The Sun.
London, England, 1848-08-08 00:00:00

JJg'

amendment- prOPOtnd foist "1 he stood alone he weula
divide against it.
Mr. MACKINNON thought the Hoc. Alderman mis-
tuiderstool the clause, which was really one of a most
humane character.
After a few words from Mr. SEYMER,
The amendment was agreed to, as were some altera-
tions to other clauses.
The Lords' amendment to clause 30, was disagreed to.
On clause 37 being put,
Lord MORPETH said he was prepared to assent
to the amendment of the Lords, so far as it went,
to make the removal of the surveyors to local boards
subject to the approval of the general board. With re-
ference to the inspector of nuisances, that was an inferior
office, and he should not raise any difficulty.
Mr. SPOONER objected to the local boards
being thus crampted in referents to their control over
their officers.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, ho could sup-
pose cases in which this provision would operate as fa,
vourably for the local boards as for the surveyors.
Captain PECHELL thought this amendment was an
unwarrantable attack upon the principle of local govern-
ment.
Mr. BIWTHERTON and Mr. Hunt supported the Lords'
amendment.
Sir W. CLAY thought that as a general rule they
were bound to maintain the principle of local govern-
ment; and he did not think that a sufficient case had
been made 'out for thin amendment.
Mr. C. P. VILLIERS thought that this was only a
proper and wholesome control.
Mr. MUNTZ said, they ought to take care to prevent
collision between the local and central boards. What
could be more calculated to do this than adopting this
amendment? He objected to an increase of centralize
'lion. If the ratepayers were not able to manage these
matters they had better transfer all such powers to the
central board.
Mr. BROTHERTON believed the clause was neces-
sary to enable the surveyor to perform his duty pro-
perly.
Mr. FORSTER contended that public opinion had
never prevented local jobbing, and that therefore some
such clause as this was necessary.
Captain PECHELL complained that the Noble Lord
was now advocating all those obnoxious principles which
be had given up-on the first introduction of the Bill.
Mr. MACKINNON hoped the Noble Lord would be
induced to give up his amended clause. No central
board would ever dismiss a surveyor improperly.
Mr. BROCKLEHURST thought those who appointed
*the surveyor Should have the power of dismissal.
Sir W..CLAY opposed the amended clause.
Mr. E.WART opposed the proposal, because it in-
volved a divided responsibility. Ile believed that they
ought not to interfere with local self-government.
Mr. URQUHART appealed to the sense of justice of
the Noble Lord not to withdraw half the boon which
he had on a former occasion granted, because he had
vow the support of the House of Lords. He called
upon the House not to reverse the decision which it
bad already come to on this principle.
Mr. HENLEY was surprised to hear liberal Members
expressing sueh extraordinary distrust of popularly-
elected bodies.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the Lords'
amendments merely intended to guard against the im-
proper removal of surveyors; that would be guarded
against by the introduction of the words " subject never-
theless, in case of the removal of the surveyor, to the
control of the central board."
Lord MORPETH reminded the Committee that the
town of Liverpool had in a Bill, which they themselves
had introduced, provided that the surveyor should not
be removed without the authority of the central board.
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the Com-
mittee divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it
Majority for the Lords' amendment-20
On the amendment of the Lords to clause 40, which
gave the power of appointing the officer of health to the
central board,
Lord MORPETH proposed that the amendment
should be disagreed to.
After a few words from Mr. NEWDEG ATE the mo-
tion was agreed to.
Lord MORPETH moved that the Lords' amend-
ments to clause 41, giving the general board power to
fix the scale on which maps are to be drawn, should be
agreed to.
Mr.- HENLEY thought the effect of such amendment
would be that there would be no maps at all.
Mr P. HOWARD supported the Lords' amendments.
The mOtion was then agreed to.
The Lords' amendments to clauses 43 and 44 were
then agreed to.
Lord MORPETH proposed to disagree to that por-
tion of the Lords' amendments in clause 45 which im-
posed penalties on the local boards. The motion was
agreed to.
The amendments to clauses 46, 47, 48, and 49 were
agreed to.
Lord MORPETH was compelled to propose that they
should disagree to that portion of the Lords' amend
ments..which went to limit the extension of the provi-
sions of the Bill to towns with 5,000 inhabitants instead
of to towns with 2,000 inhabitants, as originally pro-
posed; also, to that portion which gave to a clear majo-
rity of the ratepayers the right of deciding thot the
town should come under the provisions of the Bill, in-
stead of requiring, as was originally proposed, &majority
of three-fifths. These alterations were contrary to the
privileges'ol the House of Commons, and, therefore, he
_proposed that they should be disagreed to.
The amendments were then disagreed to.
Lord MORPETH called the attention of the House to
the amendment made by the Lords with respect to the
