The Sun.
London, England, 1851-04-04 00:00:00

APRIL 4, 18M.

amination before the Committee, to which the Hon.
Gentleman bad re'erred, it would appear that every-
thing he had said which might appear unfavourable to
the Government of India was credited and relied upon,
while the testimony he bore to the proper administra-
tion of that Government seemed to be entirely discre-
dited. Ile had admitted frankly that they had not done
all that should have been done for the improvement of
the country; but still that they had done a great deal,
and were doing more.—(Hear, hear.) There was an
enormous expenditure on the embankments necessarily
kept up for the protection of the country from inunda-
tion, and when the Hon. Gentleman talked invidiously
of the vast revenues of the Government, and the small
sum they laid out, did he really know what the expendi-
ture of the country was? There were the expenses of
the police, and of the judicial administration, and the
expenses necessarily incurred in giving every other be-
nefit, resulting from good government to the country.—
(Hear.) Important as were public works, they were
not the only things that were necessary, but important
public works had been undertaken. There was the great
Ganges canal,which would cost at least a million, and would
be the most magnificent work of irrigation that ever had
been carried on. It would carry water through the
whole of the immense plains that lay between the Ganges
and the Jurena, being, at the same time, a source of irri-
gation and canal for navigation in that district.—(Hear,
hear.) The Honourable and Learned Gentleman who
brought forward this motion:had spoken of some unfor-
tunate man who, as he alleged, was prosecuted in the
courts of the country, and said he had no doubt but that
by this time he had shared the fate of Nuncomar; but
did not the Honourable Gentleman know that Nuncomar
was tried and condemned in one of the Sovereign's courts,
and executed under the sentence of one of the Sovereign's
judges?—(Hear, hear.) Let the Company be.tried by
the evidence of the English statesman who now governs
India, and it would be seen whether hie testimony
would not entitle theCompany:to claim a verdict in their
favour.—(Hear.)
Mr. ANSTEY replied—He thought the proposal of
the Noble Lord, to have an inquiry before a Com-
mittee of the House of Commons, would be useful and
desirable, but he also considered that a local inquiry was
necessary. Ho thought, however, he would be best
consulting the interest of British India by asking the
leave of the House to withdraw the motion.—(Hear.)
The motion was then withdrawn.
JEWISH DISABILITIES.

