The Sun.
London, England, 1858-05-04 00:00:00

I, 0 NT
N r rri
, E s
A y
~,E V "
1611'N'I

in council and those of a Minister having no council, but,
although he :rew such a distinction with great ingenuity
at one moment, I think he forgot it the next. He con-
tends that power is to be exorcised by a Minister in coun-
cil, but only with the approval of the council. If, how
ever, you say that a Minister is only to exercise power with
the approval of hid council, you mean there is to be a con-
' joint authority—a division of power—between such Mini-
ster and the council ; anti, surely it is obvious, that if you
do divide powers between the Minister and the coancil you
are doing away with one of the main principles upon which
we are endeavouring to legislate—namely, that of securing
the undivided responsibility of a Minister. There seems to
be—if T may venture to say so—some confusion in the
minds of many persons as to what it is they really desire.
I often hear persons arguing against the danger of giving
authority to a Minister, and at the same time desiring that
he should be made responsible. Now, I say you cannot
separate the one from the other. If you intend to impose
responsibility you must give power. Constitute a council
having conjoint power with the Minister, and if any act of
that Minister is impugned in Parliament, what will be his
answer? He will say, " You have bound me to act
with the approval of certain persons. That approval,
therefore,- I must necessarily obtain, and I could
only obtain it by following the line of policy I have
adopted in this iinstance ; and you who have im-
posed upon me this restriction have no right to reproach
me with its natural and inevitable consequence."
It may be the object of the hon. and learned member to
establish such a state of things, but that result was not
contemplated by the Government, nor is it, I apprehend,
contemplated by the house. We want individual Ministe-
rial responsibility. (Hear.) It will be asked, no doubt,
if that is our object, why have a council at all ? I know
that question has been put, and I refer to it for the pur-
pose of showing that it admits of an answer. I think my
right hon. friend described very truly the object and inten-
tions of the Government in proposing a council, when he
Mated that the council is intended to exercise a moral con-
erol—that is to say, the Minister is to be surrounded by
those who can bringdong experience to bear on the ques-
tions submitted to their consideration, who can give the
Minister the best a.ivice, and supply him with the beat
materials on which to form his judgment; but having the
benefit of that advice and experience, he is bound to act on
his own single experience. (Hear ) There is one other ob-
jection to the proposed amendment. I think that, to some
extent, it neutralises the effect of the course we are now
taking in proceeding by way of resolution. The object of
proceeding by way of resolution is that we should go on
step by step, advancing one step at a time. Now, in the
amendment of the hon. and learned gentleman we are
made to take two steps at a time. The amendment de-
clares, first, that there shall be a Minister for Indian
Affairs ; and, secondly, that that Minister shall stand in
a particular relation to his council. These are separate
propositions, both open to controversy and debate. Many
persons, those especially who support the administration
of India by the Company, object to conferring on a Minis-
ter such a power as is contemplated by the resolutions.
Other persons, willing to give him such a power, are un-
willing
that he should share it with a council. These, then,
are separate questions, to bo discussed apart, and it seems
like anticipating the judgment of the committee on a fu-
ture resolution if on the present occasion we adopt the
words proposed by the hon. and learned gentleman. On
these grounds I hope the committee will not agree to the
amendment.
Mr. MANGLES, for the first time since he had the
honour of a seat in that house in conjunction with the hon.
member for the Tower Hamlets, found himself in accord
with that honourable gentleman. (Laughter.) He was sorry
to hear the argumextura ad invidium raised by the noble
lord (Lord Stanley), besides which the noble lard quite
misunderstood the proposal before them, what the amend-
ment contended for was that before acting the minister
should be compelled to sit in council and hear all recom-
mendations of his councillors That was precisely the po-
sition of the Govarnor-General of India at that moment,
and no one pretended that he was not practically absolute.
Unless they compelled the minister to listen to the opinions
of the council, the council would be a mere sham, without
any substantial power. And what possible protection had
they otherwise against the rash acts of a minister ? He
was not opposed to absolute power being vested in the
minister; all he contended for was that he ought to be
obliged to hear what his council had to say.
' The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that
if the committee should be allured from the straight path
before them the result would be that the progress of pub-
lic business would be very much impeded. He confessed
that he entirely shared in the interpretation put upon the
amendment by the noble lord—namely, that there should
be a joint power between the Minister and the Council.
