The Sun.
London, England, 1853-03-01 00:00:00

TENANT-RIGHT COMMITTEE.

On the order of the day for nominating the committee
on the Tenant-right Bills,
Mr. DRUMMOND wanted to know what coarse the
Government intended to pursue upon this subject? The
first of these bills had been introduced by the late Attor-

ney-General for Ireland (Mr. Napier), not as Attorney-
General, but as a private member. Now several members
were received on the committee who did not agree with
the principle of the bill which was agreed to on the second.
reading. There was every prospect, therefore, of the com-
mittee being shut up all the summer, and he objected to
such a specimen of intramural interment. (A laugh.) He
was anxious to know what course the right hon. baronet
intended to pursue.
Mr. CAYLEY rose, but was met with cries of "order."
The hon. gentleman said he rose to complain of the compo-
sition of the committee. _

The SPEAKER said that the committee was formed.
Mr. CAYLEY asked if it would be in order for him to
add a name to the committee ?

Mr. HUME thought it would be necessary to give notice
of such an intention. _

Sir J. YOUNG was quite ready to answer the question
of the hon. member for East Surrey (Mr. Drummond) al-
though he did not think it ought to have been addressed to
the present Government. The hon. member would recol-
lect, that before Christmas the hon. and learned member
for Kilkenny (Mr. Sergeant Shee) brought forward a bill
for the acceptance of the house, and that the hon. and
learned member for Dublin University (Mr. Napier) also
introduced bills, in the preparation of which a great amount
of labour and ability l)ad been extended. Those bills had
been read a second time, and referred to a select committee.
It was the duty of the present Government to carry into
effect the order of the house in this respect, and they ac-
cordingly moved the appointment of the committee. But
he (Sir J. Young) did not in the least degree hold himself
responsible for the bills of the hon. and learned member for
the University of Dublin, or for the bill of Mr. Sergeant
Shee. Undoubtedly the present Government and himself
(Sir J. Young) had acted with the sanction of her Majesty's
advisers, and he had no doubt that when they got into com-
mittee, the noble lord would state what course would be pur-
sued. In his (Sir J. Young's) opinion, the committee repre-
sented all parts of the house ; and he believed that if they
pursued their investigation earnestly and dispassionately,
great benefit to Ireland would be the result ; as it was ad-
mitted on all hands that some settlement of this question
should be arrived at, or if some settlement was not arrived
at, the statesmen of this country should give some reasons
why. For himself, he would say that he should go into
the committee with an earnest desire to discuss the ques-
tion with a view to a settlement. Let them look at this
question in a proper way ; let them remember that it was
one which had disorganised the public mind of Ireland for
years past—that it was a question from which it was con-
tended most of the grievances of that country had their
rise. It would bo the duty of the committee to apply
themselves to the subject, and endeavour, if possible, to
bring the question to some sort of amicable settlement.
Mr. LUCAS did not know whether the right hon. gen-
tleman rightly understood the question of the hon. mem-
ber (Mr. Drummond) ; but it did not appear that he had
received a very precise answer. The question which the
hon. member for East Surrey intended to put was, whether
the Government acceeded to the principle of the bills, or
whether the community were to consider what the princi-
ple should ultimately be. The principle of the bills of the
hon. and learned member for Dublin, and of that of the
hon. and learned member for Kilkenny, were precisely the
same. There was a great deal of difference, he believed,

between the practical arrangements of the two bills, but
the principal of each was identical. What the hon. mem-
ber for East Surrey wished to know was, whether the com-
mittee were to determine whether the principle of those
bills was to be adopted, or how that principle should bo
carried out. Therefore, he (Mr. Lucas) thought the house
should be informed of the intentions of the Government in
this respect, whether the committee were to commence
de novo, or whether they were to consider that the princi-

ple was agreed upon. -
Lord PALMERSTON—The question of the hon. mem-
ber is plain enough. Certain bills were brought into this
house before the adjournment. The house at that time
determined that all the bills should be referred to a select
committee. A 'change of Government occurred, and it
became the duty of her Majesty's present Government to
name the committee which the house had previously de-
termined to appoint. If the hon. member asks under what
conditions the Government will go into the committee, my
answer is, 'that we shall go into it perfectly unfettered.
Mr. MACARTNEY held the right hon. gentleman (Sir
J. Young) responsible for the appointment of this com-
mittee. It would only have been consulting precedent if
the late Government had nominated it. (Order.)