Lord J. RUSSELL having moved that the resolution
adopted by the House on the sth of August last, on the
subject of Jewish disabilities, be read by the clerk, and the
resolution having been read accordingly, proceeded to say
that he rose in pursuance of that resolution to move that
the House do resolve itself into a Committee of the whole
House to consider the disabilities affecting the Jews. He
had so frequently stated the reasons that induced him to
ask for a removal of those disabilities, that it would not now
be necessary for him to go at any length into the arguments
he had formerly used. But there were matters which re-
quired to be stated, and which placed the question in a
somewhat different position to that in which it stood for-
me ly. The House would remember that the Hon. Member
for the city of London, Sir Lionel de Rothschild, in the
course of the last session, presented himself at the table of
the House, and proposed to take the oaths on the Old Testa-
ment, and that desire of his was complied with by a resolu-
tion of the House. He proceeded to take the oaths appointed
to be taken by new Members, until he came to the oath of
abjuration, in which were the words "on the true faith of a
Christian ;" and he then declared that those words were not
binding on his conscience. He was then desired to retire,
and the House came to a resolution that he should not
be permitted to take his seat until he took the whole of the
oath appointed to be taken by new Members. Therefore it
would appear that there was no obstacle whatever to his
taking his seat in the House except his rejection of those
words. It became, then, still more material than it was be-
fore to consider with what purpose these words were inserted
in the oath as now taken. It appeared from the report of
the Select Committee that in the reign of Elizabeth the
Members were first required to take the oath of allegiance.
They took the oath on the Holy Evangelists, and the words
now in question were for the first time introduced in the
reign of James I. It appeared also equally clear to any one
who attended to the history of these Acts, that the words
were introduced merely to give solemnity to the oath. They
were not introduced with a view to exclude the Jews, but
to give solemnity to the oath by which the allegiance of
those whose allegiance was doubtful might be secured. He
believed that the words "So help me (sod" were introduced
exactly with the same object, and that the words "on the
true faith of a Christian" had no other meaning than
that he was now ascribing to them. Of course
in those times Jews were not admissible into Par-
liament, and what he was arguing for was, that
the words which were objected to ty Baron
Rothschild were words not originally placed' there for the
purpose of excluding him ; they were placed there with a
totally different intention, and they were to be taken by
those whose allegiance was suspected, in order that by that
means a solemn sanction would be given to the oath. If the
meaning of Parliament had been different, Parliament would
have taken a different course in the matter; it would have
required some distinct affirmation on the part of each Mem-
ber as to his actual religion, instead of attaching a form of
words to the end of the oath, stating his profession of Chris.
tianity. This would appear to be the case in the time of
the Commonwealth, when a different oath was appointed to
be taken, which none but Protestants could take. On the
24th of June, 1657, it was declared by Parliament that every
Member before taking his seat in that House should make
oath to uphold the Protestant religion as founded on the
Holy Scriptures, and to encourage and support the profes-
sion thereof. This was clear, for those so swearing professed
not alone Christianity, but the form of it embraced by
the Protestant religion. There was no trace in
any subsequent legislation down to George I. that
there was any intention to make those oaths bind-
ing for special purposes, so as to exclude the Jews
from Parliament. But there were two Acts passed, one
of George 1., with respect to persons registering their names
for real estates, the other the 13th of George 11. respecting
persons settling in her Majesty's colonies of America, in
which it was provided that with regard to Jews the words
"on the true faith of a Christian," should be omitted; and
it had been argued by his Hon. and Learned Friend the
Master of the Rolls, whom he was glad to see again in that
House - (Hear, hear)-and argued, he (Lord J. Russell)
thought, justly as well as ably, that Parliament having
legislated in these special cases for the Jews, the words could
not be omitted in the form of an oath taken in that House
without the sanction of a distinct Act of Parliament. The
consideration was, in his (Lord J. Russell's) view, perfectly
valid, and he thought that had it not been for these Acts of
Parliament, the general argument would hold good that all
persons should take those oaths and none others which they
declared to be binding on their consciences. That was the
opinion also of Lord Hardwicke, and many other eminent
lawyers. Such being the case, however, it would be admitted
that persons of the Jewish religion could not well take their
seats in that House unless Parliament relieved them from the
effect of these words in the oath. The question was, therefore,
should they proceed to release the Jews from that obligation
by taking away that part of the oath which prevented the
admission of persons of their religion to Parliament ?
( Hear, hear.) This question, however, had been argued by
him (Lord John Russell) so often on previous occasions that
he should not enter on the subject further than to say it
really came to a bare question, if religious opinion was to
disqualify men any longer from the full enjoyment of their
social and political rights.—(Hear, hear.) The moral law
which governed the Jewish nation at the time of the advent
of the Saviour could not be objected to by any one; neither
could the conduct of the Jews in this country, as moral
agents.- (Hear, hear) On neither ground could there be
any objection. The Jews professed the same allegiance to
the Crown as the other subjects of her Majesty, and took the
same oaths; and those of them who acted as magistrates, as
sheriffs, or as members of corporations, had always discharged
their duties fully and satisfactorily in those capacities.
Nor could it be reasonably supposed, on the other hand,
seeing the ccmparatively small number of Jews there
were in this country, that the few who could by possibility
be elected to Parliament would make any difference in
respect of the Christian character of the Legislature. One
or two, or three Jews, which would probably be the greatest
num' er elected, could not in any wise alter that character.
It, therefore, came to be a bare question whether the
difference of religious faith between the Jew and the Chris-
tian should deprive the Jew of political power and civil
office in the state.—(Hear' hear.) That subject had, how -
ever, been argued fully on former occasions; and it was ge-
nerally conceded that nothing of this nature should be of
power to prevent the enjoyment of those privileges and rights.
He (Lord J. Russell) therefore moved the Committee to take
the r, solution into consideration.