expense of cleansing drains. In the clause, as it origi-
saally stood, the expense might be charged either to the
district or to the individual. The amendment made by
, the Lords gave no alternative, and he therefore proposed
that it be disagreed with.
Amendment accordingly disagreed with.
Lord MORPETH proposed to acquiesce in the amend-
ment of the Lords which restored the " smoke clause."
_lt had been framed with exceptions to particular trades,
and he believed the adoption of it would be attended
with signal benefit.
Mr. SPOONER moved the insertion of the words
'" ironworks and collieries."
Lord MORPETH had no objection to insert the words
'" ironworks," but objected to except collieries.
Mr. BRIGHT opposed the clause, and contended that
it would only render their legislation ridiculous. It
would be impossible to obtain convictions under such a
obtuse.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL admitted that the
'clause contained inconsistencies, and would lead to diffi-
culties. If his Noble Friend would take his advice, he
would not press it.—(A laugh.)
Mr. MACKINNON contended that Mr. Bright was
not a fair witness in this case, for if the clause was
agreed to, he, like other manufacturers, would be put to
some expense in providing furnaces hich would con-
sume their own smoke. If the smoke nuisance was al-
lowed to go on unchecked, the atmosphere in the large
manufacturing towns would be unbearable. He did not
say that this clause was pertect, but it might be amended.
The Committee which sat on the subject four years ago,
and which was partly 'composed of some of the most
respectable manufacturers, came to the conclusion that a
Bill, should be introduced to prohibit smoke from fur-
naces and steam-engines. He would appeal to the Hon.
Gentleman opposite whether the local Bill for the pre-
vention of smoke had, or had not, a beneficial effect in
''-"Manchester?
e After.a few words from Mr. BRIGHT, in explanation,
Mr:DRUMMOND said there was a good deal of mock
' philosophy in such legislation as that proposed.
Mr. 1?. HOWARD said that it was a tribute which
cenvonience must pay to the national wealth to submit to
what it was proposed to remedy, and he did not believe
' it was possible to adopt the clauses in the manufacturing
towns.
Viscount MORPETH said he believed his Hen. Friend
who had just sat down represented the tallest chimney
in England—(Hear, and laughter)—but they who in
that House looked upon the question from a point at
which they did not dwell under its immediate shadow,
' would perhaps consider it more impartially. After what
his Hon. and Learned Friend the Attorney-General had
said with respect to the clause, he would not press its
. adoption, as it was his wish not to put anything into the
Bill which might be supposed unnecessary, a course
which might frustrate its object.—(Hear.) But, being
fully alive to what was called " the smoke nuisance," be
avowed himself prepared to support any measure which
might be hereafter introduced which had a prospect of
abating that nuisance.
After a few words from Mr. MACGREGOR,
Mr. MUNTZ said he had never known any practical
schenap introduced for the prevention of smoke, except
the'extedsion of boiler room. •
Affir a few words from Mr. ElvenT and Mr. Mlc-
KINNON; the clause was withdrawn.
-- The verbal amendments to clauses 62, 63, 64, 65, 66,
and 67 were understood to be agreed to, after a short
discussion.
The amendments up to clause 80 were also considered,
and some agreed to and some negatived.
A discussion arose on a proviso added to clause 80,
with respect to interments in towns, by which persons
• having family vaults in churches were exempted.
••• Mr. Henley opposed the proviso, as did also Mr. Hume
and Mr. Mackinnon.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL agreed that there
was'a good deal of reason in the objections made to the
proviso.
Colonel SIBTHORP supported the proviso, and
thought it would be an unwarrantable interference with
the private rights to have it otherwise. Ho would ask
the Hon. Member below him (Mr. Mackinnon) how he
.; , would like to be deprived of the privilege of burial in
••• , his' enafly vault, or in any vault which might have been
purchased by an ancestor in a church?
, MACKINNON said it had been proved that no-
ts, thing could prevent unhealthy exhalations from arising
sea;; in oases of interments within towns and in vaults;
I, and, for his own part he would rather be buried in the
middle of the highway than let the maintenance of any
supposed right of his be prejudicial to the health of any
congregation or community.—(Hear, hear.)
Colonel SIBTHORP said, so would ho also—
(Laughter; and " Ilear")—for his anxiety for the public
health was as great as that of his Hon. Friend. But he
conceived his lion. Friend's argument was most absurd.
—(Laughter.) It was too late to shut the stable door
when the steed was stolen, and that was the case in the
present instance.—(Laughter.) For his part he should
say, that where his fathers lay there would he lie, be
the penalty what it might.—(A laugh.) Yes, he
would.—(Renewed laughter.)
The amendment of the Lords was then struck out.
In clause 85, the amendment of the Lords was re-
jected, the words " general board of health" having been
struck out.
Clause 119, which relates to the power to be given to
the general board over contracts, having been put,
Lord MOIWETLI proposed that the general board

