§ Lord J. RUSSELLI rise, Sir, pursuant to notice, to move for a Committee of the whole House, to take into consideration the mode of administering the Oath of Abjuration to persons professing the Jewish religion. But I must first request that the Resolution ordered to be entered in the Journals of this House on the 5th of August last be read.
§
The Resolution was accordingly read by the Clerk at the table, as follows:—
That this House will, at the earliest opportunity in the next Session of Parliament, take into its serious consideration the form of the Oath of Abjuration, with a view to relieve Her Majesty's subjects professing the Jewish religion.
§ LORD J. RUSSELL?I rise, Sir, in consequence of that Resolution, which was voted by the House in the last Session of Parliament, to move that the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider the disqualifications affecting the Jews. I have so often stated the reasons why I think the Jews ought to be relieved from those disabilities, that it is not necessary now that I should go at any length into the arguments on this subject. But there are some circumstances which require to be stated, as they place this question in a somewhat different position from that in which it formerly stood. The House will remember that the hon. Member for the city of London, Baron Lionel de Roth- 1007 schild, having presented himself at the table of this House, proposed to take the Oath upon the Old Testament, and that that desire was complied with by a Resolution of the House; that, on proceeding to take the Oaths, he repeated them after the Clerk until he came to the words in the Oath of Abjuration—"Upon the true faith of a Christian;" that he then declined to repeat those words, stating that they were not binding upon his conscience. Baron de Rothschild was then desired to withdraw, and the House came to the resolution that they could not admit him to take his seat, as a Member of the House, unless he took the whole of the Oath appointed to be taken by a Member on taking his seat. It therefore appears that there was no obstacle whatever to Baron de Rothschild taking his seat, except his objection to use these words. It becomes, therefore, still more material than it was, to consider with what purpose these words were inserted in the Oath now taken at the table. It appears, by the report of the Select Committee appointed to consider the oaths taken by Members of this House, that it was in the reign of Queen Elizabeth that the Members were first required to take an Oath at the table, upon the Holy Evangelists, and that the words now in question were for the first time introduced into an Oath appointed to be taken in the reign of James I. It will appear also to any one who has attended to the history of that period, that these words were introduced to give solemnity to the Oath, and not with the view to exclude the Jews; that they were introduced to give solemnity to the Oath by which the allegiance of those who took that Oath was secured. I have no doubt whatever, that the words "on the true faith of a Christian" were introduced into the Oath with no other object than that which I have now described. I believe that the words, "So help me God," were introduced with exactly the same purpose. Now I do not mean to say that in those times a Jew would have been admitted to a seat in Parliament; that was an entirely different question; but what I argue—and this I think cannot be disputed—is, that the words which formed the sole obstacle to Baron de Rothschild's taking his seat as a Member of this House, were not inserted for the purpose of excluding Jews from Parliament, but with a totally different object. They were inserted to meet the case of Christians whose allegiance was 1008 suspected. If the meaning of Parliament had been different, they would have adopted a different course, and have required information as to the religion of each new Member. Instead of merely tacking the words "on the true faith of a Christian" to the end of the Oath, a formal profession of Christianity would have been demanded. This was made still more clear by the course adopted in the time of the Commonwealth, when a formal profession not only of Christianity but of Protestantism was required from each Member of Parliament. On the 24th of June, 1657, it was resolved—
That every person who now is or hereafter shall be a Member of either House of Parliament, before he sit in Parliament, shall, from and after the 1st day of July 1657, take an oath before persons to be authorised and appointed by your Highness and successors for that purpose, in the form following:—'I, A. B., do, in the presence of and by the name of God Almighty, promise and swear, that, to the uttermost of my power, in my place, I will uphold and maintain the true reformed Protestant Christian religion in the purity thereof, as it is contained in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, and encourage the profession and professors of the same; and that I will be true and faithful to the Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and the dominions and territories thereunto belonging, as chief magistrate thereof, and shall not contrive, design, or attempt anything against the person or lawful authority of the Lord Protector, and shall endeavour, as much as in me lies as a Member of Parliament, the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people.'Here, it is very clear, that a Member so swearing, professed to be of the Protestant Christian religion, and the Oath was taken for that purpose. There is no trace in any subsequent legislation, to the time of George I., that there was any intention to make this Oath binding for the special purpose of excluding Jews from Parliament; but there are two Acts, the one the 10th of George I., with respect to Papists registering their names as to real estate, and the other, the 13th of George II., for naturalising persons in His Majesty's Colonies in America, and by those two Acts it is provided that if Jews presented themselves to take the Oath, the words "on the true faith of a