Sir R. H. INGLIS said that for the last twenty years he
had resisted all such measures as that proposed by his Noble
Friend, and be should equally resist that measure itself.--
(Hear.) His Noble Friend had conveniently omitted to state,
on referring to the first insertion of the words in question,
that the oath antecedently taken was 'equally binding in the
Christian sense, inasmuch as it was always taken on the
Ho'y Evangelists or upon some symbol of Christianity. The
object of the motion was to admit not only Jews, but men of
any, or of no form of religion.—(Hear.) Ile could hardly un-
derstand such an object, as applied even to a new country,
because be held it to be a dereliction of man's duty to God to
act without desiring to spread his Gospel and make it the
bond both of public and private proceedings.—(Hear, hear.)
It was possible -though scarcely probable - that the
number of Jews that would be returned to Parliament
might not exceed three ; but, as regarded the principle, three
was all the same as thirty- (Hear, hear)—and his Noble
Friend had himself witnessed within the past four weeks. the
power of a small body of religionists over the affairs of the
country, in shifting the-balance of parties. In his opinion
the admission of enemies and aliens to Christianity to Parlia-
ment would have a disastrous effect upon the country. The
question was, therefore, one of higher import than cotton or
corn, and had far larger objects than mere material interests.
He was, therefore, anxious to maintain the Christian religion
as the religion of the country ; and to teat effect to maintain
the Christian interest intact in the Legislature. He could
not conceive the number of enemies so admitted so small as '
his Noble Friend had suggested ; and if they let in the Par-
see, the Brahmin, and others, as well as the Jews, be could not
but foresee that they would form a nucleus which would be
of the most serious injury to the Established Church, d
through that to the best interests of the countryfo.nrjews,
these circumstances, and not because of three or _
he thlt bound to oppose the motion in limine. And he did so,
not because he objected to the consideration of the question
on it 4 merits. but because he believed the course taken by
her Majesty's• Government was one of great danger to them-
selves, as well as to the best interests of the country.--
(Hear, hear.) If it were true that Christianity was part
and parcel of the religion of England, it was part and
parcel also of the religion of the Jews to regard the
Divine Founder of that religion as a crucified imposter.
Could he (Sir R. H. Inglis) admit one of those who beli -ved
this to legislate for the Christianity of the country.—(Hear,
hear.) No earthly consideration could induce him, there-
fore, to open the doors of that House to any man who should
conscientiously, he admitted, make use of the power con-
feried on him to disparage every Christian institution. He,
therefore, moved that the House resolve itself into Committee
that day six months.
Mr. M. GIBSON was surprised, if the Jews and men cf
no religion were so formidable, that the Hon. Baronet
should be satisfied with the imperfect security of a declara-
tion of Christianity.—(Hear.) The position in which the
House was placed with respect to the question before it was,
in his (Mr. Gibson s) opinion, rather humiliating. Baron
Rothschild had been first elected in 1847 ; and yet it was
now the middle of the session of 1851 when the oble Lord
proposed to remove the religious test which prevented that
Gentleman from discharging his duty to his constituents of
the city of London. Baron Rothschild had been twice
elected, and two Bills which had been passed in that House
to admit him as a Jew had been rejected elsewhere. The
Noble Lord had got rid of the difficulty last year by a Com-
mittee of Inquiry; but the House had adopted a resolution to
pass a Bill on the earliest opportunity. The Noble Lord
did not now redeem that pledge, for he only moved another
resolution. He (Mr. Gibson) contended that A Dill similar

