Commons Sitting of 19 June 1817

COPY RIGHT BILL.
Sir Egerton Brydges, in rising, pursuant to his notice, to move for leave to bring in a bill to amend the Copy Right Act passed in the filth George 3rd, said, that he was aware that in this attempt he had a powerful and
1064
widely extended body to contend with. He should give as brief as possible a history of the origin and progress of the copy right acts. The stationers company who were incorporated by charter in 1556, bad from that date kept books, in which the publisher entered the copy of which he had embarked in the publication, for the mutual convenience of establishing among themselves evidence of title, either by purchase or pre-occupancy. In addition to this protection, booksellers and authors often sought the authority of the royal privilege; which last, for fear of infringing on the statute against monopolies was not accustomed to extend beyond 14 years. The first legislative protection was a parliamentary ordinance of 1643 by which all persons were strictly forbid, under certain penalties, to interfere with the copy rights of others, when an entry had been made of the title of the prior claimant in the stationer's book. For this protection, it is material to observe, no price or condition was required. No copies of books, so protected, were required to be delivered to any bodies; but the unquestioned property of an author in his works; or of a publisher who had been the first occupant in such copies as no author had a claim to, was recognized as the admitted law; and as such, better secured by this parliamentary measure.—In this state things remained till after the Restoration. In 1662 was passed the Licensing act, with a view to suppress seditious writings, and indeed to destroy the liberty of the press. That act contained numerous clauses, and prohibited any publication without a licence first obtained either from the ministers of state, or the vice-chancellors of the universities of Oxford and Cambridge. Another clause orders three copies of every publication to be delivered, one to the king's library, and two to Oxford and Cambridge, apparently to furnish a certain access to those books by those by whom the licences had been granted; so that any deviation from the licence might come within their immediate cognizance. This act, by way, I presume, of rendering it somewhat less unpalatable to authors, contained a clause to protect copy right, borrowed from the parliamentary ordinance of 1643. It was renewed three or four times, but was suffered to expire about 1692. From that time publishers had no legal penalties to protect them from piracies; which thence

1065
became so frequent as to endanger their best property. They accordingly petitioned for and obtained the celebrated copy right act of queen Anne in 1710. The terms of that act, as understood by the parties, and as always construed till the decision of the King's-bench in 1812, were, that they who chose to obtain the protection given to copy-right by its provisions, must enter the title of their work in the stationers books; and at the time of such, and before publication, deliver to Stationers'-hall nine copies to be distributed to the King's library, Oxford and Cambridge, Sion college, the four Scotch universities, and the Advocates university at Edinburgh. As the bill had been originally brought into the House of Commons, three copies only to the same bodies as were entitled to them under the licensing act of Charles 2nd were required to be delivered. The protecting clause had been copied nearly from that act; and this last clause was apparently derived from the same model. But see the danger of whetting the appetites of these public establishments! In the passage of the bill through the Commons, two more copies were added to the Edinburgh university and Sion college. The Scotch peers were not unwilling to improve upon this spoil. In the Lords, four more copies were added for Scotland, making the total nine copies. Since the Union with Ireland, two more have been added for that kingdom! It was soon found, that notwithstanding this price to be paid, the security afforded by the act was very imperfect. In 1735 a bill to render it more effectual was carried through the Commons, but lost in the Lords. Publishers then gradually withdrew from the custom of making entries of their books at Stationers'-hall. The universities, disappointed of their prey, grumbled and grew savage, and made several ingenious efforts to secure their spoils. At length, in 1811, Mr. Professor Christian persuaded the university of Cambridge that the true construction of the act required a delivery of the eleven copies, whether the entry was made or not, and the court of King's-bench confirmed this construction. The booksellers now appealed to the legislature to amend an act so imperfectly drawn; and which would henceforth operate as such an alarming burthen on them. In the progress of the bill brought in on this occasion in 1814, the universities exerted all their powerful and widely ramified in-
1066
terest to rivet, not to loosen, the chains: to add to their new got spoils, farther acquisitions never pretended even by them to be within the contemplation of the act —and to give nothing but that which was to come from others, and not from them. They were too successful. The amended act is an highly aggravated grievance—and sir Egerton said, he felt it his duty, notwithstanding his strong sense of the power of the bodies with whom he had to contend, to attempt to alleviate this great injustice. It had been contended, that the payment of these eleven copies was no burthen. Why* in 22 months, they amounted to 2,100 articles, and the prices of those only where prices could be ascertained, came to upwards of 8662 l. Nearly one* third of this sum came from books of prices above 20 s. consisting of only 163 articles, of which books the average impression could not reach 250 copies. Taking this at 4¾ per cent., will it be argued that this burthen is light? Will it be doubted that it is a tax equal to half the profits, taking the whole profits at 9½ per cent.—It had been said, that it was-no more than the paper; but will the pressman work for nothing? Is there no wear of type—no waste of ink, & c.? Then if the cost is admitted, it is pleaded, that these eleven copies would scarcely be sold: and why not as well remain in public libraries, as in booksellers warehouses? But it is in this accumulation of his warehouse, that a bookseller's capital is saved. At due intervals, he turns out these heaps at a trade price, at least far above the price of waste paper! Yet even the waste paper value of these eleven copies in a course of years would amount to most serious sums. But this is far from being the greatest part of the grievance. The placing eleven copies in these libraries takes out of the market a proportionate number of purchasers for the stock that remains. It would not be too much to assert, that every one of the eleven copies so deposited takes out at least nine purchasers, so that at least 100 purchasers are thus withdrawn for every expensive work. In this way sir Egerton contended, that the act of 1S14 operated as an extinguisher upon the publication of some of the most valuable. He instanced in a proposed work of Nondescript Plants of South America, by baron Humboldt, which had been thus crushed. He also complained that the late act subjected publishers to a claim for copies of reprints of old books of a date prior to the

