HC Deb 22 May 1833 vol 18 cc46-59
Mr. Robert Grant

moved the second reading of the Jews' Civil Disabilities Bill.

Sir Robert Inglis

opposed the Motion. This subject was one of the greatest importance, and he believed there was none against which an appeal could be made to the country with more certainty of success; but that was not the way in which he wished to see this or any other great question decided. He would oppose it in every stage, because he looked upon it as bad in principle and pregnant with the worst consequences. The question reduced itself to this: was the supreme legislative authority of the country to be Christian, professing one common faith and one common hope, or was it to consist of those who denied Christianity, who regarded the Christ himself and the most sacred characters of our religion as blasphemers, as idolaters, as persons hateful to God and accursed among men? The present was not a light or trivial question, and he regretted that none of his Majesty's Ministers were present, with the exception of the right hon. President of the Board of Control, who probably attended because the subject had been brought forward by his right hon. relative. In his opinion, the members of the Government should have been in their places, and if they were not prepared to take a decided course in relation to a bill so important, they ought, at least, to condescend to listen to what could be urged on the question. He was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Robert Grant) had not proposed the second reading in a speech to which he might have replied; but as that had not been done, it only remained for him to answer some of the observations made by the right hon. Gentleman on a former evening. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman had fallen into one or two misstatements as to the precedents to be found in the treatment of the Jews by other nations; not that he (Sir Robert Inglis) admitted, that we were to be governed by such precedents, but, precedents having been referred to, it would be as well that they should be stated correctly. The right hon. Gentleman stated, that in Hamburgh and Prussia, the condition of the Jews was very different from what it ever had been in this country, and that he wished to raise British. Jews to the same level as the Jews of Prussia. Now, it appeared from the appendix to the Commons Report of 1816, that, according to the constitution of Hamburgh, no person not of the Lutheran persuasion was eligible to civil office; so that there existed the best evidence to prove, that up to 1816, the eligibility of the Jews to civil office, which the right hon. Gentleman had assumed, did not exist in Hamburgh. The result also of some inquiries which he had made, and of some trustworthy communications which he had received, enabled him to state, that in Prussia, in the years 1811–12, the. Jews were permitted to purchase land, to exercise trades and callings, and to take academic honours; but the question of eligibility to civil office was reserved, and had never since been decided, while the admission of Jews to academic honours which formerly was the law, was repealed. But, admitting the entire facts as originally stated, what did they prove more than this—that in a country with an absolute government at the time, and which was still without a liberal constitution, the Jews had been admitted to certain privileges, which under an absolute or quasi absolute government, might be extended and withdrawn in the same breath? What example was this for a government such as ours, supposing the facts to be precisely as stated by the right hon. Gentleman, which, however, he denied? The right hon. Gentleman had also instanced the cases of France and America; and he would then take the opportunity to correct a mistake into which he had himself fallen, in reference to one of those countries. He had said on a former occasion, that although Jews were legally admissible to civil office in France and the United States, yet that the law had never been carried into effect, and that no Jew had ever sat in the French Chambers or the American Congress. He was not satisfied, that he had misstated the fact as regarded America. It had been stated that Jews were members of some of the local legislative assemblies, but it did not appear that they ever sat in Congress. With respect to France, he bad been informed, that five Jews had sat in the Chamber of Deputies; he could not say whether the statement was correct or not, but, having no reason to suspect the motives of his informant, be supposed that the fact was so, and that he had been betrayed into a mistake on the subject. He argued, however, that the House ought to look at the question, not in reference to the precedents established by other states, differently circumstanced, but with reference to the spirit and practice of the British Constitution and the principles of the Christian religion. We should not be governed by the example of a