insurance duty, but indicating the peculiar manner and
degree in which it was to be reduced. In his resolution
he proposed a reduction of the duty to is. 6d. ; but in his
speech he proposed a reduction to is. (Hear, hear, and
laughter.) The two statements were in conflict with each
other, and they clearly showed the inconvenience of such
niatters being discussed before the expiration of the finan-
cial year. The petitioners, he might remark, had never in-
dicated any opinion as to the amount of duty which it might
be desirable to levy. Now, why should not the house
reserve to itself a discretion to deal with the subject at large
when the proper time arrived ? hHear, hear.) He wished
to pay proper respect to the feelings of the house, but he
must say that the Government could not, without an abso-
lute abandonment of duty, accede to this resolution. (Hear.)
Mr. CRAWFORD, who was met with loud cries of
" Divide," said that, though he had voted with his hon.
friend on previous occasions, he must decline to do so now,
because he considered ifis proposition inopportune.
Mr. HUBBARD, who was received with loud cries of
"Divide," said that the question at issue was simply whe-
ther this country was governed entirely by the Adminis-
tration for the time being, or in any degree by the House of
Commons; because, if the House of Commons had any
voice in the government of the country, it was right that
they should express their opinion upon the expediency of
retaining this tax at some time or other. If, however, the
question was brought on before the budget, they were told
that it was too soon. If it was brought on after the budget
they were told it was too late. (Hear, hear.) He trusted
that the house would seize the present opportunity of ex-
pressing its opinion by carrying the motion of the hon.
member for Dudley. (Divide, divide.)
Mr. JACKSON trusted that the hon. member for Dudley
(Mr. Sheridan) would not divide the house on this ques-
tion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted the
principle of a reduction of the duty on fire insurance, and
he thought they might safely leave the question in his hands.
Mr. MALINS said the idea of leaving this .question in
the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a mere
delusion. It was not a favourite measure of his, and
when he came to deal with it he threw overboard all his
most cherished principles. No ono could say a word in
favour of a tax upon prudence, and ho trusted that the
House of Commons would again record its opinion expli-
citly against it. (Divide, divide.) If they passed this reso-
lution by a large majority, it would be impossible for the
right hon. gentleman to resist that resolution when he made
his financial statement in the course of next month.

Sir R. CLIFTON trusted that the member for Dudley
would press his motion to a division. (Divide, divide.) He
believed that the reduction of the duty would lead to a great
increase in the number of fire insurances. (Divide, divide.)
After a few words from Mr. SKERID"
The house divided on the previous question, when there
were—

For putting the question 137
Against it
Majority -72

The result was received with loud cheers.

The question was then put, and the resolution of the hon.
member for Dudley was agreed to without further opposi-
tion.

CHEMISTS AND DRUGGISTS.
Sir J. SHELLEY then moved for leave to bring in a bill
for regulating the qualifications of chemists and druggists
in England and Wales. One main object of the bill was to
obtain proper securities for the sale of poisons.
Sir F. KELLY assented to the introduction of the bill.
The bill was then brought in and read a first time.
•
SOLDIERS' LIBRARIES.
Mr. WHALLEY moved an address for a catalogue of the
books that are at present placed in the libraries and read-
ing-rooms to each troop, battery, or company in the British
establishment, and for which an annual sum is sought by
vote 15 of Army Estimates, page-60. The hon. member,
as a reason for his motion, referred to several books com-
mon in regimental libraries, which in his opinion were ob-
jectionable on the score of the religious views which they
contained.

The Marquis of lIARTINGTON said that tho regi-
mental libraries were under the management of a com-
mittee, composed of officers and non-commissioned
officers; that no books were allowed to be added except
with the permission of the commanding officer, who was
obliged to report quarterly what books have been added to
the regimental library. Those reports were submitted to
the Council of Military Education. Those precautions
were sufficient to ensure that no improperbooks were added,

and as the return would be most difficult to obtain, and
very voluminous, he was unable to comply with the wish
of the hon. member. •

The motion was negatived without a division.
TESTS ABOLITION (OXFORD).

Mr. GOSCHEN then, in committee of the whole house,
moved that the chairman be directed to move the house
that leave be given to bring in a bill to provide for the abo-
lition of certain tests in connection with academical degrees
in the University of Oxford. The bill, he said, was identi-
cal with that introduced by the hon. member for East
Sussex (Mr. Dodson) last year ;:it was not therefore neces-
sary for him to make any statement.
After a few words from Mr. WALPOLE and Mr. DODSON,
The motion was agreed to, and the bill was subsequently
read a first time.

SUPPLY.

The report of supply was brought up and agreed to.

LAHORE BISHOPRIC BILL. -
The report on this bill was brought up and agreed to.

BRITISH KAFFRARIA BILL. -
The Lords' amendments to this bill were considered and
agreed to.
The house adjourned at five minutes to nine o'clock.

PARLIAMENTARY DIVISION.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—MARcH 21.
FIRE INSURANCE.