1067
act of queen Anne, which he complained to have been so worded, as if almost to catch them by stealth; and never to have been within the contemplation or even suspicion of the original framers of the act. He then asked, upon what principle those demands of the public bodies for the payment to them of so grievous impost stood? Had authors and publishers, or had they not, a title to this property? If they had, the state were bound to protect that right, as far as any provisions could be devised to protect it. They were bound to do it without conditions—without a tax, except such as all other property was liable to. What! to put an income tax on them—and for the benefit of the partial interests of a few public libraries, when an income tax, even for the most urgent public interests, was taken off from the rest of the nation. Sir Egerton mentioned many other details, and used many other arguments. For these he apologised to the House, as not likely to be other than fatiguing. "Tedious as they may appear," said he, "they are not a twentieth part of what I could have said; on the subject. But I forbear. If the House grows impatient of these minutiæ, I am not insensible of the heaviness of my task. But the cause of literature is sacred, I know its value: I am sure that truth and justice are on my side; and I will not abandon it." He then moved, "That leave be given to bring in a bill to alter and amend an act passed in the 54th of his present majesty, so far as regards books published before the act of queen Anne, respecting the claims to eleven, copies of the said books, and also to very limited editions of books."
Mr. Bankessaid, he should take the Sense of the House on the question, as he dissented from it in every possible point of view.
Sir S. Romillysaid, it was no doubt desirous that public institutions should be furnished with books, but it ought to be done at the public expense, and not at that of the poor author. The tax thus imposed on authors was founded on a barbarous principle, and deserved the reprobation of the House.
Lord Palmerstonsaid, the real question before the House was, whether they would consent to a repeal of the law passed in 1814. He could never allow it to be said, that an act like the present, which went to promote the interests of learning, was founded on a barbarous principle.
Sir F. Burdetthad heard nothing to justify any opposition to the present motion, which, as he conceived, was founded on the strictest justice. The question at issue was simply this: whether a man shall derive the fruits of his labour, and enjoy them to the advantage of himself and family or be compelled to give them away to others? When the House considered the character, situation, and rank of those public bodies who claimed these publications, and how able they were to pay for them, he was persuaded they ought to hesitate before they rejected the motion.
Mr. J. Smithopposed the motion, because he saw no grounds whatever which could be brought forward in its support.
Mr. Ponsonbyhad, for the first time, heard that literature was promoted by authors being compelled to give their publications to the universities. For these learned bodies he felt a sincere respect, but he could not help saying they were always disposed to take a great deal, while they gave but little. If the universities required these books, they should either pay for them or the public should. He did not see why these public bodies should not purchase their books as well as individuals. It was truly absurd to say that literature was promoted by their receiving these copies from poor authors.
Mr. Crokerthought the right hon. gentleman had not read the act of queen Anne, which expressly states that the provisions of that act were for the encouragement of literature. Besides, he had not recollected the advantages which authors obtained by this act in the extension of their copyrights. It was not fair, as he presumed, to call this a tax on authors.
Mr. Broughamconsidered, that his right hon. friend had as much knowledge of the act of queen Anne, as the hon. gentleman, but certainly the provisions of the last bill rendered it necessary to be amended, as it imposed a greater burthen on authors, than they ought to bear. It certainly was not any encouragement to learning, to impose on poor men the task of supplying the universities with books, and thereby unnecessarily sparing the funds of those rich and well endowed bodies.
Mr. Finlayopposed the motion, observing, that the contribution of eleven copies was not so heavy a tax as by some it was supposed to be, as, in most cases, it was little more than the expense of paper and printing.
Mr. Wynnconceived that it was absolutely necessary to revise the act, in consequence of the manner in which its provisions had been executed. It was rather an extraordinary circumstance, that, with the exception of two of the universities, who refused novels and music, the learned bodies, to whom the law gave these copies, took them of every description of work that was published. It was not just, that by this means a power should be given to send expensive publications into the market in competition with the publisher. It would be much better to adjudge to the universities a pecuniary compensation which might be used for the advancement of learning.
The House then divided: For the motion, 57; Against it, 58: Majority 1.