, to the former should have been brought in at the very com-
mencement of the session, and if it were again rejected else-
where, he was of opinion that some decided step should be
taken in the matter. It should, in fact, be made a Govern-
ment question, and the other branch of the Legislature
should be informed that the House of Commons would no
longer submit to such a course.
Mr. PLIIMPTRE hoped the House and the country would
reject the measure. He regretted that the Noble Lord had
shown so little respect for the religious feelings of the coun-
try.—(Hear, and a laugh.) Whatever might be the feeling
of the House on the subject, the, bulk of the people regarded
it as a purely religious question. The question was, whether
Jews should be admitted in a profese:edlv Chrietian assembly?
He believed the great majority of the people of England
were decidedly opposed to such a proceeding. He admitted
the Jews were a loyal people, as well as an ancient and won-
derful people; but he could not forget that, they had rejected,
and continued to reject, that Saviour in whom this country
believed. He held it would, not only be a great ingrati-
tude to God, but a great 'peril to the country to admit
into a Christian Legislature those who rejected the
Founder of Christianity; and he, therefore, trusted the
house would not give the proposition of the Noble Lord its
support.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. WEGG-PROSSER said he could not abut his eyes to
the fact that the country had resolved on the principle of
religious freedom ; and it was his own opinion likewise, that,
as regarded religion, all men should be perfectly free. The
question then arose, was the case of the Jews a peculiar
one deserving of exception? He did not think with some
Hon. Gentlemen that the House was called on to act as
executors of God's vengeance against that people; nor could
he hold wit! those who maintained that the legislature
should he exclusively Christian, seeing the country was not
exclusively Christian ; still less with the argument that the
Jews were aliens, when they all knew that every man born
in this country was in the Queen's allegiance. The difficulty
in the case arose from the legislation of Parliament upon re-
ligious subjects. If the original system of the country was
in force—namely, that no man could sit in that House who
was not a member of the national Church, then the House
might legislate on religious matters; but that system could
not now be pursued, and therefore they were compelled to
proceed forward. He saw no reason, consequently, that the
Jew or any other person should be excluded from a seat in
that House on the score of religion.—(Hear, hear.) He
could not at the same time help remarking on the inconsis-
tency of the Noble Lord who then asked the House to
liberate one set of religionists, while only a short time pre-
viously he had asked their support on what he (Mr. Wegg-
Prosser) felt bound to call the persecution of another body of
religionists. His main objection, however, was to religious
legislation ; and, hoping to see the day when all restrictions
of a religious character would be removed, he should sup-
port the motion in the interest of true religion.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said the last time he had heard the
Right Hon. Member for Manchester on an analogous subject
to that before the House, was on an appeal to the House to
do nothing as against Papal aggression. Now, howevif, he
not only urged the House, in a fever of energy, to prefebik,he
measnre before them with vigour, but actually demarided
that the'House of Lords should be swamped if they again
vindicated their rights and privileges by rejecting it. The
connexion between the subject under discussion and Papal
aggression was palpable enough. Foreigners must think
but lightly of the profession of Protestantism made by the
people of England, when they saw a large majority of the
House of Commons dealing in the way they did with the
question under consideration; and he (Mr. Newdegate)
could not help thinking that Pius IX., seeing, session after
session, how this majority, with the Government at its
head, had acted in this matter—seeing how anxious they
seemed to be to erase from their oaths the test of Chris-
tianity, had not unfairly come to the conclusion that Protes-
tantism was nugatory, and had therefore acted accordingly.
Every session that had passed—every discussion that had
taken place—tended to confirm the profound dislike with
which the country viewed the measure. And though they
might lament the somewhat acrimonious discussion which it
had given rise to, yet that discussion had done this good—it
had elicited the all-pervading feeling of attachment of the
people of England to the national religion. He would not do
more on the present occasion than express his regret that her
Majesty's Government and the Noble Lord should feel bound
to persevere in the coarse which he conscientiously believed
they did not heartily approve of; but if they did approve of
it, they must be blind to circumstances which had lately oc-
curred, and which had most remarkably characterised the
subject while under discussion.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For going into Committee ... ... ... 166
Against ... ... ... -•--- 98
Majority in favour of going into Committee —6B
The House then went into Committee, and a resolution
being come to on the subject of introducing the Bill,
The Bill was introduced and read a first time.

In reply to a question from Sir R. INGLIS,
Lord J. RUSSELL said the would fix the second reading
for to-morrow (Friday) week. If the Bill could not be read
a second time on that day he would give notice of the cir-
cumstance.

Mr. MULLINGS obtained leave to bring in a Bill to im-
prove the law of landlord and tenant, in relation to imple-
ments, to growing crops seized in execution, and to agricul-
tural tenants' fixtures.

Mr. STANFORD obtained leave to bring in a Bill for the
more efficient audit of railway accounts. The Hon. Member
said his object was to get this and another Bill on the same
subject reterred to the same Committee.
DESIGNS ACT EXTENSION BILL.