Christian" should be omitted; and it was argued by the present Master of the Rolls, whom I am glad to see again in this House, that Parliament having passed these Acts in that special case, to declare in that case that persons should not be obliged to use the words "on the true faith of a Christian," it was evidently the intention of Parliament, that 1009 without the sanction of Parliament, those words should not be omitted. It appeared to me that that argument was valid, and that consideration is, I think, the only consideration which could have prevented this House in August last from admitting Baron de Rothschild to sit in the House, according to the manner in which Mr. Pease, the Quaker, was admitted some years ago. I think if it were not for these Acts of Parliament the general argument would he good—that every person ought to take the Oath in the manner most binding on his conscience. That is the principle and doctrine laid down by Lord Hardwicke and other authorities in the law; and I think that doctrine would have prevailed in this case, where it is evident the words wore originally introduced, not for the purpose of excluding Jews, but to give a solemn sanction to the substance of the Oath tendered. However, such being the case, I think it must be admitted that persons professing the Jewish religion cannot well take their seat in this House unless Parliament relieve them from that part of the Oath to which they object. The question therefore is, whether we shall proceed to take away the obligation that now exists of taking that part of the Oath, and whether persons professing the Jewish religion shall be permitted to be sworn at the table of this House, omitting those words? That is a question upon which I have argued at various times, and troubled this House so often, that I do not mean to enter into it further at present than to say that it really comes to the bare question, whether religious opinion is to disqualify for political and civil rights. With regard to the Jew, there can be no objection made to the moral law to which he is subject—the moral law by which the Jewish nation were governed in the time of our Saviour. Nor can there be any objection to the manner in which Jews conduct themselves in this country—loyal subjects and moral members of society. Upon neither of those grounds can there be any objection made to the Jews. The Jews born in this country, as is well known, profess the same allegiance to the Crown, are ready to take the same Oath as other subjects of Her Majesty; and those who have been admitted to office, those who have been acting as magistrates, sheriffs, or as members of corporations, have discharged their duty as fully and completely as any other members of the community. Neither can it be sup- 1010 posed that, considering the small number of Jews in this country, those who may be elected by the constituent bodies of the country can make any real difference as to the character of the legislation of this House. It must be a Christian Parliament whether or no they are admitted, and the fact of there being one or two or possibly throe Jews in this House, cannot alter the general character of it. It therefore comes, as I have said, to the bare question, whether the difference of religion between the Jew and the Christian should be such as to deprive the Jew of the admission to civil offices and political privileges. Upon that ground it has been often argued, and I think it has been shown most conclusively, that acts, and not opinions, are what we ought to legislate for, and that there is nothing to prevent the Jew from sitting in Parliament.
§
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 persons professing the Jewish religion.
§ SIR R. H. INGLISsaid, that he, too, would follow the example of the noble Lord, and abstain from entering into a general repetition of those arguments which had been adduced on former occasions. Yet he need offer no apology for resisting the present proposal of the noble Lord; inasmuch, as on principle, he had for the last twenty years opposed every measure of a similar kind, and had seen increasing reason to continue that opposition. His noble Friend had begun by stating the origin of the introduction of the words, "On the true faith of a Christian;" but he forgot to say, that, whether those words were omitted or not, the obligation would have been equally conclusive as regarded the Jews; because, at the very time when they were introduced, the oath must have been taken on the book of the Holy Evangelists. He defied any person to contradict him when he said, that, from the earliest period of English history, no oath for the admission to any legislative situation whatever had ever been taken except on some symbol of the Christian faith, if not on the Holy Gospels. But this measure was not merely for the admission of Jews into Parliament, but for the admission of men of all religions, or of no religion, as far as profession was concerned. He could hardly understand that doctrine, even if applied to a new country, much less to this; and he should hold it to be a base dereliction of their duty to that God 1011 whose servants they professed themselves to be, if they ever introduced any form of government which did not proceed on His faith and fear, and if they did not, believing in the Gospel, desire that the Gospel should spread wherever their influence might extend, and be the foundation of all their proceedings in public, as in private. It was possible, but hardly probable, that the number of Jews who might be admitted to Parliament, if the measure of the noble Lord were carried, would not exceed two or three; but the principle was conceded as much if there were only three, as if there were thirty; and the noble Lord and his Government had, within the last week, sufficiently seen that the power of a small body, shifting its balance as occasion required, could Create considerable inconvenience, even in a worldly and secular point of view, when they were always ready to encumber either party with their aid or their opposition. Was it well to suppose