latitudinarian republic on the one hand, nor by that of a worse than latitudinarian monarchy on the other. In Prussia, he believed, there were colleges exclusively for the education of the Jews, and perhaps it was to such establishments his hon. friend (Mr. Grant) alluded. In one of the states of America, Pennsylvania, there was this remarkable principle of legislation, that if a person believed in a Supreme Ruler no further question was to be asked as to his religion, but that no person could be admissible to civil office who did not believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. This excluded the principle of latitudinarian indifference upon which the present Bill proceeded, which he feared was based on a disregard for their common Christianity. He did not mean to charge his right hon. friend who brought in the Bill with this kind of indifference, but such as actually felt it, would proceed exactly in the same manner as his right hon. friend had proceeded. If the argument for the admissibility of the Jews were good for anything, it applied with equal force to every natural-born subject of the King, whether Turk, heathen, or infidel. There were peculiarities in the planners and customs of the Jews which incapacitated them for incorporation with the people of any other country. This appeared even in the common article of food. He remarked, that during the war application was made from Brighton (as we understood) to have a person sent down there to prepare meat in the peculiar way required by this people. They never did, and never could, consider themselves in any other light than as strangers and sojourners in the land. This, however, was a question which ought to be decided, not upon trivial, but upon the highest grounds of policy. The fact was, that a Jew could never be made an Englishman, even though he be born here. So long as he looked forward to another kingdom, his sympathies would be given more to a Jew in Paris or in Warsaw, than to a person residing in the same or in the next country to him. It had been said, that if they were deprived of civil power they ought not to be subjected to civil duties. The performance of civil duties was only a just return for the protection they received from the State, and gave them no just claim to civil power. He had heard it said by one of the most eloquent men who adorned that House, the hon. member for Leeds, that the denial of political power was persecution, and that the principle of such denial would carry victims to an auto da fe. Now, the hon. and learned Gentleman's own friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had, as stated this evening, prevented the agents of candidates from voting; was he therefore prepared to burn such agents; or any exciseman, whom he equally deprived of the elective franchise? If the present boon was not a fit one for a Christian legislature to grant, it was not a fit one for the Jewish people to receive. There were two great divisions of the Jews, and the Jews who yet preserved their Scriptural character did not desire the boon proposed to them by his right hon. friend. Had any synagogue petitioned in favour of the measure? While the Catholic question was under consideration, the Roman Catholic bishops and clergy expressed an opinion on it, and sent in petitions as well as the laity. There was nothing of the kind in the present case. The Jews, as a religious body, had sent in no petitions. There were Jews who, on conscientious grounds, were averse to any such concession; and he had received a communication to that effect from one of them, the Rabbi Crool, a learned man, teacher of Hebrew in one of our universities. He said in his letter, "The start for emancipation, as it is called, was got up by a few obscure persons of the Jewish persuasion who thirsted for worldly honours. Remember this," said he to his brethren, "you can be no freemen except ill the land of Canaan. One Jew, indeed, in Egypt, and three or four in Babylon, were admitted to places of trust and honour, but this happened by reason of inspiration and a mission from above. Jews," said he, "whether they spend two days, or two months, or twenty years in a country, are equally strangers and sojourners. They must look to another home and another country." The right hon. Gentleman had not shown that the Jews desired this change; and if he had done so, still he never could show that the change ought to be made. The effect of the change would be to unchristianise the land, and it would be impossible, upon similar principles, to resist the claims of admission to the Legislature of any sect, whatever its colour or creed, so that the Members of it were subjects of the King. The Jews viewed Christ as an impostor, and a blasphemer: they spoke of him always as "the hanged one;" and with such opinions how could they be admitted to the British Legislature without Unchristianising it? The hon. Baronet concluded by moving, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