•
The SPEAKER informed the hon. member that the
house had already determined; on the committee. The
question now was, whether five members should form a
quorum ?
The committee was then agreed to, the remaining names
being Lord. Naas, Mr. Lucas, Sir Robert Ferguson, Mr.
Kirk, Mr. Henry Herbert, Mrßoche, Mr. John Fitzgerald,
Mr. Fagan, Mr. Robert Phillimore, Mr. Sadleir, Viscount
Monck, Mr. Walpole, Colonel Greville, Mr. Napier, Mr.
Duffy, Mr. Davison, Mr. Bright, Mr. Drummond, Mr.
Mackenzie, Mr. Dunlop, Mr. Vernon, Mr. Reverie Mr.
Pollard rquhart, Mr. Fortescue, Lord Claud Hamilton,
Mr. Whiteside, and Mr. Grogan.
The report on supply was then brought up.
On the vote for Kilmainham Hospital being read,
Mr. VANCE moved the postponement of the vote. He
said that his constituents iniDublin felt very strongly upon
the subject of the abolition of this hospital. It was one of
the few remaining institutions of Ireland ' • and the hon.
member quoted from a speech delivered by the late Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer in support of its retention. A few
years ago it was the fashion to think of nothing but centrali-
sation, but a new light had broken in upon the Irish people,
who recognised the necessity of preserving and fostering
their' local institutions. He moved, therefore, the post-
ponement of the vote until the Government gave a pledge
of their willingness to place Kilmainham Hospital on the
same footing, with respect to the reception of pensioners,
as Chelsea Hospital.
Mr. F. FRENCH, in seconding the motion, said that
this was not the first time this subject had given rise to
debates in the House of Commons. In 1834, the house
came to the determination that the hospital should not be
abolished, and Sir H. Vivian had declared that Kilmain-
ham was not only beneficial to the country, but could not
be dispensed with without positive injury.
Mr. S. HERBERT said that Lord Panmure had formerly
proposed the consolidation of Kilmainham and Chelsea
Hospitals with the view to the abolition of the former. In
consequence of the opposition which that proposal met
with, it was abandoned, but it was nevertheless determined
not to make any fresh appointment.. In consulting the
views of the pensioners in Kilmainham, the committee
found that all the inmates were not Irishmen, and that
therefore the institution could not he upheld solely on the
ground of nationality. Moreover, it was found that a
growing desire was springing up on the part of the pen-
sioners to live with their families, and in this view of the
case it would ultimately have to be considered whether
either hospital should be maintained. The house having
determined that no further appointment should take place
to'Kilmainham Hospital, he thought it would be well to
pursue the existing system of gradually diminishing he
expenses, with a view to the ultimate abolition of the
t
in-
stitution. He strongly recommended the hon. member
(Mr. Vane) not to persist in his motion.
in-
stead of augmenting the revenue of the hospital,Bydoing so,
he might
get no vote at all, and the hospital would therefore die of
starvation. (A laugh.)
Mr. GROGAN would remind the rig ght hon. gentleman,
who seemed to take an imperial view of the question,
that there was a strong national feeling in Ireland on this
subject, Decisions of committees were not always ratified
by the house ; and as far as the particular committee to
which this question was referred, he believed that only,
one Irish member (the late member for Clare, he believed)
served on it. He trusted that the feelings of the Irish
people would be considered on the subject, and that the
last vestiges of their nationality would be left to them.
After a few words from Mr. HUME,in support of the
recommendation of the committee,
The house divided—
For the motion •.. ••• ..•
66
Against it ••• •.. •.• ••• 119
Majority against ... --53 ,
SLAVE TRADE
L.
IN ARABIA) BIL
(NEW GRANDA AND SOHAR,
This bill, as amended, passed through committee.
OFFICE OF EXAMINER (COURT OF CHANCERY)