that the admission into the Legislature of a body so alien to Christianity as the Jews, might not be an important element in their deliberations? Because this was not a Country in which Christianity was an open question—in which there was no Established Church—in which there was nothing to be decided but a question of corn and cotton. There was something more important to their deliberations than any material interests; and for that Legislature he was anxious to maintain the character of a Christian assembly. If this measure were adopted, there would be nothing to prevent Parsees, and Mahomedans, and Brahmins, becoming Members of that House; and some hon. Members had said they saw no objection to that; but he could not but conceive that the admission of such a principle as that would exercise a most serious and injurious influence on the rights of the Established Church in this country, and through that upon Christianity; and, through Christianity, upon the best interests of the empire. It was from no disrespect to the Government or that House, which, by a Resolution, was pledged in the present Session to take the subject into consideration, that he opposed the Motion of his noble Friend, but from a deep and perfect conviction that the course of proceeding on which the Government how asked the House to enter was a course fraught with difficulty and danger—difficulty to the Government itself, and great danger to the highest interests of the country. Whether Christianity were, 1012 or were not, part of the law and constitution of England—a doctrine which he had never abandoned—this, at least, was clear, that it was part of the creed of the Jews to regard Him whom we professed to revere as a crucified impostor; and could he (Sir R. Inglis) willingly admit any one of that creed to legislate for the Christian people and Christian institutions of this country? No earthly consideration would induce him to open the doors of that House to those who—conscientiously he did not deny—seriously, he did not doubt—entertain that doctrine; but who, exactly in proportion as he admitted their sincerity and conscientiousness, must, as he believed, use the influence which they possessed, if not for the overthrow of our Church and of Christianity, at least to disparage every Christian institution and every Christian principle. He, therefore, should move the rejection of this measure, by proposing that the House should resolve itself into Committee that day six months.
§ MR. M. GIBSONsaid, that having been one of the supporters of the introduction of the former measures, he did not wish to delay the present Motion by any argument on the question which had been raised by the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford. He was surprised, however, that—if the hon. Baronet considered it so important that all the Members of the Legislature should be in a Condition from their faith to legislate, as he called it, for the interests of the Church and of religion—he should be contented with so imperfect a security, merely amounting to this, that if a man would only say he was a Christian, the hon. Baronet would believe him, and at once admit him into Parliament. But his (Mr. Gibson's) object in rising was merely to call the attention of the House to the position in which they were placed with reference to this question—a position, he would presume to say, somewhat humiliating. In fact, persons out of doors hardly gave them credit for being in earnest on the question. Let him remind the House that Baron de Rothschild was first elected at the general election of 1847, and now they were in 1851, and in the middle of 1851 bringing in a Bill with the view of removing the tests which prevented Baron de Rothschild now taking his seat and representing the interests which had sent him there. Twice he had been elected, and twice had a Bill passed that House legalising his admis- 1013 sion, but twice had that Bill been rejected elsewhere. He thought it would have been fitting for the Government, in the year 1850, after the second election of Baron de Rothschild, to have again introduced their Bill, and to have ascertained whether the other branch of the Legislature would have a third time rejected it. All that had been done in the previous Session was the common plan of getting rid of a difficulty, namely, to refer the matter to a Committee to inquire. Surely the House must have had sufficient information, or the Bill of 1848 could not have been introduced, nor would it have been proper again to introduce it in 1849. At the end of last Session they had passed a Resolution pledging themselves to introduce it at the earliest possible period in the present Session. Yet it was now introduced at a much farther advanced period than on the previous occasions. He thought it should have been introduced at the beginning of the Session, and have taken precedence of all other public business; because there was a most important constituency unrepresented, and a Resolution of the journals pledging the House to consider the question at the earliest possible period. He did not see how they could stand before the country, and say they had done their duty in allowing so long a period to pass before bringing in this Bill. He hoped he might understand from the noble Lord that he was now in earnest in pressing this measure, and that if it were rejected a third time in another place, some decided steps would be taken by the Government to prevent so important a principle of civil and religious liberty being set aside—that the noble Lord would, in short, make it a Government question, and insist that it was not consistent with his duty to submit to these repeated refusals. He had merely risen for the purpose of making this appeal. When he met gentlemen of his acquaintance, of the Jewish persuasion, and informed them that their question was going on, their answer was that the House was not in earnest, or the question would not have been postponed for four years. Knowing that to be the general opinion, he had felt it his duty to address these few observations to the House.