Mr. Sinclair

said, that in seconding the Motion of his hon. friend, he should not detain the House above a very few minutes. In fact, it appeared to him that this question resolved itself into the narrowest possible compass. He had only one single argument to advance in support of his opinion—namely, that this was a Christian country and a Christian Legislature, and that it was inconsistent with their duty and allegiance towards the God whom they worshipped, to admit those persons to occupy the highest station, or to become Members of this House, by whom he, whom we acknowledged as over all, God blessed for ever, was denounced as a crucified impostor. They would desecrate the religion of the country by such a course, and obliterate that Christian character which had hitherto distinguished our legislative assemblies, and which was recognized in the very prayers by which the proceedings of that House were daily ushered in. He knew, that in these days of religious liberalism, he should be denounced as a fanatic, on account of the sentiments which he now ventured to express; but for this he was fully prepared. Being convinced that he was discharging his duty conscientiously towards his country and towards his God, and that he was not actuated by any feeling of unkindness or disrespect towards the Jews, whose respectability and moral conduct he did not presume to disparage, he should offer his decided opposition to this Bill, and rejoice to be counted worthy to suffer shame in such a cause.

Mr. Buckingham

, said, that when he entered the House, he had no intention to take part in the Debate, though he should on this as on a former occasion, give the measure the support of his vote. Some of the observations, however, that had fallen from the hon. mover and seconder of the Amendment, appeared to him so extraordinary that he felt it his duty to oppose them. The hon. Baronet, the member for the University of Oxford, had objected to the principle of the Bill, because it would admit Hindoos, Mahommedans, and parsees, equally with Jews, to a seat in the British Legislature. In practice, he did not conceive there would be anything to apprehend on that score—as it was exceedingly improbable that such persons would become candidates for that honour. But in principle, he saw no objection whatever, to the admission of any British subject, who should be freely chosen, by a legally qualified constituency, to a seat in that House, whatever might be his peculiar views on religious subjects. The qualities required for a good legislator, were, intelligence, experience, and integrity; and these were possessed by Jews in as large a degree as by Christians. Of their intelligence few would doubt; indeed, the general impression was, that in matters of business they were so much more clever and penetrating than ourselves, that it required no ordinary care to match them in skilful negotiation. In experience they were quite our equals, as their range of observation and their sphere of transactions was generally more enlarged than our own. And in integrity, they stood as high in all pecuniary and mercantile obligations, as any sect or class of people that could be named. In all political and moral qualities, they were, therefore, fit to be Representatives; and whatever might be their religious opinions, they were answerable for these, not to any human tribunal, but to the great Judge of all. The same arguments which had so triumphantly carried the Catholic Relief Bill, applied equally to this measure of Emancipation for the Jews, as they were founded on one grand principle of toleration—that no peculiarity of opinion on religious matters, no singularity of speculative but conscientious belief, ought to deprive any British subject of an equal participation with all other British subjects of any civil right and privilege of the State. It had been contended, that the Jews were so exclusive a people, that they were not to be trusted on that account. He confessed that his acquaintance with the Jewish nation in various countries of the earth, induced him to believe that they were no more exclusive that the people of any other sect. Like all other men they were the creatures of circumstances, and of the legislation under which they lived. In countries where they were most severely persecuted, there they associated more closely together for consolation. In countries where they were most liberally treated, there their affections became more and more expanded beyond their narrow circle. Throughout the Eastern world their degradation was extreme, because the treatment they received was cruelly unjust. In Europe they were a more enlightened and a more elevated race, because their persecutions were less severe; and whatever of inferiority or disqualification remained to adhere to them, it was in our power to remove: as by placing them on a level with ourselves in the enjoyment of every civil and political right, they would soon become our equals in every moral and intellectual virtue. This principle was to him so clear—that man was the creature of circumstance and legislation, that good men were made bad by coercion and oppression, and bad men converted into good by conciliation and by freedom—that he should deem it unnecessary to enlarge upon it, by way of argument or proof: but with the permission of the House, he would mention one striking historical fact, connected with the history of the parsees in India, in illustration of the truth of the sentiment here professed. It was this:—At the period of the Mohammedan conquest of Persia, the inhabitants