The house having gone into committee on this bill,
Mr. MULLINGS moved, at the end of clause 2, there
be added, " Provided always that nothing herein contained
shall extend or apply to any special examiner who may be
appointed under the provisions of the said last-recited
act ;" which was agreed to. He then moved, in page 3,
line 11, to omit the word " such ;" and after " examiner,"
to insert "of the said court." In moving this amend-
ment he should observe, that the first act passed to regu-
late pensions for retiring examiners was the sth of Geo.
111., by which they were entitled to 300/. ; • but the
Chancery Relief Bill of last session gave a, salary of 1,5001.
a year, allowing three-fourths of that sum as a retiring
pension, He now sought that retiring pension should not

.**."'""4";;"

be allowed any officer who was in full receipt of salary
from any other position.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said retiring pensions
would not be given such officers as held other appointments.
In the case of Mr. Villiers, when he retired from the office
of Examiner in Chancery, and accepted the office of Judge
Advocate, he very honourably declined to accept the pen-
sion attaching to the position of a retired Chancery Exa-
miner. (Cries of " hear, hear.") The amendment of the
hon. and learned gentleman would, if carried, interfere
very much with the action of the statute passed last session,
and would introduce the greatest possible confusion. The
objects of the act were entirely prospective, whereas the
proposed amendment attempted to annex to it the provi-
sions of a former one, and thereby give it a retrospective
character.
Mr. HENLEY was very happy to hear from the learned
Solicitor-General that it had never been the intention of the
hon. and learned member for Wolverhampton to receive his
pension and hold an office under Government at the same
time. That had been stated in language so unmistakeable
as to give great satisfaction to both sides of the house ; for
he was sure neither party in that house would wish to see
a gentleman permitted to retire upon a very handsome
salary, and immediately afterwards accept another office
under Government. The only point then which ought to
be regarded was, whether the question ought to remain
determined by the mere declaration of the hon. member for
Wolverhampton—(hear, hear)—or, was the house, now that
the opportunity for so doing was before them, to make an
explicit statement upon the point ? The learned Solicitor-
eneral said, that whether the act of Parliament allowed
of the pension being paid or not, that the hon. gentleman
did not intend to demand it. Now, he (Mr. Henley)
ventured to opine that, unless some such alteration as
that suggested by his reamed friend the member for
Cirencester were adopted, it would be competent for
to demand his pension. At all events, he thought
that the Crown ought to be protected by a distinct
provision in the act from any claims which might hereafter
be raised by the executors of the hon. and learned gentle-
man. (Hear.)
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL explained that the bill
now before them could have no reference to the hon.
member for Wolverhampton, as he was appointed to his
office 20 years ago, and he was therefore entirely outside
its scope.
Mr. MALINS was quite at a loss to know why the
learned Solicitor-General opposed the insertion of the pro-
posed words, as they would only have the effect of relieving
the minds of hon. members from an apprehension that it
was possible for the learned member for Wolverhampton
to be in the receipt at the same time of the emoluments of
an existing office and of his retiring pension besides.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL did not believe the
matter was at all understood. Hon. gentlemen opposite
seemed to be under the impression that some benefit was
to accrue to his right hon. friend the member for Wolver-
hampton under this bill. Now, he would derive none what-
ever, for by the bill of last session the option was given to
the hon. and learned gentleman, as one of the examiners
of the Court of Chancery, to withdraw from his office, as
its functions were materially altered ; and a provision was
inserted that he should be entitled on so doing to a pen-
sion. Now to that provision no condition whatever had
been coupled, that he should be incompetent to hold any
other office concurrently. During the present session,
however, a new act of Parliament was introduced, which
had entirely a prospective scope, and nothing whatever to
do with his right hon. friend, who had resigned under a
former act. It certainly was not altogetiier consistent
with his (the Attorney General's) notion of justice, thus
by ex post facto legislation to interfere with an arrange-
ment come to during a former session. (No, no, from the
Opposition benches.)
The house then divided, when there appeared
For the original clause 127
For the amendment