SPIES AND INFORMERS.
On our re-admission to the galley,
Sir F. Burdettwas reprobating the employment of spies as allies of government in the maintenance of social order. While such instruments were made use of, it was impossible that any man's property or persons could be safe; and the misdeeds of one of these miscreants, whose conduct bad lately been brought to light, proved, but too plainly, the truth of what he asserted. Under these circumstances, and hearing that the noble lord had attempted to defend the conduct of such a man as Thomas Reynolds, of Welbeck-street, he should be glad to know of ministers whether those spies had their authority for making use of the names of individuals? A transaction of this sort had occurred, in regard to which the state of the times rendered it necessary for him to vindicate his own character, however contemptible and unworthy of notice the individuals might otherwise be. It did appear then, that Oliver, the fellow of Reynolds, had gone about the country introducing himself "with sir F. Burdett's compliments." After what had already come out, it was impossible to say how far this man might be authorized by, or associated with, government. If so, the infamy of such transactions was mutual on the employer and the employed; or rather the government that could employ such agents, the scourge, and pest of society, was even more culpable than the wretched agents themselves; and if "Universal justice ruled the ball," the noble lord would be tried with his creatures, Castle and Oliver, for their conspiracies against the subjects
1070
of this kingdom. If the employers of these men had any feeling, or any conscience, they would have shunned the assistance of such unworthy allies; for they might beforehand have been sure that such agents would go beyond their instructions, because it was their obvious interest to do so: if they did not promote treason, their employment was at an end. A jury of able, independent, and honest men, had shown their sense of the infamous purposes for which these spies had been employed.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, that if any improper use had been made of the hon. baronet's name, it was owing, not as the hon. baronet would insinuate, to any directions on the part of his majesty's government, but, in all probability to causes over which the hon. baronet himself had greater control. At a proper period, he should be perfectly prepared to justify the part taken by government on this subject. If the hon. baronet's name had been mixed up with any of the proceedings of the individuals to whom he had alluded, it was himself that he had to thank for it, and not his majesty's government.

TITHE EXEMPTIONS BILL.
Mr. Curwensaid:—The question I have to submit to the House is of the utmost importance, not only as it relates to property, but in the influence it is likely to have in preventing vexatious and expensive litigations, highly injurious to public morals, as well as to the temporal interests of the clergy. I am anxious, in the outset, explicitly to disclaim all intention of proposing any thing which can lessen the security of the property of the church or lay proprietor of tithes. Tithes, like all other descriptions of property, ought to be held sacred. If I succeed in showing that the law of evidence for substantiating a title to tithes is at variance with itself, and in direct opposition to every principle as applicable to all other kinds of property,—that the powers with which the church is armed are unnecessary for the protection of its own property, and inconsistent with the rights of others; I shall, I trust have made out a case calling for legislative interference. Fortunately, this may be accomplished without the application of any new principle; all that is requisite to be done is, to make the law applicable to property analogous to all descriptions of tithes. No statute of limitation exists against the claims of the