§ MR. PLUMPTREhoped the House and country would show themselves in earnest, determined to reject this Bill; and he could not but express his deep regret that the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), in again pres- 1014 sing this measure on the House, should so little have respected as he seemed to do the religious feeling of the Country; because, whatever might be the feeling of that deliberative assembly, simple and unsophisticated minds out of that House took no other view of this question than the religious view. Nor did he know how it could be understood under any other aspect. The question was, whether into that professedly Christian assembly Jews were to be admitted? He believed that the overwhelming majority of the people of this country were strongly and decidedly of opinion against such a measure. They ought in that House to he engaged in passing laws directly or indirectly depending on the honour and will of Him after whose name they were called. There could be no doubt that the Jews were an extraordinary people. They were the most wonderful, as well as the most ancient, of nations; but they had rejected and continued to reject Him whom Christians honoured; and he must confess, as professing Christians, that they, the House of Commons, were laid under the deepest obligations to maintain the honour of His name. This was not a mere matter of form, because, by neglecting to maintain that honour and reverence, they exposed themselves to the charge of deep ingratitude; and he had no scruple in saying that they would be guilty of the deepest ingratitude if they took into their counsels men who rejected that divine name; and, further, he would add, that it was not only a matter which would expose them to the charge of ingratitude, to the Divine Founder of the Christian religion, but expose the country also to great peril, for it was by His authority that kings reigned, and no State or nation could safely disregard its allegiance to Him. That was the view that he took of this most momentous subject, and he could not sit down without expressing his conviction that the Christian feeling of the country would be deeply wounded if any such measure as that now proposed became the law of England.
MR. WEGG PROSSERbegged the indulgence of the House for a few moments, while he explained the motives which actuated him upon this subject; and he would at once avow that the difficulties of the question were such that he saw only one way of escaping from them, namely, by abstaining from voting. He took it for granted that the House would remember that this proposition was the same 1015 with that made in the first Session of this Parliament. One year it assumed the form of a measure for modifying the Oaths taken by Members of that House generally, and in that shape he had voted for it, because he considered that those oaths were a mockery of religion and a snare to the conscience, But now the question was to be considered merely with reference to the Jews; and he must say that there was much to recommend it, for he could not shut his eyes to the fact that this country had agreed to the principle of religious liberty, the principle that a man should not have any restrictions placed on him on account of his religious opinions. In using the words "religious liberty," he must explain clearly what he meant; he fully believed that a man was just as responsible to his Creator for his religious belief as for his moral actions; but that the true definition of religious liberty was that, as regards the State, a man should be left perfectly free. That being the principle on which this country had decided, it remained to be considered whether the case of the Jews was an exception. Now, a great many hon. Gentlemen seemed to think that it was our duty to be the executors of the vengeance of Almighty God on that people; but he did not enter into that feeling: he thought that the Jews were undergoing a severe punishment from God for their sins, but that we were not called upon to inflict that punishment; and were it not that he felt reluctant to quote Scripture in the House, he could point out a passage which warned us not to boast ourselves against the ancient branches of the olive-tree. Again, it had often been said that as this was a Christian country, so should the Legislature be Christian; but to that a very easy answer might be given—that this country was not exclusively Christian, so