of that country were chiefly fire-worshippers, or followers of Zoroaster. The proselytizing spirit of Mohammedanism made the great bulk of the people converts to that religion. A small remnant remained, however, faithful to the doctrines of their fathers, and immovable in their attachment to their opinions. These became the objects of especial persecution; and, by a long series of oppressions, they ultimately became so poor, so vicious, and so degraded, that the earth perhaps hardly contained upon its surface a more truly contemptible class of men. A portion of them were led by circumstances to emigrate to Guzerat, one of the provinces of India, where, meeting with somewhat better treatment, they greatly improved. Soon after, they proceeded further south, and settled in the Island of Bombay, then under the government of the Portuguese, where they were admitted to the equal enjoyment of all the civil privileges enjoyed by the Portuguese themselves. From that period they began to improve in every respect; and at the present moment, while the Guebrs, or fire-worshippers of the original race, now remaining in Persia, are still among the most ignorant and depraved of the inhabitants of that country, the Parsees in India, a part of the self-same stock, have advanced so rapidly in improvement, that they are among the most intelligent and virtuous of all the Indian tribes—well acquainted with the English language—versed in European sciences—forming partners in some of the first English houses of business (a distinguished Parsee, at Bombay, having been a partner in the firm of Sir Charles Forbes, lately a Member of that House); and though originally the inhabitants of an inland country, Persia, without any maritime fleet, and where a ship was scarcely ever seen, they had now become the finest ship-builders in the world; constructing in the arsenals of Bombay, ships of war of the largest class, for the British navy, which were drafted, moulded, built, and launched entirely by Parsees; and, on their arrival in this country, were the envy of the British builder in the dock-yards of Plymouth, Portsmouth, Deptford, and Sheerness; and the admiration of British seamen, wherever they were seen. One word more, and he would conclude the few observations which he had felt it his duty to offer to the House. The hon. Member who had seconded the Amendment had said, that the very circumstance of our commencing the proceedings of each day with Christian prayer offered up in the name of the Saviour, was with him a sufficient reason for the exclusion of the Jews. Now, he begged to say, that though this might be a reason that might operate upon the Jews themselves, so as to prevent their attending the House while such prayers were offering up, it could be no possible reason why we should not admit them if they chose to attend. The public worship in every Christian Church commenced with prayers, and the name of the Saviour was invoked throughout. But would any one contend that this was a reason why we should by law exclude all Jews from entering such Churches? That was surely their affair, and not ours. Nay, so contrary was our conduct to the principles thus avowed, that we had religious societies expressly formed to promote the conversion of the Jews, and we did all in our power to persuade them to attend places of Christian worship, and become believers in the faith that we ourselves professed. After all, however, the question whether Jews should find admission into the British Senate, was one which depended rather upon the electors of England, than upon the Jews themselves. In an un-reformed Parliament, when seats for boroughs were bought and sold openly in the market, there might be great facility in a wealthy Jew becoming a Member of the House of Commons, by the purchase of a seat from a patron or a peer. But under the present constitution of Parliament, he would have to present himself to some independent constituency, and must obtain the preference of the majority of the electors before he could be returned as duly chosen. There was no one who knew the prejudices still lingering among the uneducated classes against the Jews, that could conceive this an easy task, or a very probable event. But if it should be so, if a free constituency should choose for their Representative an able an intelligent a liberal and an upright man, without considering his religious opinions to be a disqualification, why should the law interpose to prevent their choice being carried into effect, as freely as the choice of any other body of electors in the kingdom? The portals of the Senate should be thrown open to talent and to integrity, in whatever class it might be found. Religious belief should he held too sacred to be violated or disturbed by man except in the way of persuasion and of prayer. Christianity was of too noble, too exalted, and too divine a character, to require such unworthy aids as persecution and oppression; and they who dreaded lest the admission of a single Jew into the Senate of the land, should Un-christianize the country, and destroy the religion of the Gospel, passed, themselves, the severest censure of condemnation on that very faith, in which they professed to believe, but the foundations of which they thought so unstable as to be thus easily overthrown! For these, and for other reasons, which, had time permitted, he would have stated more in detail, but from which, at the present late hour, he would abstain, he should give this liberal measure of his Majesty's Government his very humble but sincere and cordial support.