[Mr. Ayrton intimated dissent.] But he wished to impress
on the committee that the resolutions were drawn with the
intention of advancing, if possible, step by step, to a
general settlement of thel question. Having first of all
asserted that the government of India should be trans-
ferred from the Company to the Crown, the next principle
laid down was that the authority of the Government
should be exercised by a responsible Minister. Ile thought
it unnecessary and unwise to introduce at this stage the
question whether there should be a Council or not. If
the committee subsequently decided on the formation of a
Council it would then be open for the committee to decide
whether the functions of the Council should be exercised
in the manner approved of by the hon. director, and as the
hon. and learned gentleman now intimated he proposed.
What the committee had now to do was to determine
whether there should be a Minister for India under the
name of a Secretary of State, and when they had arrived
at a conclusion on that head, it would be for them to
docile whether there should be a council, and, if so, how
it should be composed, and how its functions should be
exercised. (Hear, hear.) There were many gentlemen of
opinion that there ought to be a Minister in this country
solely responsible for the Government of India, who were
not in favour of a council. Again, many who were in
favour of a council were against the Minister having an
undivided authority. The hon. and learned gentleman
(Mr. Ayrton) vi ar in neither category. He (the Chancellor
of the jxchequer) for those reasons hoped the committee
would not sanction the amendment even if they approved
it. It might be a just and proper amendment in the right
place, and in the right season, but he maintained that
this was not the right occasion for its introduction.
Mr. V. SMITH entirely agreed with the noble lord op-
posite as to the interpretation to be put upon the amend-
ment of the hon. member—namely, that it declared that
in no case was the new minister to act independently of
his council. Now he thought that all those who were in
favour of concentrating responsibility in the minister, were
bound,to vote against ouch a proposal. At the same time
he desired to guard himself ag'ainst the notion that he was
voting against the amendment, supporting the proposal
that the new minister was to occupy the position of a Sec-
retary of State.
Sir H. VERNEY was one of these who held it to be es-
sential for the maintenance of England's dominion in India,
that there should be an intermediate power between the
Crown and the peaple of India. 'He denied that the house
of Commons would or could bo any check upon abuses of
Government practised in India.
Mr. ROEBUCK said the,, had been told more than once
that they must proceed step by step with theseresolutions.
He thought, however, that if anything they had. taken a
step backwards that [evening, for he believed that it was
determined on Friday night by a large majority that the
company was no longer to govern India? Well, then, the
question which they had now to discuss was, how was the
Crown to govern India. He differed, however, entirely
from the noble lord and right hon. gentleman opposite,
that they were debarred from discussing the duties and
nature of the council upon that occasion. They were dis-
cussing the establishment of a Government in England for
India similar to that of 1783. The real Government of
England was in that house, which was becoming more and
more the representation of the people of England, and
the practical conclusion ho drew from it was, for them
to have a Secretary of State for the Government of
India on his own responsibility, and without the aid of
(showing the power and responsibility that would result
from) a council. He wanted a Secretary of State for India
who should be responsible, and alone responsible, for the
government of India. In speaking of the phantom of " old
Indians," he considered the worst council they could have,
for the government of India was a council of "old Indians,'
whose knowledge and experience of India would be con-
fined to the particular spot in which they had located, and
the effect would be that the Secretary of State would be
able to impose upon the people on the authority of the
board of " old Indians." Ho was an advocate for undi-
vided responsibility, as the only means by which India
could be pro"erly governed.
Sir N. WILLOUGHBY asked if it was safe to transfer
to, a Secretary of State, without control, the government
of India ? It would give him a despotic power over
the army, the civil power, and 30 milliens of reve-
nue, which it was not desirable any man should possess
for the benefit of that country. It was intended that the
Secretary of State should be paramount, but in difficult
cases it was desirable he should take the advice of a
council; and however much honourable members might
sneer at " old Indians," it was only from those who bad
had experience in India knowledge of India could be ob-
tained. It was of the utmost importance there should be
a council of state to advise him in directing bis important
duties, and share the responsibility with him. It was to
the interest of the house and the country to insist on the
appointment of a council. He objected to one individual
being invested with so much power as a Secretary of State
for India would be without the control and assistance of a
council.