On the motion for going into Committee,✓
Mr. ARKWRIGHT rose to oppose the motion, and ar-
gued from the evidence given before the House of Lords
there was no large number of cases requiring this protec-
tion, and that the Bill would operate injuriously to the
native manufacturer and favourably to foreigners. The Bill
had been considerably altered since it was first proposed, but
these alterations were not improvements. He therefore
moved, as an amendment, that the Speaker do leave the
chair that day six months.

Mr. LABOtCHERE hoped that the House would not
agree to the amendment of the Honourable Gentleman.
This Bill had been maturely considered in the House of
Lords, where, out of all the witnesses who had been ex-
amined on the subject, only one witnesses was opposed to
the measure. He had received applications from foreigners
as well as Englishmen, asking for a measure of this kind to
protect their inventions; and he could not help saying
that of all the Members of the House—remembering the
illustrious name which the Honourable Gentleman bore—he
was the last from whom he should have expected opposi-
tion to a measure for protecting ingenuity in inventions,
whether those inventions emanated from a foreigner or an
Englishman. _ _ _

Mr. SPOONER hoped his llon. Friend would not oppose
the House going into Committee on the Bill ; there would be
great danger of the piracy of inventions unless the Bill were
passed.

- Colonel SIBTHORP supported the amendment. The Bill
would only create a system of trickery, fraud4and corruption,
while it would give undue protection to :the foreigner over
the Englishman.

Mr. 111UNTZ thought the intentions of the Government
were good in bringing in the Bill, but doubted their policy in
so doing; he also doubted the policy of those who asked for
the measure. From his experience of the patent laws
nothing would induce him to exhibit an invention under this
Act. A foreigner under this measure would be protected by
a patent in this country and abroad, while the Englishman
could not have his invention protected in foreign countries.
Mr. GROGAN supported the amendment.
Sir J. ROMILLY said that when a person took out a
patent for an invention he made a specification of its nature
and character, which was published; that specification a
foreigner might take to a foreign country and take out a
patent for it there, and he could not be prevented by any
English law from so doing. The only way of protecting the
inventor from such a piracy would be by taking out a patent
in the foreign country. The effect of the proposed Bill was
to protect foreigner and Englishman alike from piracy in
this country.
After a few words from Mr. NEWDEGATE,
The House divided, when there appeared—
For the motion ... ••• ... 132
Against it ... ••• ••• ... 42
Majority •••
The House then went into Committee on the Bill.
Clauses up to 6 were agreed to.
Sir J. ROMILLY proposed to strike out the 7th clause,
and to substitute a clause to the effect that protection be
extended to any new design that may be provisionally
registered, notwithstanding such design may have been pre-
viously published and exposed to sale elsewhere than in the
United Kingdom. He proposed to have the Bill reprinted
with this alteration, so that Hon. Members might see how
the Bill would then stand.

Mr. SPOONEI asked if, under such a clause, the
foreigner would have the same protection for such design
here that he would have had if his design had not been ex-
hibited abroad ?

Sir J. ROMILLY—Yes, if it had not been exposed to
sale.

Sir W. JOLLIFFE thought that the proposed clause
would be pretty much like the rest of the Bill, which would
protect foreigners rather than our own countrymen.
Sir J. ROMILLY said the clause would leave exhibitors
in the same situation as to their designs as if they had not
exhibited them at all.
Mr. SPOONER admitted they could not pr foreign
designs abroad, but that was no reason why theygood
should nt
ef
protect their own. He thought a
would result from the Exhibition, and agreed with his lion.
Friend the Member for Birmingham in thinking that if ex-
hibitors fancied their designs were secured by this Bill, they
would be mistaken.
The clause was then added to the Bill.
On the preamble being proposed,
Mr. ARKWRIGHT moved the omission of that part of it
which related to and recognised the Exhtbitio 1.
Mr. LABOUCHERE could not consent to the alteration.
The Exhibition had announced its own existence, and the
House had already expressed an opinion that it was not de-
sirable to discourage it.
Mr. SPOONER had suggested the omission of similar
words in the preamble of the Bill of last year. By retain-
ing these words a plea might be afforded for claiming a
grant of money from the House for the purpose of the Ex-
hibition.
Sir J. ROMILLY said the House had allowed the Bill to
be brought
in, and had passed the clauses for the purpose
of protecting designs that might be exhibited. It was
scarcely reasonable therefore to object to tee preamble for
referring to the purposes of the Bill.
Sir R. INGLIS thought it would be far better not to re-
cognise the Exhibition in the preamble.
Mr. GROGAN said, of course the first object of the Bill
was to give protection to the exhibitors; but then a serious
consideration was started with regard to the preamble. He
begged to remind the House that the insertion of the words
"Archbishop of Dublin" in a private Act of Parliament had
been used by a great luminary of the Roman Catholic
Church as an argument to prove the recognition of the title.
(Hear, hear.) They ought to be careful, therefore, lest the
preamble as it stood might be the means of involving them
in expense. He was in favour of the amendment.
Atter a feNv words from Colonel SII3THORP, which were
not distinctly heard.