it did not necessarily follow that the Parliament should be exclusively Christian. There was another argument against the admission of the Jews, which rested on the ground that they were aliens: this was something like the argument against the Roman Catholics, that they owed a divided allegiance; and, in both cases, every man who reflected on the subject without prejudice must see that this argument was utterly worthless. Every one born in this country, and making it his own, had a right to all the privileges of British subjects. There was, however, one consideration which induced him to hesi- 1016 tate in giving his assent to this proposition, and it was this, that the House of Commons governed the Church of England, and legislated generally upon religious matters, and did not confine itself to purely political questions. If they went back to the old practice of the constitution, and only admitted members of the National Church to seats in Parliament, then the House of Commons might, consistently enough, meddle with religious subjects; but it was impossible to go back to the ancient practice—they must go forward. If they went forward so as to return a Parliament which confined itself to the consideration of matters strictly social and political, as it ought, he could see no reason why persons professing the Jewish or any other religion whatever, should be excluded. He would also remark that it was a question whether after the Bill had been repeatedly rejected by the House of Lords, it was right in the House of Commons to press it; that, however, was a minor consideration, with which he did not think it necessary to detain the House. But he could not help asking whether it was consistent in the Government to be one day bringing in a Bill to admit Jews into Parliament, and confer important civil privileges upon them, and another day to be carrying on what he could not forbear to characterise as a piece of petty persecution against a large body of their Christian fellow-subjects. He hoped he should soon see the day when the difficulties which stood in the way of this question would be removed, and when persons of all religious opinions would be admitted to Parliament; and he wished that not merely for the advantage of the State, but for the good of religion itself: because in such a state of things the one true religion would be brought out in its best and purest colours, and would be established on the surest and most lasting foundations.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, 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, and quietly submit to the insults of the Pope. Now, however, the hon. Gentleman not only urged the House, in a fever of energy, to press the measure before them with a vigour which he (Mr. Newdegate) felt persuaded was not in sympathy with the feelings of the House, but actually demanded that the House of Lords should 1017 be swamped if they again vindicated their independence and privileges by rejecting it. The connection between the subject under discussion and Papal aggression was palpable enough; and he could not conceal his opinion that foreigners must think but lightly of the professions 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 the matter—seeing how anxious they seemed to be to erase from their oaths the test of Christianity, had not unfairly come to the conclusion that Protestantism 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 course which he conscientiously believed they did not heartily approve of; but of this he was certain, that if they did approve of it, they must be blind to circumstances which had lately occurred, and which had most remarkably characterised the period during which this subject had been under discussion.
§
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 persons professing the Jewish religion.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 166; Noes 98: Majority 68.
| List of the AYES. | |
| Adair, H. E. | Bellew, R. M. |
| Aglionby, H. A. | Berkeley, Adm. |
| Alcock, T. | Berkeley, hon. H. F. |
| Anderson, A. | Berkeley, C. L. G. |
| Anstey, T. C. | Bernal, R. |
| Armstrong, Sir A. | Blake, M. J. |
| Bagshaw, J. | Bright, J. |
| Baines, rt. hon. M. T. | Brocklehurst, J. |
| Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T. | Brotherton, J. |
| Barnard, E. G. | Burke, Sir T. J. |
| Barron, Sir H. W. | Butler, P. S. |
| Bell, J. | Cardwell, E. |
| Childers, J. W. | Mitchell, T. A. |