Lord PALMERSTON' thought the committee were die'
cussing two questions which ought to be made the subject
of separate resolutions. By assenting to the resolution
which had been put from the chair, they would neither
affirm nor deny the propriety of appointing a council, but
would leave themselves at liberty to deal with that ques-
tion whenever it came regularly before them. Those who
were of opinion that tt e government of India should be
transferred from the Company to.the Crown could not rea-
sonably or consistently object to the present resolution,
because the Clown must act through a responsible Minister
and he agreed with the hon. and learned member for Shef-
field, that what Parliament and the country had in view
was to make the Minister of the Crown answerable for the
administration of India at home ; but that purpose would
be defeated if the Minister were surrounded by a council
who should have the power of controlling him. To consti-
tute such a council would be to re-establish the "double
government " in a worse form than before. It was pre-
mature, however, to discuss whether or not there should
be a council, and what its functions should be. There
was a subsequent resolution to the effect that the Minister
should be assisted by a council, and the committee would
do well to postpone until that resolution was put the ques-
tion of what would be the composition of the council,
whether it should be nominated or elected, and in what
degree it should be an advising body. The present resolu-
tion gave him the title of Secretary of State, while the bill
of the late Government called him President in Council.
That was a matter which might be discussed at a future
stage, but he trusted the committee would not agree to the
amendment, which was inconsistent with the principle of
transferring the government of India to the Crown. (Hear,
hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said the question raised by the pre-
sent resolution was not whether there should be a council,
but whether the Minister for India, like the Governor-
General, should never act without consulting his couneil.
It was necessary the committee should confider how the
council in India arose. At one time the Governor-General
waged wars and concluded treaties of peace which were be-
lieved in England to be inconsistent with justice and ad-
verse to the policy which the country ought to pursue. In
order to control the Governor-General, acting as he did at
a great distance, the plan was hit upon of sending out three
or four persons to form his council, and, without depriving
him of the absolute power of carrying his own views
into effect, Parliament resolved that if he differed from
his council, the members should bo at liberty to
record in writing the reasons of their dissent. That
contrivance, though perhaps the best that could be
adopted, was not very successful, for it led during many
years to dissensions in the council, at one time Warren
Hastings, and at another Mr. Francis having a majority.
But, whether the contrivance was good or bad, the case of
the Governor-General bore no analogy to that now under
consideration, for he presumed they did not want the
. Minister for India to be obliged on every occasion to go to

his council ad I obtain their opinions in writing. He wa
n't to act, at a distance ; he was not to exercise any des-
potic p svers, and upon any matter of great importance be
would have the ad wi, e of his colleagues in the Cabinet.
Probably, however, in the majority of cases be would con-
sult with his council and hear what their opinion was.
But whether be had coumil or whether,
as proposed by
some, he should simply be assisted by an under-secretary,
he would certa;nly not despise the opinion of "Old
Indians ;" on the contrary, he would doubtless deem it
his duty to consult with men of knowledge and experience.
At the present moment, however, the real question before
the Committee was whether the Minister should be so
controlled by his Council as to lose all responsibility. The
amendment of the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets
seemed to answer that question in the affirmative, and
therefore the Committee ought to reject it. (Hear,
hear.)
Mr. GLADSTONg said he understood resolutions of
this kind wore to be considered as precise in the convey-
ance of ideas as if they were in the discussion of a bill.
He considered it was essentially necessary tbat the duties
of a Secretary of State should be clearly defined, and if he
was to be a president of a council it was right he should be
named so in the resolution. They were not called upon
to decide his exact functions, but the resolution put a ne-
gative on all separate power in the government of India,
and he thought it was desirable for the house to consider
and decide the question now, rather than when the bill
came before them fe. consideration, although, as the right
hon. member for Sheffield had said, it would be a great
evil tb have a council composed of men of experience.
(Hear, hear.) The council perhaps would have one pecu-
liarity, it would show that a parliament of " old Indians"
was a sufficient practicable body to expose the pedantry
and show the ignorance of old members of Parliament en
Indian affairs. (Laughter.) It was desirable to know if
the council was to lea merely a council of reference, or if
they were to take a prominent part in the administration.
The amendment was in accordance with the remark of the
noble lord the member for King's Lynn, viz., that the
busine-s in connection with the government of India should
be transacted by a minister in council, who were to be cog-
nizable of the proceeding.. To that extent he should vote
for the amendment, which was in accordance with the
views expressed by the leaders of her Majesty's Govern-
ment.