1071
church; consequently no length of possession, nor even an uninterrupted enjoyment of centuries, bars her claims to tithes. Prima facie the church is entitled to them; and nothing less than complete proof of the origin of the exemption claimed by the land-owner can be of any avail against the demand. Prior to the 9th George 3rd, the Crown enjoyed a similar privilege. A possession of sixty years is now a bar against the ancient rights of the Crown; but no length of time whatever will preclude the right of tithes; and as the church is prima facie entitled to them, lapse of time, which in all other cases strengthens the title to property, has the effect of weakening it in the case of the church, in as much as the original evidence of the exemption becomes thereby more difficult to be obtained. Nothing can be more repugnant to justice than this. Uninterrupted enjoyment for a certain length of time ought, and in all cases but that of the church does, confer an unimpeachable title. Not to admit prescription and enjoyment as a ground of title, is to shake all title, and to leave property exposed to endless litigation. In the present instance of the church, as may be seen by the papers I moved for in the early part of the session, exhibiting above 120 causes determined in the courts of exchequer and chancery in the last seven years, and about an equal number now pending, the fact has but too well corresponded with the theory. Disputes daily arise; and the most tedious, and expensive suits, are the ordinary consequence of this palpable defect in our law. The land-owner is naturally unwilling to surrender a right which long enjoyment has taught him to think justly his, at the same time that he is perhaps unable to prove, from loss of deeds or other evidence of facts to make out his title to the exemptions according to the severe rules of evidence adhered to in the courts of equity. In the end, he is not only despoiled of his property, but is also loaded with the costs of a long and expensive litigation. The evil of the law as it now stands is glaring. In support of this opinion, I have the first law authorities, in a case decided in Chancery by lord Elks-mere, with the principal judges. For "tempus est edax rerum," "records and letters patent, and others writings, either consume or are lost, or are embezzled: God forbid that ancient grants and acts should be drawn in question, although
1072
that cannot be shown which at first was necessary to the perfection of the thing." In the case of church lands, it seems but reasonable the church should be bound by the same statutes and rules of limitation by which other property, not excepting the Crown itself, is bound, But the case of tithes is somewhat different. Tracts of land which have been hitherto barren, may, by modern improvement in agriculture, be brought into culture; and it would be unjust, in such cases, that the church should be deprived of her tithes. A modified limitation of half a century, from the present time, might be reasonable. The respectability of the church is an. object in which the nation at large is deeply concerned. Fully to appreciate the consequences of the extensive litigation of late years, it will be for the House to consider, that the duration of the hundred and twenty suits has not been less than six or seven years, pending which the churches have, in many instances, been nearly deserted. To such lengths have hostilities, in too many cases, been carried between the pastor and their flocks! Thus is that respect and veneration so necessary for the due discharge of the sacred functions broke through and destroyed. This is ground sufficient of itself to call for the intervention of this House. Great as the evil has been, it will, in the course of things, become yearly greater, as the security of property decreases. Whatever may be the degree of blame imputable to individuals, the great body of the clergy are distinguished by a very praise-worthy moderation. How long this body may be proof against the strong temptation the law holds out for litigation it is not for me to conjecture. Lord Hobart, in the case of Slade v. Drake, says, "It is a strange anomalum tithes differing from all other cases in law: for, whereas prescriptions and antiquity of time fortifies all other titles, and supposeth the best beginning that law can give them, in this case it works clean the contrary; and this is in favorem ecclesiœ, lest laymen should spoil the church." The practice of the courts of law, in latter times, has ' been, to fortify the claims of prescription: thus in the solemn argument of Reid v. Brookman, about 26 years ago, lord Kenyon ruled, that instead of the profert it might be alleged that the deed was lost and destroyed by time and accident, and that usage would prove it, observing, "this is founded on necessity, since no