| Clay, J. | Moffatt, G. |
| Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G. | Monsell, W. |
| Cockburn, Sir A. J. E. | Morris, D. |
| Colebrooke, Sir T. E. | Muntz, G. F. |
| Collins, W. | Norreys, Lord |
| Cowper, hon. W. F, | Norreys, Sir D. J. |
| Craig, Sir W. G. | O'Brien, J. |
| Crawford, W. S. | O'Connell, J. |
| Cubitt, W. | O'Connell, M. J. |
| Dalrymple, Capt. | O'Flaherty, A. |
| Dawson, hon. T. V. | Ord, W. |
| Denison, J. E. | Osborne, R. |
| D'Eyncourt, rt. hon. C. T. | Owen, Sir J. |
| Disraeli, B. | Paget, Lord A. |
| Duke, Sir J. | Paget, Lord C. |
| Duncan, Visct. | Palmerston, Visct. |
| Duncan, G. | Parker, J. |
| Dundas, Adm. | Pigott, F. |
| Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D. | Pilkington, J. |
| Dunne, Col. | Pinney, W |
| Ebrington, Visct. | Power, N. |
| Ellis, J. | Powlett, Lord W. |
| Evans, W. | Price, Sir R. |
| Ewart, W. | Prinsep, H. T. |
| Fagan, W, | Rawdon, Col. |
| Fitzroy, hon. H. | Reynolds, J. |
| Foley, J. H. H. | Ricardo, O. |
| Fordyce, A. D. | Rice, E. R. |
| Forster, M. | Robartes, T. J. A. |
| Fox, W. J. | Romilly, Col. |
| Freestun, Col. | Romilly, Sir J. |
| French, F. | Russell, Lord J. |
| Gaskell, J. M. | Russell, F. C. H. |
| Gibson, rt. hon. T. M. | Sadleir, J. |
| Gilpin, Col. | Salwey, Col. |
| Grace, O. D. J. | Scholefield, W. |
| Granger, T. C. | Scully, F. |
| Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. | Seymour, Lord |
| Grey, R. W. | Shafto, R. D. |
| Hastie, A. | Smith, rt. hon. R. V. |
| Hatchell, rt. hon. J. | Smith, J. A. |
| Hawes, B. | Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W. |
| Heathcoat, J. | Stanton, W. H. |
| Henry, A. | Staunton, Sir G. T. |
| Heyworth, L. | Strickland, Sir G. |
| Higgins, G. G. O. | Sullivan, M. |
| Hobhouse, T. B. | Talbot, J. H. |
| Hodges, T. L. | Tancred, H. W. |
| Hogg, Sir J. W. | Thicknesse, R. A. |
| Hume, J. | Thompson, Col. |
| Humphery, Ald. | Thornely, T. |
| Hutchins, E. J. | Tollemache, hon. F. G. |
| Hutt, W. | Townley, R. G. |
| Jackson, W. | Townshend, Capt. |
| Keating, R. | Tufnell, rt. hon. H. |
| Keogh, W. | Vane, Lord H. |
| Kershaw, J. | Villiers, hon. C. |
| Labouchere, rt. hon. H. | Vivian, J. H. |
| Langston, J. H. | Wakley, T. |
| Lemon, Sir C. | Walmsley, Sir J. |
| Lewis, G. C. | Westhead, J. P. B. |
| Locke, J. | Willcox, B. M. |
| Loveden, P. | Williams, J. |
| M'Gregor, J. | Williams, W. |
| M'Taggart, Sir J. | Williamson, Sir H. |
| Maher, N. V. | Wilson, J. |
| Mahon, The O'Gorman | Wilson, M. |
| Mangles, R. D. | Wood, rt. hon. Sir C. |
| Matheson, Col. | |
| Maule, rt. hon. F. | TELLERS. |
| Melgund, Visct. | Hayter, W. G. |
| Milnes, R. M. | Hill, Lord M. |
| List of the NOES. | |
| Acland, Sir T. D. | Long, W. |
| Arkwright, G. | Lopes, Sir R. |
| Ashley, Lord | Lygon, hon. Gen. |
| Baird, J. | Macnaghten, Sir E. |
| Barrow, W. H. | Mahon, Visct. |
| Beresford, W. | Miles, W. |
| Bernard, Visct. | Moody, C. A. |
| Best, J. | Moore, G. H. |
| Blackstone, W. S. | Morgan, O. |
| Blair, S. | Mullings, J. R. |
| Bowles, Adm. | Mundy, W. |
| Bremridge, R. | Napier J. |
| Brisco, M. | Neeld, J. |
| Bruce, C. L. C. | Neeld, J. |
| Buck, L. W. | Ossulston, Lord |
| Buller, Sir J. Y. | Pakington, Sir J. |
| Carew, W. H. P. | Palmer, R. |
| Christy, S. | Peel, Sir R. |
| Clive, H. B. | Pennant, hon. Col. |
| Currie, H. | Plowden, W. H. C. |
| Davies, D. A. S. | Plumptre, J. P. |
| Dick, Q. | Reid, Col. |
| Drax, J. S. W. S. E. | Rendlesham, Lord |
| Duncombe, hon. A. | Renton, J. C. |
| Duncuft, J. | Rushout, Capt. |
| Du Pre, C. G. | Seymer, H. K. |
| East, Sir J. B. | Sibthorp, Col. |
| Edwards, H. | Smollett, A. |
| Farrer, J. | Sotheron, T. H. S. |
| Filmer, Sir E. | Spooner, R. |
| Floyer, J. | Stafford, A. |
| Forbes, W. | Stanford, J. F. |
| Gallwey, Sir W. P. | Stuart, J. |
| Galway, Visct. | Sturt, H. G. |
| Gooch, E. S. | Taylor, T. E. |
| Goulburn, rt. hon. H. | Thesiger, Sir F. |
| Grogan, E. | Tollemache, J. |
| Gwyn, H. | Trevor, hon. G. R. |
| Halford, Sir H. | Tyler, Sir G. |
| Hamilton, G. A. | Vesey, hon. T. |
| Hayes, Sir E. | Waddington, H. S. |
| Heald, J. | Walpole, S. H. |
| Henley, J. W. | Welby, G. E. |
| Hildyard, R. C. | Wellesley, Lord C. |
| Hotham, Lord | Wigram, L. T. |
| Jones, Capt. | Wodehouse, E. |
| Lacy, H. C. | Yorke, hon. E. T. |
| Lennox, Lord A. G. | |
| Lindsey, hon. Col. | TELLERS. |
| Lockhart, A. E. | Inglis, Sir R. H. |
| Lockhart, W. | Newdegate, C. N. |