Motion made and question proposed, " That, in the
opinion of this house, it is expedient that the reduction of
fire insurance duty, made in the last session, be extended,
at the earliest opportunity, to houses, household goods,
and all descriptions of insurable property." Whereupon
previous question put, " That this question be now put."
The house divided—Ayes, 137 ; Noes, 65.

- -
AYES —137.
Adam,W. P. Gray, Lient.-Col. Paget, C.
Annesley, Col H. Griffith, C. D. Pakington, Sir J.
Astell, J. H. Grogan, Sir E. Palk, Sir L.
Bagwell, J. Hadfield, G. Papillon, P. 0.
Barnes, E. Hassard, M. Parker, Major W.
Barnes, T. Henderson, J. Pilkington, J.
Bazley, T. Henley, Lord Ponsonby, A.
Beresfard, D. Hennessy, J. P. Powys-Lybbe,P. L.
Blake, J. Hibbert, J. T. Redmond, J. E.
Bowyer, Sir G. Hodgkinson, G. Repton, G. W. J.
Bramley-Moore, J. liorsiall, T. B. Rogers, J. J.
Bridges, Sir B. W. Hubbard, J. G. Rose, W. A.
Brooks, R. Jolliffe, H. Russell, F. W.
Browne, Lord J. T. Kelly, Sir F. Salomong,Aidermail
Butler. C. S. Kendall, N. Schneider, H. W.
Cave, S. Knox, Major W S. Selwyn, C. J.
Chapman, J. Lacon, Sir E. Seymour, A,
Cheetham, J. Langton, W. G. Shelley, Sir J. V.
Clay, J. Lanigan, J. Sidney, T.
Cobbold, J. C. Leatham, E. A. Smith. Sir F.
Cogan, W. H.; Lee, W. Somes, J.
Collins, T. Legh, W. J. Stanley, Lord
Cox, W. Lewis, H. Stuart, Lt.-Col. W.
Craufurd, E. H. J. Locke, J. • Taylor, Col.
Crossley, Sir F. Lopes, Sir M. Taylor, P. A.
Dalglish, R. Lyall, G. Tollemache, F. J.
Dickson, Col. M`Cann, J. Tollemache, J.
Duke, Sir J. MacEvoy, B. Turner, J. A.
Dunne, Col. Mackie, J. Turner, C.
Edwards, CoL llPMahon, P. Vance, J.
Ewart, W. Maguire, J. F. Vandeleur, Col.
Ewart, J. C. Matins, R. Vansittart, W.
Fane, Col. Martin, P. W. Verney, Sir H.
Farquhar, Sir M. Miller, T. J. Walcott, Admiral
Fellowes, E. Mills, J. It. • Waldron, L.
Fenwick, E. M. Mitchell, T. A. Waterhouse, S.
atk
Ferrand, W. Montagu, Lord R. Win, E. W.
Fitzgerald, W. S. Moor, H. Westhead, J. P. B.
Forster, C. Moore, C. Whalley, G. H.
Gard, It. S. Morris,W. White, J.
Gaskell, J. M. Morrison, W. Wyld, J.
Gavin, Major Mowbray, J. R. Wynn, C. W. W.
George, J. Murray, W. Yorke, J. R.
Gower, G. W. L. O'Conor Don, The
Greenall, G. O'Donoghue, The TELLERS.
Greene, J. O'Ferrall, M. Sheridan, H. B.
Greville, Col. F. O'Loghlen, Sir C. Clifton, Sir R.

NOES —65.
Ayrton, A. S. Gosehen, G. J. Potter, E.
Baring, Sir F. Grey, Sir G. Pritchard, J.
Baring, T. G. Hankey, T. Pugh, D.
Bellew, R. 31. Harting,ton,Marquis Robartes, T. J. A.
Bonham-Carter, J. Headlam, T. E. Robertson, H.
Bruce, Lord C. Ingham, R. Scourfielo, J. H.
Bruce, H. A. Jackson, W. Smith, 31. T.
Bruen, H. Jervoise, Sir J. Stansfeld, J.
Bury, Viscount Kingscote, Col. Steel, J.
Caird, J. Kinnaird, A. F. Tracy, C. R. D.
Cardwell, E. Layard, A. H. Vernon, H. F.
Childers, H. C. E. Marjoribanks, D. C. Villiers, C. P.
Cowper, W. F. Martin, J. Waldegrave-Leslie
Crawford, R. W. Moffatt, G. Walpole, S. H.
Dunbar, Sir W. Monereiff, J. Whitbread, S.
Dunlop, A. 31. North, F. White, L.
Enfield, Viscount Paget, Lord C. Winnington, Sir T.
Fortescue, C. S. Palmer, Sir R. Wood, Sir C.
Gallwey, Sir W. P. Palmerston, Visot. Wyvill, 31.
Gibson, T. M. Peel, Sir R.
Gilpin, C. Peel, P. TELLERS.
Gladstone, W. li. Peto, Sir M. Brand, H.
Glyn, G. G. Pollard Urquhart W Knatchbull-Hugess