1073
human prudence can render deeds existing for ever." In the case of Berney v. Hervey, 1809, the present lord chancellor says, "I do not think I ought now to disturb the doctrine which has prevailed so long whatever I might originally have thought of it."—The doubtfulness of the legality of its origin, added to its palpable injustice, is a strong reason for legislative redress. The practice is at variance with the feelings and common sense of mankind, and can only have existed so long because it has not been complained of, nor redress sought where alone it could be obtained. How the present practice arose, of which I complain, is not very material to inquire. The ancient mode by which the clergy proceeded for the recovery of tithes was by libel in the ecclesiastical courts, which were removeable, by a writ of prohibition, into the court of King's-bench, where the claim was decided by a verdict of a jury. Disputes arising between the ecclesiastical and civil courts, as to the right of interference of the latter, were at length decided by a solemn hearing before king James who ruled "He would abide by the common law of the realm." For nearly 50 years the practice thus settled was followed, when the clergy, to get rid of the trial by jury, resorted to the expedient of commencing their suits in the courts of equity.—My first object is to apply a remedy to this deviation of the laws of the land by courts of equity usurping a right to pronounce on matters of fact without the intervention of a jury, as is done by deciding on moduses, being what is termed rank, or from their amount arguing a more modern date than that of Richard 1st. The courts of equity pronouncing on the rankness of moduses is a usurpation on the indisputable rights of juries. It stands unsanctioned by any precedent; contrary, indeed, to the established laws of the realm. Nor is the practice of equity courts regulated by an equal measure of justice between the tithe owner and tithe payer. In all cases where the church prays an issue to try the case before a jury, it is granted,—not so to the landholder. This seems to me a very partial and arbitrary mode of proceeding. My object is, to re-establish the right of the subject to a trial by jury on all matters of fact. This practice of the courts to decide on rank moduses without the intervention of a jury has been attempted to be defended by impeaching the impartiality of juries in tithe causes. But at no period
1074
of our history did the value and estimation of juries stand higher. Such senseless invectives have a complete answer by referring to the decisions of juries on tithe causes, in the last seven years, which are so decidedly in favour of the clergy.—The next point to which I would draw the attention of the House is to what are termed compositions—a composition real, or composition made between parson, patron, ordinary, and the parishioners, by deed—by which perpetual composition in lieu of tithes was established. These agreements, prior to the 13th Eliz. were valid. Doubtless numbers of such were made before they were prohibited. The proof of these rests solely on the deed of agreement after the lapse of 246 years. I entreat the House to consider in how few instances can such a title be established. After four times the period that would bar the Crown, no security results to the possessor of tithes. On what grounds of justice should not perpetual and uninterrupted enjoyment beyond all memory be admitted to prove the existence of such a deed? Every day, every year, must augment the jeopardy in which such property is placed, if this practice be suffered to continue. Subsequent to the 13th Eliz. compositions were made by parson, patron, ordinary, and parishioners, by deeds sanctioned by decrees of chancery. The legality of such proceedings was not questioned till 1765, when, in the case Blair v. lord Cholmley and others, they were declared illegal. It will be sufficient to show what has resulted from this decision to induce the legislature to correct the flagrant injustice that has sprung from it. I refer gentlemen to the case of the rev. Paploe Ward, rector of Cottenham. The composition in this case was made by deed, bearing date 1595, and sanctioned by a decree in chancery. The lands given in lieu of tithes are known by the name of the undertakers' or adventurers' lands—most probably on account of a drainage. After an enjoyment of upwards of 200 years this was set aside, and the rev. doctor recovered his tithes. And because the legal representatives of the lands cannot now be all discovered, the rector holds the land and the tithes both. To meet and remedy such cases, I would propose, that where compositions by deed or decree of chancery shall be set aside, the lands so given should be held by the churchwardens for the use of the poor, till the property shall be legally claimed. This is referring them to the use of those