Majority against the amendment 66
Mr. MITLLINGS then moved that in line 12 for "20'
to insert " 25" years as the period when the retiring pen
sion should become due.
Colonel SIBTHORP must observe on the division whit]
had just taken place. Had he beheld the hon. member
for Montrose, the hon. member for Manchester, the hon.
member for Salford, those gentlemen who used to be once
so loud-toned in their demands for retrenchment and eco-
nomy, divide in favour of such a scheme as this retiring
pension? The whole thing reminded him of the old adage,
"Scratch me, and I'll scratch you." (Laughter.)
Mr. HUME said that if that proviso ought to be in-
serted at all it ought to have been inserted in the bill of
last year, and not in the one then before the house.
Mr. MALINS said ho could not help thinking that the
whole matter savoured somewhat of a job. He did not be-
lieve any man had a right to a pension for a small office
after he had accepted a higher one ; and that was the posi-
tion in which the hon. gentleman the member for Wol-
verhampton at present stood.
Mr. COBDEN said that in the course of seven hours and
a half they had voted away 15,000,0001. for the army, navy,
and ordnance, being at the rate of 2,000,0001. an hour ;
and although they had had no discussion upon the votes
for that vast sum, a discussion was at present raised on a
point that could not involve the saving of one farthing. He
understood that the hon. member for Cirencester had no in-
tention of depriving his right hon. friend the member for
Wolverhampton of his right to his pension ; and the only
object of the proposal which they were then discussing was
the insertion in the bill of a proviso which had no reference
to the case of his right hon. friend. They only wanted to
compel his right hon. friend, by act of Parliament, to do
that which he had voluntarily done last year.
Sir J. SHELLEY said he was glad to find hon. gentle-
men opposite so sensitive with respect to the distribution
of the public money. Those hon. gentlemen should re-
member that the Judge Advocate of the late Government
had held that office at the same time that he had also held
the office of Cursil or Baron of the Exchequer.
Mr. G. BANKES said that no one doubted the good
faith of the right hon. gentleman the member for Wolver-
hampton, but the question then was, whether it was not
right that the law should regulate that matter for the
future, instead of leaving it to the discretion of any indi-
vidual. It was true that he had held two offices at the
same time, as stated by the hon. baronet who had last ad-
dressed the house, but he had now received a year's salary
for each office. The fact was that he had not continued a
year in office, and what he might have done at the end of
the year he need not then attempt to decide. (Hear, hear,
and laughter.)
Mr. C. P. VILLIERS said he could not help thinking
that his right hon. predecessor, who was anxious that they
should lay down a general principle in these matters, must
have had his own course rather than that pursued by him
(Mr. Villiers) in -view. He begged leave to say that his
case was quite a peculiar one, and was not likely to occur
again, whereas that of the right honourable gentleman
was very like to recur again. The right honourable
gentleman had held two offices at the same time. But his
(Mr. Villiers') case was a very different one ; and as there
existed some misconception on the subject, and some
anxiety he should say to misconceive. on the other side of
the house--(hear)—it would perhaps be convenient that
he should make a very short statement of the facts of
the case. Ills position was this :—He had held for up-
wards of 19 years the office of examiner of the Court of
Chancery, after having been appointed to that office in the
year 1833 by Sir John Leach, the Master of the Rolls, who
had been of opinion that as some changes had been made
in the duties of the situation, it ought for the future to be
held by persona who had been called to the bar. He was
the first person appointed to that office under that new
arrangement. The advantage held out was not sufficient
to tempt many to accept of it, for it precluded the holder
from enjoying any other office, or from practising at the
bar. The salary was only 1,0001. a year. On the other
hand, he considered that the office was one for life, and
that while he discharged the duties he had undertaken no
person could remove him. He also felt that the possession
of such an office was not incompatible with a seat in Par-
liament. Under these circumstances, he accepted of the
office, and held it for about 19 years. A bill was then
proposed in Parliament to change the character of that
office, and according to the recital of such bill it abolished