Mr. WHITE, as an old Indian, ridiculed the idea of the
responsibility of a Secretary of State, and protested against
such powers beingentrusted to one individual. Responsi-
bility be read as accountability, or answerability—(laugh-
ter)—but if as y great calamity occurred in India under
the new rule, who would dare to impeach such a Minister?
Sir a WOOD (amidst laud cries of "divide") said it
was impossible for any man to conduct the government of
India without being assisted by a council of men of ex-
wrienee. The resolution did not etate the extent of thy-
authority, and that was a question that could be better
considered when the next resolution was before the house.
(Cries of " Divide.")
Mr. AYRTON said that by the amendment the govern-
meat of Inaia could not be vested in an ordinary Secre-
tary of State but in a Minister of the Crown, who must
consult his Council before ho acted, although he could act
without them ; and thus, so far from diminishing his re-
sponsibility to Parliament, would increase it, because he
would be obliged by the pressure of an intelligent council
to give and to record his reasons.
Mr. MANGLES (who was greeted with loud cries of
" Oh") said a question so important had been raised by
the noble lord (J. Russell) that he hoped the house would
allow him to correct a historical mistake into which the
noble lord had fallen The noble lord had spoken of the
council of Warren Hastings as having been the first ever
appointed ; but the fact was that all the governors always
had councils. The noble lord also said that the council
crippled the power of Warren Hastings, and so it did in
his time ; but at a later date powers were given to the
Governor-General which enabled him to overrule his coun-
cil, and to act on his own responsibility, Warren Hast-
ings had not that power, and so was crippled. He should
propose that the Minister of the Crown should have that
power which Warren Hastings had not, so that he might
not be crippled by his council.
Colonel SYKES inquired whether he was to under-
stand that any decision that was now come to did not
debar the house from considering the question of the power
of the council in reference to the Minister of State?
Mr. FITZROY said that the committee would not be
debarred from considering any question of the kind on a
subsequent resolution.
The committee then divided—
For the amendment .................. ,
Against it
Majority •••••• ....... • ............. --251
The result was hailed with laud cheers.
Mr. ELLICE moved that the Chairman report pro-
gress, and gave notice of his intention to move that a Pre-
sident in Council be substituted for a Secretary otState.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
it would be better to dispose of the remaining amend-
ments on the second resolution.
After a short discussion, the motion for reporting pro-
gress was agreed to. _

CHANCERY AMENDMENT BILL.
The house then ',vent into committee on this bill, and,
after several clauses had been agreed to, the Chairman re-
ported progress.

FRANCHISE PRISONS BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
PORTUMNA BRIDGE (IRELAND) BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed,
JURIES (IRELAND) BILL.
On the order of the day for the second reading of this
bill,

➢[r. WHITESIDE said the subject was under the con-
sideration of the Government. He was in consultation
with the Attorney-General for England, and hoped to be
able to introduce a bill applicable to both countries.
The hill was then read a second time on the understand-
ing that the committee was to be postponed.

CONFIRMATION OF EXECUTORS, &c., BILL,
The LORD ADVOCATE obtained leave to bring in a
bill to amend the law relating to the confirmation of exe-
cutors in Scotland, and to extend over all parts of the
United Kingdom the effect of Bich confirmation, and of
grants of probate and administration.

DEBTORS AND CREDITORS.
Mr. HEADLANI obtained leave to bring in a bill to au-
thorise and carry into execution the voluntary assignments
of debtors for the benefit of their creditors.
The house then adjourned at 10 minutes to 1.