Alderman THOMPSON said it was impossible to avoid
making mention of the Exhibition, otherwise the Bill would
be waste paper.— (Hear.) It was said if mention was made
of it they would be called uuon to grant money for it; but
the Government had last session distinctly disclaimea any
intention of asking for such a grant; and the likelihood of
doing so this session was much less.— (Hear.)
Mr. KEOGH supported the original motion. Ile thought
they had had quite enough of discussions about ecclesiastical
titles of late—(Hear, hear)—without having that subject
then introduced by the Hon. Member for Dublin. Perhaps
he had done so because he thought the Bill on the subject tit
for exhibition he the Crystal Palace. He Wished to correct
the Hon. Member as to what he had said about a great
luminary" of the Roman Catholic Church having used the
fact of the name of the Archbishop of Dublin being in a pri-
vate Act to establish the recognition of the title. Now, it so
turned out that the first person who had brought that matter
forward, and who had used it, too, most efficiently for his
purpose, was a Noble Lord in the other House of Parlia-
ment—he,meant the Noble Secretary for the Colonies, Earl
Grey.—(Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Mr. SPOON ER,
Mr. MULLINGS expressed his surprise at the efforts made
to retain the words in the preamble. It looked as if there
Ivan tome illotiye at the bottom.

Mr. LABOUCHERE did not want to attach more im•
portanco to the words than they deserved; but as they
seemed to him proper and suitable, he preferred keeping the
preamble as it was. There was no intention whatsoever of
proposing any grant of money for the Exhibition.
Mr. HENLEY said the continuance of that conversation
rather strengthened his alarm. One Lion. Commissioner
said there was no intention of applying for money, but
struggled hard to get one end of the wedga in.—(oh, oh.)
Another Hon. Gentleman said there was less chance daring
the present than last year. He suggested that the pre-
amb:c should be formed in consonance with the first
clause; and that would leave the question open.—(Cries of
"Divide, divide.")
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, but before the House
was cleared

Mr. WALPOLE suggested that it would be as well to
make the preamble suitable to the object in the first clause
by adding words to the effect, " that protection ought to be
afforded to persons desirous of exhibiting wares in any place
appointed to be appropriated for the same."
Mr. ARKWRIGHT was understood to withdraw his
amendment to allow Mr. Walpole's to be substituted.
Sir G. GREY said i-, appeared to him absurd to be dis-
cussing the expediency of leaving out the word Exhibition.
when every one must know what was meant by the Bill.—
(Hear.) Any Government who would come forward to pro-
pose a grant of money on the faith of that preamble would
do so on the weakest possible pretext.—(Hear.) He con-
tended they were not exhibiting themselves— (Laughtez)—
in the fairest light by continuing such a discussion.
Mr. WALPOLE said he had only suggested his amend-
ment on account of the discussion which had taken place.
and would now persevere in proposing it to the Committee.
Strangers were again ordered to withdraw, and the Com•
mittee divided, when there appeared—
For the preamble 92
Against it
Majority ... —36
The Apprentices to Sea Service (Ireland) Bill was read a
second time.
The General Board of Health Bill was read a second time.
The Process and Practice (Ireland) Bill was read a as-
cond time.
__

The Mutiny Bills were read a third time.
The House then adjourned at Half--past Twelve o'clock.

PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS.