the practice of taking evidence as heretofore, and •i.fatly
enhanced the responsibility of the person holding
While that bill was passing through the house his atten-
tion was called to the fact, that no allusion was made in it
to the officer himself. He did not suppose that the late
Government had any intention to do an injustice to him
because he was an opponent, or that they intended to act
less liberally to him than to any one else. His late col-
league, therefore, called the attention of the late Secretary
of State for the Home Department to that omission, and
the right hon. gentleman immediately paid that attention
to the matter which he expected he would do. (Hear,
hear.) The right honourable gentleman said that if a
clause wore prepared to meet the justice of the case, that he
would offer no opposition. A clause taken from the 50th
George 111. was accordingly proposed, which supplied the
omission complained of. That clause gave an option to the
person whose duties were so very onerous either to retire,
or to resume the duties of the office at a higher salary.
The bill with that clause passed without opposition—not
at twelve o'clock at night, but at twelve o'clock in the day.
If he remembered right, the hon. member for Cirencester
was in the house at the time, and never offered the slightest
objection to the measure. The clause was brought under
the attention of the Lord Chancellor previous to the bill
going up to the other house, and the noble and learned
lord said that he had no objection whatever to its passing.
The hon. member opposite wanted to fix on him something
like an interested object. (" No, no," from the hon. mem-
ber.) Yes, there was an imputation made against him
that he wanted to get more than he ought to have.
The fact was, that though the bill contained a clause
to his advantage, he was not very eager for its passing,
and he said in his place in that house that he did not think
the measure had been duly considered, and expressed a
wish that it should be postponed. The bill, however,
passed. His colleague elected to take the increased
salary, and he (Mr. Villiers) the retiring one. He now
came to a misstatement of the hon. and learned member
because that
that
hmh
aoatnn.
it andtwataes learned
notth
for Wallingford (Mr. Malins). This was a serious one,
d not but
knownentlhleaavrened eedhgecillof and
ea,acfrtgoleymnttlruhiemse.aknnoThe;lul
fact, the statement he made was true—that charge was
that he (Mr. V.) kept the office, receiving the improved
Government. salary, until he saw the fate of the late ("No,
no," from Mr. Molina.) Why, the argument of the hon.
and learned gentleman was founded upon that assertion,
and he accused him (Mr. V.) of having waited until he was
satisfied upon the present Government coming into office
that he would be remunerated for what part he had taken
in that house. (" No, no," from Mr. Mathis.) Now, he
wished to state a fact within his own knowledge, as op-
posed to that statement as two things could possibly be.
He was in bad health in the course of the summer, and
went into the country. He came back in the month of
November for the sole purpose of claiming the right of re-
tiring from his office. This was before the dissolution of
the late Government and the accession of the present minis-
ters to office. Nor had he then the slightest wish to take
office. Now, what had the hon. member for Cirencester
done ? That hon. gentleman comes down to the house late
at night, and ho (Mr. V.) must say by insidious means he
proposes not to repeal the act, but by the introduction of
shuffling words in a clause and by the omission of others
virtually to repeal that portion of the act which materially-
affected him (Mr. V.). Hhe had been absent in the coun-
try he might be deprived of that to which ho was entitled
by the insidious means adopted by the hon. gentleman.
(No, no.) No man's place or property would be safe if
such a practice were permitted. If it were any satisfac-
tion for the hon. gentleman to know this fact, he (Mr. V.)
would inform him that it was on the day he accepted his
present office he placed a document in the hands of the
solicitor of the fund upon which his claim was charged,
which precluded him from receiving it. (Ministerial
cheers.)
Mr. MALINS, in explanation, said that nothing was
more distant from his mind than to say anything personally
offensive of the right hon. gentleman. (Ironical cheers from
the ministerial side). And he could assure him that the
idea of the right hon. gentleman receiving two salaries at
the same time was one which never entered his (Mr. M.'s',
head. (Oh). Ho thought the house would do him the
justice to admit that the position for which he contended
was one which was influenced by the impression that since