1075
for whose benefit the church in early times was bound to provide, and whence, probably, originated the payment of tithes. At the reformation a great many of the lands belonging to monasteries and religious houses passed into the hands of the Crown, and were disposed of to various purchasers. In very many cases, parties, claiming under these grants, are not able to make put, after so long a lapse of time, that their lands were parcel of such abbey lands; but have proof that such lands have always been enjoyed, exempt from the payment of tithes. Whilst the rector or vicar has constantly received tithes of all other parts of the parish, and never of these lands, yet this is not sufficient, and tithes are nevertheless recoverable. This is a case strongly calling for remedy,— There is a further class of tithe-owners, the lay-impropriator. These lay-impropriators have all the rights of spiritual persons whom they represent—and the same mode of decision is applied to them; though by the 32d Henry 8th they are become temporal inheritances with every right incidental to such property. The deeds, sanctioning such sales from the first grantees, are, in a great majority of cases, I believe, lost or destroyed; yet, monstrous as it may appear, the courts of exchequer and chancery refuse to admit uninterrupted enjoyment as a proof of the existence of such conveyances. In the case of the corporation of Bury v. Evans, 1735, it was decided the court would not presume the existence of a deed, in the case of a lay-impropriator, though the non-payment of tithes beyond all memory was made out. It is fairly to be presumed, rectors, vicars, and lay-impropriators, have been encouraged to institute suits in chancery and the exchequer, for the purpose of setting aside moduses, real compositions, and exemptions, merely on the chance of succeeding by the default of the defendants' title from loss of deeds, and have, in too many instances, been successful. To stop such disgraceful proceedings, the legislature must adopt measures such as I have now to recommend to them. Short of this the landholder will be despoiled of his legal rights, by the church. Without some legislative measure such as I propose, nothing can prevent the church from plundering the community and destroying those exemptions to which they are justly entitled.—It is not my intention to ask more of the House than to suffer the bill to be brought in, and read a first time, in
1076
order that it may be printed and circulated throughout the kingdom. I have now to move for leave to bring in a bill to amend the laws relative to moduses, prescriptions, and exemptions from tithes.
Sir W. Scottwould not resist the motion for the introduction of the bill, but although he coincided in much of what had fallen from the hon. gentleman, he should be sorry that it should go forth to the public, that he could ultimately agree to the great innovation which the bill proposed to make.
Sir S. Romillysupported the bill, although he feared it was too late in the session to give an opportunity sufficiently to discuss so important a subject. He confirmed all the statements of the hon. mover with respect to the inconveniences of the present law, and particularly the circumstance that long possession, which strengthened all other property, weakened church property; since, instead of a prescriptive title being obtained in 60 years, it was necessary to go back 600 years, in order to establish a claim.
Mr. Lockhartcontended, that such a bill would be most valuable, in order to settle the titles to church property, and put them on the best foundation.
Leave was granted to bring in the bill.

STATE OF IRELAND.
Sir J. New port, in rising to call the attention of the House to the necessity of an inquiry into the state of Ireland, lamented the evident indifference that appeared to prevail among the members towards that subject, by the very thin attendance then present. His sole wish was to compel ministers to give some pledge, that during the ensuing prorogation, they would cause a revision of the state of that interesting portion of the empire. Since the Union sixteen years had elapsed, and Ireland had a right to have its affairs fully and impartially examined. He had early in the session drawn the attention of the House to the state of the finances of that country, but this consideration was waived by a motion for the previous question, on the pretence that it came more immediately within the purview of the finance committee. The report of that committee had been brought in, and fully confirmed the distressing statement he had made of the revenues of Ireland. This should be inquired into, and the House might be assured, that if it were not fairly taken up, Ireland would force herself on their attention.

1077
Since the Union this country had been engaged in a tremendous conflict, which had in some degree warranted the unwillingness of the House to enter into the inquiry; but if on the recurrence of peace, the House were not prepared to enter upon the question, he could not conceive when they would be disposed to consider it. To obtain this object, he should move, "That an humble address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, praying that his Royal Highness will be pleased to direct such deliberate and accurate inquiry to be made, during the prorogation of parliament, into the state and condition of the people of Ireland, as may enable this House, at the commencement of the ensuing session, to enter with vigour and effect into a complete investigation of the causes, nature, and extent, of the evils which afflict that part of the United Kingdom; and to devise such salutary and efficacious remedies, framed in the spirit of British constitutional legislation, as may appear to our dispassionate judgment most adequate to effect their complete and permanent removal; and in the impressive terms of the act for the Union of the two Kingdoms, 'to promote and secure the essential interests of Great Britain and Ireland, and to consolidate the strength, power, and resources of the British empire.'"
Sir G. Hillcontended, that if the House should consent to go into the inquiry, it would kindle the animosities subsisting between the two parties in Ireland. He moved as an amendment that the other orders of the day be now read.
Sir N. Colthurst, in dissenting from the motion, did not mean to deny that many grievances existed in Ireland, which ought to be redressed; but it implied a want of confidence in the government, which he, for one, did not feel.
The House divided on the Amendment: Ayes, 59; Noes, 10.

List of the Minority.

Atherley, Arthur

Tierney, rt. hon. G.

Barham, J.

Waldegrave, H. W.

Browne, D.

Wood, Matthew

Duncannon, visc.

TELLERS.

Newman, R. W.

Gordon, Robert

Parnell, sir Henry

Newport, sir John

Ponsonby, rt. hon. G.