HOUSE OF COM ONS—MAT 3.
GOVERNMENT OF niTIMA.-
Question proposed, " That for this purpose it is expedient
to provide that her Majesty, by: one of her principal
Secretaries of State, shall have and perform all the
powers and duties relating to the government and re-
venues of India which are ea'-may-now-be-exercised and
performed by the East India Company, or by the Court
of Directors or Court of Proprietors of the said Com-
pany, either alone or with the approbation of the Corn-
missioners for the Affairs of India : Amendment pro-
posed, to leave out from the first word "that" to the
end of the question, in order to add the words " in order
to ensure the administration of such government with
duo care, caution, and efficiency, all the powers and
duties now vested in the East India Company, the Court
of Directors or the Court, of Proprietors of the said
Company, either alone or with the approbation of the
Commissioners for the Affairs of India' shall be exer-
cised and performed by a Minister of the Crown in
Council," instead thereof. Question put, " That the
words ' for this purpose it is expedient to provide that
her Majesty' stand part of the question." The committee
divided.—Ayes, 351; Noes, 101
AYES-351.
Adeane, H. Fitzgerald, W. R. S. Montgomery, Sir G.
Agnew, Sir A. Fitzgerald, J. Morgan, O.
Akroyd, E. Fitzwilllam, G. Mowbray, J. R.
Alexander, J. Foley, J. 11. Naas, Lord
Annesley, Hon. Ha gh Foljambe, Francis
Neeid,Napi John
Napier, Sir C.
Archdall, Capt. M. Forde, Colonel
Ashley, Lord Forester, Col. Newark, Viscount
Atherton, W. Forster, Sir Gee. Noel, (1,
Bagwell, John Foster, W 0. North, Col. J.
Bailey, C. Fortescue, Hon. F. North, F.
Baillie, 11. Franklyn, G. Ogilvy, Sir J.
Baines, Rt. Hon. M. Frazer, Sir W. Ossulston, Lord
Baring, li. Freestun, Colonel Packe, C.
Baring, T. G. Gallwey, Sir W. Paget, C.
Barnard, Thomas Gard, R. Paget, Lord C.
Bernard, T. Garnett, William Pakenham, Colonel
' Batourst, A. A. Gavin, Major Pakington, Sir J.
Beach, W. Gilpin, Col. H. Palk, L.
t3ective, Earl Glyn, G. Palmer, R. •
Beecroft, G. Goderich, Viscount Palmerston, Viscount
Bennet, Capt. P. Greaves, E. Paull, Henry
3entinck, G. Greenall, Gilbert Pease, Henry
Berkeley, F. Greenwood, John Peel; Gen.
Bake, J. Greer, Samuel Pennant, Col. E.
Bolder°, Col. H. G. Gray, Captain Perry, Sir E.
Souverie, lion. E. P. Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir G. Pevensey, Viscount
13ovill, W. Grey, R. Piikington, J.
to wyer. G. Griffith, C. Potter, Sir J.
Boyd, J. Grogan, Edward Powell, Francis
arainley-Moore, J. Grosvenor, Earl Pritchard, J.
Bramston, T. W Gordon, Brampton Proby, G.
Brand, Hon. 11. Hall, Sir Benjamin Pugh, D.
Bridges, Sir B. Hall, General John Puller, Christopher
<rocklehurst, J. Hamilton, G. A. Ramsden, Sir J.
Browne, Lord John Hamilton, Capt. Rebow, J.
Bruce, li. A. Handley, H. Repton, G.
Smelt, 11. Hankey, T. Ricardo, 0.
Builer, !..ir J. Hardy, G. Richardson, J.
Bailer, J. W. Harris, J. D. Robartes, T.
Sunbury, W. B. Ilassard, Michael Robertson, P.
aurghley, Lord Ilatchelt, John Roebuck, J. A.
Burrell, Sir C Hay, Lord John Rushout, Capt. G.
Sutt, I . Hayes, Sir E. Russell, Lord J.
Buxtoa, Sir E. N. Headlam. T. Russell, A.
laird, J. Meatheote, G. Rust, James
Cairns. li. Henley, J. Bandon, Viscount
,:alcott, M. Holford, R. Relater, George
Campbell, R. Hopwood, John Scott, Major
Cardwell, E Hornby, W. Scrope, G.
C.arnac, Sir J. R. Horsfall, T. Seymer, H.
Cartwright, H. Horsman, E. Shelley, Sir J.
Cavendish, W. Howard, C. Shirley, E.
Cavendish, G. C. Howard, Lord E. Slaney, R.
;cell, Lord .R. Hudson, G. • Smith, V.
Charlesworth, J. C.D. Hume, W. Smith, Sir F.
Child, Smith Hutt, W. Smyth, Col.
Christy, Samuel Ingestre, Viscount Smallett, A.
Clark, J. Inglis, John Somerset, Colonel
Clay, James Jermyn, Rt. Hn. Ealr Somerville, Sir W.
Clive, George Jervoise, Sir J. Spooner, R.