Mr. Finch

was entirely opposed to the Bill. It had been admitted by the right hon. Gentleman who had proposed the Bill, that few or no petitions had been presented from the parties interested in its favour, which he (Mr. Finch) could not but regard as an innovation of the British Constitution. The real question for the consideration of the House, was not one as to the degradation, but of the exaltation, of the Jewish nation. In matters of right the Jews were already placed on the same footing as the rest of his Majesty's subjects; and, unless he was greatly mistaken, they enjoyed the privileges of other subjects with reference to the protection of their lives and properties and the right of speech, and, indeed, all other rights that were enjoyed by all other classes, with the exception only of certain conventional rights, in which respect they were only similarly circumstanced to many individuals who did not even yet enjoy the right to vote for Representatives in Parliament. He must maintain, that no man was a fit and proper person to fill the important office of a Judge in this country who denied a most important portion of the Common Law of the land. The proposition tended to the overthrow of the Church establishment, and he was inclined to believe, that it was on this account that the Bill had obtained the support of many individuals. However, he was convinced, that the great body of the Protestants of this country were decidedly opposed to the proposition, and he should feel it his duty to vote against it.

Sir Oswald Mosley

said, that if the Bill now before the House were permitted to pass into a law, the Legislature would no longer deserve the name of Christians. He should oppose the measure for the removal of the disabilities of Jews, whose case bore no analogy, as had been argued, to that of Roman Catholics. The Roman Catholics though many errors might have crept into their Church, were Christians, and he believed, that among them there were as many pious and conscientious communicants as belonged to any other Christian body or sect. Any concessions which had been made to the Roman Catholics afforded no precedent for putting upon the same par with them a class of men who blasphemed the sacred name of Jesus. [Cries of "No, no."] Hon. Members might express their dissent from this statement, but he should be glad to hear the sentiments of the Jews themselves. He did not wish to speak ill of the Jews as a body, but he believed his statement was correct. If the proposed Bill was permitted to pass, it was on the verge of possibility—nay, it was not unlikely—that a Jew might be called upon to fill the Speaker's Chair. In such a case could he be present during prayers; or, if so, would not it be a solemn mockery of Christianity? In short, he for one hoped never to see such a Bill carried, for he thought such an event would open the Hood-gates of ultra-toleration upon the Legislature of the land. By passing such a Bill the House would be Christian only nominally and not in reality, and would inflict an irreparable injury upon the institutions of the country.

Dr. Lushington

said, some of the hon. Members, who were the loudest and most vehement in their professions of Christianity, seemed at the very moment of making these professions, to overlook the chiefest Christian doctrine, inasmuch as they imputed intentions, and ascribed motives to an intelligent and upright race of men, with a view to fix on them deprivations, degradations, and exclusions, against which, if the suffered one-twentieth part of them in their own proper persons, they would cry out as a grievous injustice, and as the offspring of the most malignant intentions. He would send them back to their Bible, he would tell them to study it with greater advantage, and they would learn from it, that one of its great doctrines was to do unto others as they would be done unto. Those who opposed this Bill were hound to show, that mischief to the State would ensue from removing the disqualifications, which, as the general rule, were, by the Constitution, not to be imposed on any class without some great necessity. Much reliance had been placed on the doctrines, that Parliament was exclusively Christian; he denied that there was any foundation for making that assertion. He wished to know in which of our great Constitutional Authorities, that far-famed doctrine was laid down? If he had found it, he would not be contented with any authorities; he would have gone to the foundation of the doctrine itself; and if he had found, that the doctrine was productive of evil, or produced injustice to any class of men, he would have been one of the first to erase such a law from the Statute-book. The complaint was, that the Jews were unsocial; and were they to be made butter by being kept excluded from society? He could not anticipate any of those great evils which had been mentioned as likely to result from qualifying Jews to sit in that House. It was a matter which he thought might be fairly left to the discrimination of electors, who would not fail to select the most competent individuals. He really thought the electors did not require the nursing care of the hon. Baronet. In a politico-economical point of view, it was a great folly to limit the market for virtue and talent—which would be the case if this Bill were rejected. The opposition to it appeared to him to spring from the cloister. He did not mean in saying that, to allude to the old ladies who resided there. He denied that the Christian religion could be at all endangered by such a concession. Every objection which had been brought forward on the present occasion had been also advanced in opposition to the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, and of the Catholic disabilities. The one set of men had been denounced as idolaters, and the other as blasphemers; but where had been the injury? He agreed with the hon. member for Sheffield, that if the natural course of human motives were to be consulted, there would be little doubt that the conduct of the Jews, if emancipated, would redound to their honour and to our benefit.