the death of the former officer, and since the right hon.
tghenertelewmaasn'bsuptroonmeoteioxnamitonetrh,ean4offitche
right honourable gentleman had been hanging, as it were,
between heaven and earth. (Cries of " oh, oh," in the
midst of which the hon. and learned gentleman resumed
his seat.) that the thjeusdurcesAsodrvoofca thete
1
.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, that in order to meet -
the objections that were urged, he would propose this proviso
—namely, " That no pension or superannuation allowed is
to be grantedto any examiner under 65 years of age, unless
in case of permanent ill health."
Mr. MULLINGS, having withdrawn his amendment,
stated that he had not intended the slightest offence to the
right hon. gentleman in making the proposition. The fact
was, that, having met the right hon gentleman in the lobby
of the house, he asked him to say. whether he was really
entitled to a retiring pension? when the right hon. gentleman,
in reply, said, " Leave it to my own discretion. ' He then
told him that he would not sanction the principle of grant-
ing to any gentleman a retiring pension at the same time
he was receiving a salary as Judge Advocate.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said, that as soon as it was stated
that the right hon. gentleman had declined to draw his re-
tiring salary while he filled the office of Judge-Advocate
General, they all felt that such a course was highly
honourable to him. He (Mr. Newdegate) never for one
moment doubted that right hon. gentleman's word ; but
the party with whom he acted thought it was a very un-
sound principle to admit that a matter of so serious a cha-
racter should be left simply to the discretion of any hon.
or right hon. gentleman who happened to be placed in the
situation of the right hon. member for Wolverhampton-
(Hear, hear.)
The Solicitor-General's proviso was then agreed to, and
the bill was ordered to be read a third time on Friday. 1,19 •
The Slave Trade (New Granada) Bill, the Slave Trade .
(Sohara, in Arabia) Bill, and the Commons Enclosure (No.
2) Bill, were severally read a second time.
The Inland Revenue Office Bill passed through eoln4
mitt**.
Mr. DEEDES then proposed to nominate] the select
committee on the Parish Constables Bill.
Lord PALMERSTON said, that as the hon. member for
Dover had given notice of the appointment of a eonl_:
mittee to take into consideration the general question w
reference to the constabulary force in England, and en,!
bill had been brought in, proposing to make a change lu,
the parochial constables' force, he (Lord Palmerston'
thought that, inasmuch as it was hardly possible to 00_11-
sider one of those subjects without the other, it would o°
advisable to refer the whole of them to the same committee-
Mr. DEEDES said that he looked upon the proposal Of
the noble lord as nothing more or less than a shelving of
his bill. The hon. member for Dover had agreed to defer
the appointment of the committee in his own case, indefi-
nitely ; and it was not improbable that no committee
would sit at all to consider his measure. He hoped, there-
fore, the noble lord would not persevere in opposing the
nomination of the committee for which he (Mr. Deedes)
had moved.
The following members were then nominated to serve
upon the committee :—Mr. Deedes, Mr. Lascelles, Colonel
Clifford, Lord Lovaine, Mr. Edward Egerton, Mr. Wright
Lord Hotham, Mr. Fitzroy, Mr. Langston, 3fr•
Henley, Sir John Duckworth, Mr. Robert Palmer, .033-•
Moody, and the Earl of March.
DIVORCE BILLS.
The following members were, on the motion of Mr.
FITZROY, appointed to sit on the select committee on
Divorce Bills :—Mr. Sotheron, Sir John Yarde Buller, Sir
John Pakington, Mr. Walpole, Mr. Heaellam, Mr. Bonham
Carter, Mr. Phillimore, and Mr. Vernon Smith--the hon.
gentleman having given notice that he would to-morrow
(this day) ask leave to substitute the name of Mr. Fresh-
field for that of the Judge-Advocate, which originally
stood upon the list.
The remaining business having been disposed of,
The house adjourned at a quarter past twelve.

PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-FEB. 2S,

(From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of

Commons.)
SUPPLY REPORT.
Fifteenth resolution—" That a sum, not exceedinLg-:
28,1191., be granted to her Majesty, for defraying he
charge of Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals, and the in";
pensioners thereof, which will come in course of parlinni:
from the Ist day of April, 1853, to the 31st day of Mao;
1854, inclusive being read a second time. Motion mad
and question put—,, That the said resolution be post •
poned." The house divided—Ayes, 66 ; Noes, 118.

MINORITY—AYES, 66.
Ball, John Greville, Col. Napier, J.
Bellvvr, Captain Grogan, E. North, Colonel
Bland ,L. Gwyn, Howel O'Brien, P.
Booth, Sir R. Henchy, D. O'Connor O'Flaherty, Antho.lll,
Bower, G. Henley, Joseph W. Pollard-Urquhart.""
Brody, John Herbert, Sir T. Robertson, P. F.
Brooke, Sir A.B. Higgins, G. G. 0. Bolt, P.
Butt, Isaac Kennedy, Tristram Sandars, G.
Cairns, H. M`Calmon Ker, D. S. Scully, Francis
Cogan, W. Kirk, William Stafford, A.
Corbally, M. Knatchbull, Wm. F. Stanley, Lord
Davison, R. Lindsay, Colonel Sullovan, M.
Disraeli, Benjamin Lucas, F. Swift, Richard
Duffy, C. G. Macartney, G. Tyler, Sir George
Esmonde, J. Mackenzie, WF. Vausittart, G. IL
Fagan, W. M'Cann, J. Verner. Sir SP.
Fitzgerald, W. R. S. M`Mahon, Patrick Walcott, Adm. .
Forster, Sir G. Megan, W. H. Wyndham, Getter"
Fox, R. M. Maguire, John F.
Fraser, Sir Wm. A. Manus, Richard .
Freshfield, J. W. Mandeville, Viscount SELLERS.
Goold. W. Mullings, J. R.
Grace, 0. Mnrrough, J. P. Vance, J.
1 Greene, John Naas, Lord French, Fltzstephee
MAJORITY—NOES, 119.
A'Court, C. H. W. Dundas, F. Osborne, Ralph
Alcock, Thomas Elliot, John Otway, Arthur John,
Anderson, Sir James Fitzroy, Henry Palmerston, VlSCOank
Baines, M. T. Forster, M. Patten, J.
Ball, Edward Forteseue. Chichester Pellatt Ansley
Barrow, W. IL Freeston, Colonel Percy, J.
Berkeley, Admiral Gibson, Thomas M. Peto. S.
Berkeley, C. L.
Glyn,Gladstone,ooderiGeheo,r.vg ise CaptainCarrunt rjerrilkinhdinielnilmeygtoiro:W.ne:rillißer.am.ames_
Bethel], Richard
Biggs. William
Bonham-Carter, J. Goodman, Sir George Price, Sir R.
Brim, Musgrave Gower, F. L.
Brotherton, J. Graham, Sir James Ricardo, 0.
Brown, William Green, Gilbert Sawle, C. B. G.
Browne, V. Grenfell, C. Scobell, Capt. ,
Bruce, Lord E. Hadfield, G. Seymour, W. P.
Bruce, H. A. Hastie, Alexander Shelley, Sir J. t'•
Butler, Charles Hastie, Archibald Smith, John B.
Cardwell, Hon. E. Herbert, Sidney Stapleton, J.
Caylcy, E. S. Hervey, Lord Alfred Stirling, W.
Charteris, F. Hume, W. ritZWilliarn Strutt, Edward
Cheetham, John Hutchins, E. Stuart, Lord P. iiera,
Cholmondeley, Ld. H. Kendall, N. Tancred, Hee°
Christy, bamuel Kershaw, James Thicknesse, B. A'
Clay, Sir William Langton, H. G. Thornely, T.
Clifford, Henry M. Laslett, William Townley, C.
Cobden, Richard Lockhart, A. E. • Villiers, C. ~
Cockburn, Sir Alex. Lovaine, Lord Walmsiey, Sir ''''
Coffin Walter Mackie, John Whatman, .T• v..
Collier, Robert P. Macgregor, James Wickham, 11. -:
Cowper, W. F. M'Taggart, Sir J. Wilkinson, - .1"'
Craufurd, E. H. J. Michell, W. Wilcox, B.
Crook, Joseph Michell, T. Wilson, J. ,%,,,
Crossley, Frank
Viscount
monles ckw, , SIT W Wyndham,ri•-•-•
Mills, T. Wilmington, Se
' Denison J. E. Moffatt, G. Wise, J. A..„,
Dering, Sir E. blo orth
Drumlanrig, Lord Young, Sir Jou.*
Drammond, Henry Morris, D.
Duckworth, Sir J. Muntz, G. F. TZLIXIII•
Duke, Sir J. Norreys, Lord Hayter, W. ,
Duncan, George Oakes, J. H. P. Musgrave, Bar
101)