(From the Votes and Proceedings of the Reuse of Commons )
THURSDAY, APRIL 3,
OATH OF ABJURATION (JEWS).
Resolution (sth August, 1850) read ; —motion made, and
Question put, " That this House will immediately resolve
itself into a Committee, to take into consideration the mode
of administering the Oath of Abjuration to persona prems
sing the Jewish religion." The House divided; -...
MAJORITY—AYES, 166.
Adair, Hugh E. Gaskell, J. 33. Parker, John
Aghonby, H. Gibson, T. M. Pigott, Francis
Alcock, Thomas Gilpin, R. T. Pilkingten James
Anderson, Arthur Grace, 0. D. Pinney, William
Anstey, T. C. Granger, T. C. Power, Nicholas
Armstrong, Sir A. -"— Grey, Sir G. Powlett, Lord W.
Bagshaw, John Grey, Ralph W. Price, Sir B
Baines, M. T. Haste, Alexander Prinsep, H. T.
Baring, Sir F. Hatchell, John Rawdon, Colonel
Barnard, E. G. Hawes, Benj. Reynolds, John
Barron, Sir H. Heathcoat, John Ricardo, Osman
Bell, Jacob Henry, Alexander Rice, E. R.
Bellew, R. 33. Hepworth, Lawrence Robartes, T. J. A.
Berkeley, Admiral Higgins, George Romilly, Colonel
Berkeley, Henry F. Hobhouse, T. B. Romilly, Sir Joha
Berkeley, C. L. Hodges, T. L. Russell, Lord J.
Bernal, Ralph Hogg, Sir J. Russell, F. C. H.
Blake, M. J. Mune, J. Sadleir, John
Bright, John Humphery, Aid, Salwey, Colonel
Brocklehurst, John Hutchins, E. J, Scholefleld, W.
Brotherton, Joseph Mutt, William Scully, Francis
Burke, Sir T. J. Jackson, William Seymour, Lord
Butler, P. S. Keating, Robert 1 shaft° R. D.
Cardwell, Edward Keogh, William Smith,, Vernon
Childers, J. W. Kershaw, James Smith, J. A.
Clay, James Labouchere, Henry Somerville. Sir W.
Clerk, Sir G. Langston, J. H. Stanton, W. S.
Cockburn, Sir A. Lemon, Sir C. Staunton, Sir G.
Colebrooka, Sir T. Lewis, G. C. Strickland, Sir G.
Collins, William Locke, Joseph Sullivan, Michael
Cowper, W. F. Loveden, Pryse Talbot, J. H.
Craig, Sir W. G. M'Gregor, John Tancred, H. W.
Crawford, W. S. M'Taggart, Sir J. Thleknesse, R. A.
Cubitt, William Maher, N. Thompson, Colonel
Dalrymple, Captain Mahon, O'Gorman Thomely, Thomas
Dawson, T. V. Mangles, R. D. Tollemache, F. J.
Denison, J. E. Matheson, Colonel Townley, R. G.
D'Eyncourt, C. T. Wattle, Fox Townshend, Captain
Disraeli, B. Melgund, Viscount Tuiliell, Henry
Duke, Sir James Milnes, R. M. Vane, Lord H.
Duncan, Lord Mitchell, T. A. 'Villiers, Charles
Duncan, George Moffatt, George Vivian, J. H.
Dundas, Admiral Monsell, William Wakley, Thomas
Dundas, Sir D. Morris, David Walmsley, Sir J.
Dunne, Colonel 3iunts, G. F. Westhead, J. B.
Ebrington, Viscount Norreys, Lord Willcox, Brodie
Ellis, John Norreys, Sir D. Williams,•John
Evans, William O'Brien, J. Williams, W.
Ewart, William;, O'Connell, John Williamson, Sir H.
Fagan, William O'Connell, 31. J. Wilson, James
Fitzroy, Henry O'Flaherty, Anthony Wilson, Matthew
Foley, J. H. Ord, W. Wood, Sir Charles
Fordyce, A. D. Osborne, Ralph
Forster, Matthew Owen, Sir John MUMS.
Fox, W. J. Paget, Lord A. Hayter, W. G.
Freesttin, Colonel Paget, Lord C. Hill, Lord M.
French, F. Palmerston, Via.