Mr. Edward Buller

opposed the Bill. He was of opinion that on the same principle that a qualification in respect of property was necessary for a seat in the legislature, a qualification with reference to religion might be demanded. He had heard no argument yet advanced in support of the measure which would not equally apply to the concession of universal suffrage. The present measure was calculated to favour the notion which he had seen maintained, that religion had no influence on daily conduct, which was regulated by a conventional morality.

Mr. Plumptre

observed, that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Dr. Lushington) had referred the House to the Bible, and he found there that "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow." Those for whose benefit this Bill was intended rejected that name, and on that ground he opposed the Bill.

Mr. Finn

defied the hon. Member to show that our Saviour had intended to leave any stigma on the Jews. It would be well if those who talked of Christianity practised charity, which was torn up by the roots by persons who called themselves Christians. The proof lay on those who opposed the introduction of the Jews into the House.

Mr. Petre

observed, that if he believed this Bill was dangerous to the constitution, he should be ready to resist it; but believing that difference of religious sentiments was not a sufficient ground for exclusion from civil rights, he supported the second reading in order to prove that he was not actuated by any of the sordid motives imputed to Roman Catholics. He considered that every one had a right to worship God without being liable to civil incapacity.

Lord John Russell

was unwilling to lose the opportunity of declaring his approbation of the principle of this Bill. As a question of practice, he could not understand how the Constitution could be exposed to danger by the Bill. The number of Jews in England was 27,000; three or four out of them might be called to the Bar, live or six to inferior offices of State, and one or two to seats in that House; but they might be sure they would never hear from these latter any sentiments which would lead to the opposition of the peculiar tenets of the Christian and the Jewish religions. But although it was of no great importance as a question of practice, yet it was of great importance as a question of principle; for if differences in religious opinions were to lead to civil disabilities, they ought not to stop at exclusion from Parliament, but ought to go the fullest extent—even to banishment and death. They should either adopt the principle in its complete application, or not at all. He had never seen any reason why a Jew should not fulfil all the duties of a citizen: why he should not act as honestly, bravely, and patriotically as any other English subject.

The House divided on the Motion that the Bill be read a second time—Ayes 159; Noes 52—Majority 107.

Bill read a second time.