Clive, R. Johnstone, H. B. Stanhope, J.
Close, M. Johnstone, Hope Stanley, Lord
Cobbold, J. C' Joiliffe, IL Stapleton, John
Codrington, Gen. Kellf, Sir F. Stephenson, Robert
Cole, H. A. Kendall, N. Stirling, W.
Jollier, R. P. Kerrison, Sir E. Steuart, A.
Collins, T. Kershaw, J. Stewart, Sir M.
Coningham, W. King, J. Sturt, H.
Conolly, T. King, Edward Sturt, C.
lowper, W. F. Kinglake, A. Sullivan, Michael
Corry, H. T. L. Kinglake, J. Thornhill, W.
Cowan, C. Kingscote, Capt. R. Tite, W.
Cox, W. Kinnaird, A. Tollemache, F.
Craufurd, E. H. J. Kirk, W. Tollemache J.
,'lross, R. A. Knatchbull, W. Tottenham, C.
Curzon, Viscount Knatchbull-Huguesien Trefusis, C.
Dalkeith, Earl , Knight, F. Trelawny, Sir J.
Davey, R. Knox, Col. B. W. Trollope, Sir J.
Davison' R. Labouchere,RLllon.H Truman, C.
Deedes, William Langton, W. G. Turner, J. A.
Denison, W. H. Langton, H. G. Vance, John
Dent, John Laslett, W. Vansittart, G.
De Vere, S. E. Lennox, Lord H. G. Vansittart, W.
Devereux, J. Leslie, C. P. Verner, Sir W.
Disraeli, B. Levinge, Sir R. Villiers, C.
Dobbs, W. C. Lewis, Sir G. C. Vivian, H. H.
Du Cane, C. _._ Lindsay, W. Waddington, H.
Duff, M. Lisburne, Earl Walcott, Admiral.
Duff, L. Locke. 3. Walpole. S.
Duke, Sir J. Lopes, Sir M: Walsh, Sir J.
Dunbar, Sir W. Loraine. Lord Warre, John
Duncan, Viscount Lowe, It. Warren, S.
Duncombe, A. Lowther, CoL H. C. Welby, W.
Duncombe, Hon.W. E Lowther, Capt. Western, S.
Dundas, G. Luce, T. Westhead, Joshua
Duakellin, Lord Lygon, Hon. F. Whitbread, S.
Dunne. M. Lytton, Sir E. Whiteside, J.
Da Pre, C. Macartney, George Wickham' IL
Dutton, lion. R. H. . MacEvoy, E. Williams, B.
Edwards, Henry Mackie, J. Williams, W.
Egerton, Sir P. Mackinnon, W. Williams, Sr W.
Egerton, W. M'Clinteck, John Wlllson, A.
Egerton, Edw. C Maguire, J. F. Wilson, J.
Elton. Sir A. 11. Matins, Richard Wingfield, R.
Emlyn, Viscount Manners, Lord J. Winnington, Sir T.
Ennis, John March, Earl of Wise, J.
Esnionde, J. Marshall, William Wood, Sir C.
Estcourt, T. Martin, C. Woodd, B.
Evans, T. W. Massey, W. Woods, Henry
Ewart, W. Matheson,Sir J. Wortley, Major
Evart, J. Maxwell, J. Wyndham, General
Fagan, W. Mellor, John Wynne, J. A,
Farnhatn, E. Miles, W. Wynne, W.
war 4uhar, Sir M. Miller, Taverner Yorke, F.
Fellowes, E. Miller, -learns Young, A.
Penick, H. Mills, T. TELLEILI.
Ferguson, Colonel Moffat, G. Jolliffo, Sir W.
1 Ferguson, Sir Robert Monsell, W. Taylor, Colonel
NOES—IOO.
Adair, H. Fox, W. J. Pinney, Col.
; A,ar-Ellis, Hon. L. G. Gifford, Earl of Rawllason, Sir H.
liagshaw, Robert Gladstone, W. Ridley, George
Baring, A. Greene, John Roupell, W.
Baring, Sir F. Gregory, W. Schneider, Henry
Baring, T. Grenfell, Charles W. Scott, F.
Bass, M. Greville, Colonel F. Shafto, R.
Baxter, W. Gurney, 3. 11. Sheridan, H. B.
Bland, L. H. Hanbury, Robert Smith, J. A.
Bonham-Carter, J. Hartington, Marquis Smith, M.
Beuverie, lion. P. Heathcoate, Sir W. Smith, A.
Briscoe, John Holland, E. Steel, John
Bruce, Major Hope, Alexander Stuart, Colonel
Buchanan, Walter Hotham, Lord Sykes, Colonel
Buxton, C. Ingham, R. Talbot, C.
Byng, G. H. C. Johnstone, Sir J. Tancred, IL
Calcraft, J. Knightley, It. Taylor, S.
Clinton, Lord R. Langston, J. 11. Tempest, Lord A. V.
Cobbett, J. M. Liddell, H. G. Thompson, General
Colebrooke, Sir E. is ockt. Jo) Vane, Lord H.
Crawford, R. W. Lockhart, A. E. Verney, Sir H.
Dalglish, R. Macarthy, Alex. Waldron, Laurence
Darner, L. D. Mangles, R. D. Watkins, Col.
Deasy, R Wegeelin, T.
Mangles, C. Whatman, J.
Dill wyn, L. L. Marjoribanks, D.
White, James
Dunlop, A. Melgund, Lord
White, Henry
East, Sir J. Manes, It. willyams, E.
Ebrington, Viscount Morris, D. Willoughby. J.
Ellice, E. Newdegate, C. Wood, W.
Ellice, E. Nicoll, D.
Elliott, J. E. Nisbet, R. P.
Elphinstone, Sir J. O'Brien, P.
Ewing, Crum O'Donoghoe. The
Anton, A.
Fltzwilliam, C. Paxton, Sir J
Willoughby, Sir H.
Fortescue, C. S. Philips, R.