should have a control over those contracts only v,hicl
amounted to 500 L, and that they should not have a CON
trol, as proposed by th Lords, over contracts which only
amounted to 1001.
Mr. HENLEY objecte 1 to the clause ait)gcther.
believed that the proposed arrangement would cams.
great inconvenience to p trtivs in country districts, l))
compelling them to CADe up to London with their plans
and estimates. He shell' I, therefore, move the omission
of the clause.
Mr. M. GIBSON said he did not think it would 13.(e
desirable to submit all the details of plans and estimates
to the general board.
Mr. MUNTZ thought the clause ought to be re-
jected altogether. It pi ared to him that the control
over contracts might fo Eafely left to the ratepayers,
who would have to pay all the expenses incurred under
the Bill.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the clause
Against it
Majority against the clause —s
The clause was therefore struck out of the Bill.

Clause 127 having been put,
Lord MORPETH said that under the clause as it had
before passed in that House the accounts in corporat,
towns were to be audited by the corporate body, and by
the poor-law auditors in towns which had no corpora-
tions. But by an amendment carried in the House of
Lords, the poor-law auditors would audit the accounts in
all cases. Now, it appeared to him that in corporate
towns the proper auditor would be the auditor of the
corporation; and he therefore proposed that the amend-
ment of the Lords with respect to auditing the accounts
in those towns should be rejected.
Tho amendment in question was accordingly struck
out.
The remaining clauses were then gone through, some
verbal alterations having been made in the Lords' amend-
ments.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved certain amend-
ments in clause 10.

The clause as amended was then agreed to.
The Lords' amendments were then brought up, some of
which were agreed to, and managers appointed to meet
their Lordships in conference as to the remainder.
MESSAGE FROM TIIE LORDS.

A message from the Lords informed the House that
their Lordships had agreed to the following Bills:—
Amendments to Sale of Beer—Huddersfield Improve
ment (No. 2)—Richmond and Reeth Road, without
amendment—West of England and South Wales Land
Draining Company Incorporation, with amendments.
SUPPLY.—REVISION OF TAXATION.
Oa the order of the day fur going into Committee of
Supply,
Mr. E WART rose to move, " That it is expedient
that there be a revision of our present system of taxa-
tion; especially with a view to extend the commerce of
the country, and to increase the employment and com-
forts of the people." While he was anxious to guard
himself against the imputation of desiring to propose
any great change in the present system of indirect taxa-
tion, he still could not conceal from himself that it
pressed with undue severity on the labour and industry
of the country; and he thought it worth considering
whether they could not further extend the enlightened
principles already introduced into the taxation of the
country, which, notwithstanding all that had been done,
was still a mighty maze, and yet without a plan. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer could not confer a greater
benefit on the country than by reducing this
undigested mass into order. What had they
been doing during the present !session ? They had
been devoting themselves to a kind of strenuous idle-
ness. At what time, he asked, had the people of this
country deserved so much of their care ? While
foreign nations had been agitated by the most de-
structive tempests of revolution they had stood firm, and
this they owed to the good sense and stability of the
people ; and they were more peculiarly called upon to
devise measures for the extension of the commerce of
the country at a moment like the present, in conse-
quence of the unfortunate circumstances which had to so
great an extent limited our trade with the continent of
Europe ; and the only way to accomplish this was to
extend our commercial relations with China and the
United States. Perhaps one of the first reforms called
for was a reduction of the duties on tea and tobacco,
both of which fell with an aggravated pressure on the
poor. It had been proved before a Committee of that
House that the duty on tea operated as a duty on our
own manufactures; and though no one would deny tobacco
to be a fit subject for taxation, yet it was a question
whether the amount of duty did not operate as a check
on consumption, while it certainly favoured the rich at
the expense of the poor, who consumed 15-16ths of the
quantity imported. He believed it had been proved in
evidence before a Committee of that House, that by re-
ducing the rate of duty this country might become the
tobacco depot of Europe. lie would not, on the present
occasion, allude to the wine duties, for the unfortunate
circumstances which had lately occurred in France pre-
cluded the hope of effecting any improved arrangements
with respect to that article of import for some time to
come. Then, with regard to the customs, they had
lately reduced the duties on some hundred articles of
import, and the question was whether this would not
enable them to effect reductions in this department, as
they had already effected in the excise department. In
the latter many improvements had undoubtedly been
made; but he urged them still to proceed onward iu
so useful a course of legislation. He begged to call
their attention to the great benefit conferred on the
country by the repeal of the glass duties, to which
the general use of plate-glass, at the present time,
bore testimony. Why should they not continue
to pursue the same course? In connexion with the pre-
sent sanitary reform, he could • conceive no article on
which a reduction of duty would operate more benefi•
cially than- soap. The Excise regulations caused a con-
stant interference with trade, prevented its extension,
and checked improvement. He believed that in the soap
trade no improvement had taken place for forty years.
Another burden which called for revision was the paper
duty, which was a tax both on an implement of business
and an implement of instruction. Could there be a
worse tax in principle than this? The effect of it was,
that scarcely any paper was exported. Another hos-
tile tax to improvement was the duty on bricks; for, as
in the case of soap, spoiled bricks paid duty as well as
saleable ones, and the tax, therefore, in both instances,
operated as a discouragement to the exercise of inge •
nuity in their manufacture. In the United States
the duty on bricks was only 12s. fid. per
1,000, whilst the duty in this country was 245.,
or nearly double. In France, too, he believed the
bricks used by the poor paid no duty. In fact, Mr.
Pitt, who first proposed it, admitted it to be a
mostimpolitic tax unless under special circumstances.
He suggested the commutation and equalization of
taxes. The window duty for instance, he suggested,
might be commuted, even though it could not be abo-
I lished. He next referred to insurance duties, which
might well be reduced. There was also the advertise-
ment duty, which might properly be replaced by another,
as it interfered with trade and commerce. As to
the burdens on land, the report of the House
of Lords showed how the stamp duties pressed
upon the poor man, who paid higher on the
transfer of land than the rich man did. The
stamp duties ou settlements was unfair, as they pressed
upon one class, and did not touch upon another. Landed
property was excluded from probate and legacy duties.
—(Hear.) He thought that the attention of his Right
Hon. Friend should be directed to the subject during
the recess. What he wanted was an inquiry during the
recess.—(Hear.) The tea duty might be reduced, and
the difference might be replaced by a moderate direct
tax—he thought, too, an inquiry might be made as to
the difference between income and property, so as that
the Right lion. Gentleman might sea whether a distinc-
tion in taxation could not be made in them. It was to
be remembered that by direct taxation much money
might be saved in the cost of collection. What lie
wanted was a revision of the system of taxation, and that
this should, in the words of his motion, be done with a
view of increasing the commerce, and increasing the
employment and comforts of the people.
Mr. HUME seconded the motion.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
he was invited by his Hon. Friend to do that which it
was his duty to do—that was to look to the system of
taxation, to see what could be done with a view of in-
creasing the commerce, and increasing the comforts of
the people. At the same time, he was not prepared to
go so far as his Hon. Friend, nor to impose a large
burden in the shape of direct taxation.—(Hear, hear.)
Of late years the principles of his Hon. Friend had
been carried out to a large extent; and to the revision
' of the system of taxation so far as it had gone, he (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer):had given his unqualified
support. But on the present occasion his Hon. Friend
had made no tangible proposition on the subject, and at
this time of the session, and at this hour of the night
(half-past eleven), he thought he should not be consult •