TELLERS.

FATAL STEAM-SHIP COLLISION AND
SINKING OF BOTH TESS fiLS.

A fearful collision with a serious loss of human
life was reported yesterday at Lloyd's by their
agent at Milford Haven.
The catastrophe appears to have occurred between
the hours of 11 and 12, between Wicklow-head and
the Kish light ship on the Irish coast. The Bri-
gand, screw steamer, from Bristol and Swansea,
with her ordinary complement of passengers, and a
cargo of general merchandise, was pursuing her
way up the St. George's Channel for Belfast and
the Clyde, when she came in contact with the snip,
William Campbell, Capt. Sivell, master, bound to
Trinidad from Greenock. Such was the force with
which the vessels came together that both of them
foundered in comparatively a very short pei iod.
Capt. Sivell, of the William Campbell, and six of
his crew are supposed to have perished, and 21 of
the crew and passengers of the steamer are missing,
and serious apprehensions are entertained for their
safety.
The survivors of both vessels, numbering in all
19, were picked up by the Espoir, from Ostend for
Liverpool, which safely landed them at Milford
haven, on Sunday morning.
Amongst those rescued by the Espoir was Wm.
William, a boatswain of the schooner George, Capt.
Cross, of London, who was the only survivor of his
ship, which went down on the morning of Friday
last, 27 miles east of the Tuskar Light. The vessel
was bound to the river Niger from Liverpool, and
suddenly capsised and disappeared, Williams saving
his life by clinging to a piece of wreck, on which he
was found floating, and picked up by the Brigand,
steamer, a few hours before the collision with the
William Campbell.
The schooner George sailed from Liverpool on
the same day. She was laden with a valuable cargo
which was insured.