fiag :tile convenience or the wishes of the House, if;
whilst admitting there were many inequalities in the
existing system, ho went into a lengthened discussion
upon thesubject.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUME said the inequalities of the present sys-
tem of taxation were most unjust; for whilst they bore
lightly on the rich they pressed heavily on the poor.
It' the Chancellor of the Exchequer deferred any alte-
ration until he, had money enough to afford to do so,
that result would never take place.—(Loud laughter.)
Hitherto, exactly in proportion as taxation had in-
creased the public expenditure had been augmented, and
so it would continue until Parliament did its duty and
put a stop to the extravagance of Government, and car-
ried out those reforms which the country required.
Dr. BOWRING regretted that Mr. Ewart had not
introduced his motion at an earlier period of the session.
There was no doubt whatever that the whole system of
taxation should be revised; and he trusted that dis-
cussions on the subject in this House would be followed
by a great reform, and that a financial system would
hereafter be adopted, based upon a wise and judicious
policy.
Mr. COBDEN, whilst concurring with Mr. Ewart in
the object of his motion, suggested that it would not be
necessary to divide the House on the present occasion.
lie thought it was rather too late in the session to hope
for any good practical result from persevering with it.
After a few words from Mr. EWART, the motion was
withdrawn.

SUPPLY.
Mr. lIUME, before the Right Hon. Gentleman left
the chair, wished to know what estimates were to be
taken to-night? Ho understood that the votes for the
navy were to come on on Wednesday next. He con-
sidered that these estimates ought not to be voted until
the report of the Committee and the evidence upon
which that report was founded should be in the hands
of H.,l]. Members.

Lord J. RUSSELL did not think that the Hon.
Gentleman had adduced any sufficient reason to induce
the House to depart from the usual course. The
evidence was not yet printed. That evidence was very
volumuious, and some time must elapse before it could
be in the hands of Members. Ho thought the better
course would be to take some of the estimates to-night,

!ICI on Wednesday his Right lion. Friend would state
chat was the view which the Governmtmt took of the
'eport. The report was most ably drawn up and went
'oily into the question, and on Wednesday the Govern
,_vent would state their views of the subject; but as those
'climates had been before the House since February.
'se hoped that they might be permitted to take some of
',he votes to-night.
Mr. COBDEN supported the appeal V tbe Honourable
\lembt r for Montrose on this subject. He had himself
sat on that Committee for four months ; and he thought
,t was important that the Members of the House should
o the result of their labours, more especially seeing
that a Gallant Admiral opposite, the only Member of
the House present at the proceedings of that Committee
who was not at the same time a member of the Com-
mittee itself, had thought proper to accuse the members
~f the Committee of incompetency, want of judgment,
and partiality. He should, therefore, wish Hon. Mem-
bers to see the evidence taken before the Committee,
more particularly the evidence of the Hon. and Gallant
Admiral himself, before they voted the navy estimates.
There was something absurd, after having waited from
February until August in order to obtain evidence as to
the necessity of these estimates, in prcceeding now to
vote them without that evidence being in the hands of
Members. Indeed, the country would be justified in
suspecting some mystery or evasion, if the, were now
to proceed to vote away money without having read
the evidence. It would not take a vast deal of time
to master the contents of the volume ; for, of course,
each Hon. Member would dissect and apply himself to
that portion in which he felt most interested. He
would put it to the Noble Lord whether it would be right
to proceed without this evidence? It was now ten
minutes to twelve o'clock, and the lateness of the hour
was sufficient to justify him in asking for the postpone-
ment of the estimates to-night.
Mr. CORRY could not see why they should not pro-
ceed to discuss the estimates without waiting for the
report, the recommendations of which were almost all
prospective. The estimates on the table would not be
affected by it ; but next year, when the report and
evidence would be in the hands of Hon. Members, the
House and the Government could discuss the subject in
ex(enso.
Mr. F. MAULE said that, in addition to the evidence,
there were several important documents which ought to
be in the hands of Members before they could understand
the report—the full and ample report—which had been
drawn up by Ida Noble Friend.
Dr. BO W RING wished to know whether the evidence
had not been printed for the use of the Committee ? If
so it was already in type, and it became a mere question
of distribution.
Mr. HUME said it was now twelve o'clock, and there-
fore they could not go into Committee of Supply to-
night, but he should certainly object to voting the in-
crease of 15,000 men which had taken place in the navy
during the last three years, until the evidence had been
adduced to show on what grounds that increase had taken
place, and he thought he should be able to convince the
country that the whole increase had arisen from ground-
less alarm. .

Lord J. RUSSELL would not persist in moving for
the Committee of Supply, as the Hon. Member for
Montrose and the Hon. Member for the West Riding
objected to it. On Wednesday, when they went into
Committee of Supply, his lion. Friend would state his
views on the report of the Committee.
Mr. lIU ME—The day after to. morrow.
Lord J. RUSSELL—Yes; at five o'clock.
The motion was then withdrawn.
The Criminal Law Amendment Bill was read a second
time.
The Register of Sasines (Scotland) Bill was read a
second time.
SUPPLY—REPORT.
The Report of the Committee
.of Supply was then
brought up.
The report on the Turnpike Roads (Ireland) Bill was
brought up and received.
The Canada Government Bill passed through Com-
mittee.
The Money Order Department (Post-office) Bill was
read a second time.
The Fisheries (Ireland) Bill passed through Com-
mittee.
The Proclamations on Fines (Court of Common Pleas)
Bill went through Committee.
The Churches' Bill was committed, and ordered to be
reported.
Sir G. GREY stated, in reply to a question from Mr.
Hume, that it was merely a Bill to continue the Act for
Building Churches.
On the motion of Mr. FOSTER, returns of the num-
ber of Bills submitted to the Central Criminal Court and
the Middlesex sessions in 1845, 1846, and 1847, were
ordered.

Mr. HUME moved for returns connected with the
course of instruction at the several military and naval
schools of the kingdom ; together with lists of books,
libraries, and accommodation generally afforded for the
instruction of soldiers, and an account of the arrange-
ments made for the practice of officers and men in the
scientific branches of the military profession.
Mr. F. MAULE said as the whole question was to be
inquired into during the next session, he trusted the mo-
tion would not be persevered in.
Mr. lIUME, upon that understanding, consented to
withdraw the motion.
Mr. SPOONER obtained leave to bring in a Bill to
amend the laws relating to the removal of the poor,
which was read a first time.
Lord MORPETU brought in a Bill to amend the
Commons Enclosure Act, which was read a first time.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL obtained leave to
bring in a Bill for abolishing certain offices in the Petty
Bag in the High Court of Chancery, and for regulating
the practice of the common law part of that Court, which
was read a first time.

.. ..., ......_ .......„
The House then adjourned at a Quarter to One
o'clock.

PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS.

From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons.)
MONDAY, ♦UO. 7.
PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.

Order for Consideration of Lords' Amendments read;
Amendments to be considered in a Committee of the whole
House; considered in Committee:—(ln the Committee.)
Clause 37, page 23, printed Bill, Amendment proposed by
the Lords to insert the words " subject nevertheless, in the
case of the Surveyor and Inspector of Nuisances, to the ap-
proval of the General Board of Health :"—Amendment
amended, by inserting after the word " case," the words " of
the removal,"..and leaving out the words " and Inspector of
Nuisances ."—Motio❑ made and Question put, " That the
Amendment, as amended, be agreed to." The Committee
divided :

MAJORITY—AYES, 55.
Abdy, T. N. Henry, Alexander Robinson, G. R.
Adair, It. Shaft() Heywood, James Russell, Lord John
Armstrong, Sir A. Hobhouse, T. B. Russell, F. C.
Barnard, E. G. Hood, Sir Alexander Sandars, George
Bellew, it. M. Hume, J. Seyiner, IL K.
Illackall, S. W. Jervis, Sir John Sheil, R. L.
Boyle, Colonel Mackinnon, W.:A. Smith, J. B.'
Brotherton, J. Maule, Fox Somerville, Sir W.
Brown, W. Mitchell, A. T. Thornely, Thomas
Campbell, W. F. motratt, George Townshend. Captain
Hinnies, Admiral Monsell, William Vane, Lord 11.
Dunne, F. I'. Morpeth, Viscount Villiers, Charles
Elliot, John E. Morison, Sir W. Wilson, James
Ferguson, Sir R. O'Connell, M. J. Wood, Sir Charles
Forster, Matthew Paget, Lord A. Wood, W. P.
Fox, W. J. Parker, John
French, F. Perfect, Robert
Gibson, T. M. Polo, S amuel TELLERS.
Grey, Sir George Pinney, W. 11111, Lord Marcus
Hamilton, G.A. Price, Sir Robert Ebrington, Viscount