List of the AYES.
ENGLAND. Clay, W.
Aglionby, H. A. Clayton, Col. W. R.
Attwood, T. Collier, J.
Bainbridge, E. T. Curteis, H. B.
Baring, F. Dillwyn, L. W.
Barnett, C. J. Dundas, Hon. Sir R.
Beauclerk, Major Dykes, F. B.
Bernal, R. Ebrington, Visct.
Biddulph, R. M. Evans, W.
Bish, T. Evans, Colonel
Blake, Sir F. Ewart, W.
Blamire, W. Fenton, Captain L.
Bowes, J. Ferguson, Gen. Sir R.
Briggs, R. Fordwich, Visct.
Brougham, J. Fox, S. L.
Buckingham, J. S. Fox, Lieut. Col.
Buller, J. W. Gaskell, D.
Buller, C. Godson, R.
Bulwer, H. L. Goring, H. D.
Burdett, Sir F. Grote, G.
Byng, G. Hall, B.
Campbell, Sir J. Handley, B.
Carter, J. B. Handley, H.
Cayley, Sir G. Hawkins, J. H.
Cayley, E. S. Heathcote, J. J.
Chaytor, Sir W. Heron, Sir R.
Childers, J. W. Hill, M. D.
Hodgson, J. Vernon, Hon. G. J.
Horne, Sir W. Vivian, J. H.
Hoskins, K. Wigney, I. N.
Howard, P. H. Wilbraham, G.
Hume, J. Williams, Colonel G.
Hutt, W. Willoughby, Sir H.
James, W. Wood, G. W.
Jerningham, Hon. H. V. S. Wood, Alderman
Wall, C. B.
Johnstone, Sir J. V. Walter, J.
Kemp, T. R. Warburton, H.
Lee, J. Lee Ward, H. G.
Labouchere, H. Watson, Hon. R.
Lambton, H. Young, G. F.
Leech, J.
Lester, B. L. SCOTLAND.
Lloyd, J. H. Abercromby, Rt. Hn. J.
Lumley, Visct. Adam, Admiral C.
Maberly, C. Bannerman, A.
Macaulay, T. B. Dunlop, Capt. J.
Mangles, J. Ewing, J.
Marjoribanks, S. Fergusson, R.
Marshall, J. Fleming, Hn. Adm.
Martin, J. Gillon, W. D.
Molyneux, Lord Grant, Rt. Hon. C.
Moreton, hon. A. H. Hay, Col. A. L.
Morpeth, V. Jeffrey, Rt. Hon. F.
Mostyn, Hon. E. M. L. Kennedy, T. F.
Ord, W. H. Macleod, R.
Palmer, General Marjoribanks, C.
Palmer, C. F. Maxwell, Sir J.
Parker, J. Oliphant, L.
Parrott J. Ormelie, Earl of
Pease, J. Oswald, R. A.
Pendarves, E. W. W. Parnell, Rt. Hn. Sir H.
Peter, W. Traill, G.
Petre, Hon. E.
Philips, M. IRELAND.
Pinney, J. Acheson, Visct.
Ponsonby, Hon. W. Barron, W.
Potter, R. Bellew, R. M.
Poulter, J. Blake, M.
Pryme, G. Butler, Hon. P.
Penleaze, J. Evans, G.
Ramsbottom, J. Finn, W. F.
Rider, T. Fitzgerald, T.
Robinson, G. R. Fitzsimon, C.
Rolfe, R. M. Fitzsimon, N.
Romilly, J. Grattan, H.
Romilly, E. Howard, R.
Russell, Lord J. Jephson, C. D. O.
Russell, W. C. Lalor, P.
Sanford, E. Lambert, H.
Scott, Sir E. Lynch, A. H.
Seale, Colonel Macnamara, Major W.
Sebright, Sir J. Macnamara, F.
Smith, J. A. Nagle, Sir R.
Smith, J. O'Brien, C.
Strickland, G. O'Connell, D.
Strutt, E. O'Connell, M.
Tancred, H. W. O'Connell, J.
Thicknesse, R. O'Connell, C.
Throckmorton, R. G. O'Connell, M.
Tooke, W. O'Connor, D.
Torrens, Col. R. O'Connor, F.
Townley, R. G. O'Ferrall, R. M.
Trelawney, W. L. S. O'Grady, Col. S.
Roche, W. Vigors, N. A.
Roche, D. Walker, C. A.
Roe, J. Wallace, T.
Ronayne, D.
Ruthven, E. S. TEILERS.
Ruthven, E. Grant, R.
Talbot, J. Lushington, Dr. S.
Tennent, J. E.
List of the NOES.
ENGLAND. Stormont, Visct.
Ashley, Lord Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Bankes, W. J. Verney, Sir H.
Bell, M. Vyvyan, Sir R.
Blankstone, W. S. Williams, R.
Bruce, Lord E.
Bulkeley, Sir R. W. SCOTLAND.
Buller, E. Arbuthnot, Hon. H.
Burrell, Sir C. Gordon, Capt. W.
Calley, T. Hay, Sir J.
Duncombe, Hon. W. Johnston, J. J. H.
Estcourt, T. G. B. [...]oos, H.
Fancourt, Major Stuart, Captain C.
Finch, G.
Forster, G. S. IRELAND.
Freemantle, Sir T. Cooper, E. J.
Gladstone, W. E. Corry, Hon. H. L.
Gronow, Capt. R. H. Gladstone, T.
Grosvenor, Earl Hayes, Sir E.
Hughes, H. Hill, Lord M.
Halford, H. Lefroy, A.
Henniker, Lord Martin, T.
Irton, J. Maxwell, H.
Lincoln, Earl of Perceval, Colonel
Lowther, Hon. Col. Shaw, F.
Mosley, Sir O. Verner, Col. W.
Plumptre, J. P.
Pollock, F. TEILERS.
Rickford, W. Inglis, Sir R.
Stanley, E. Sinclair, G.
Paired off.
FOR. AGAINST.
Divett, E. Archdall, G.
Duncannon, Lord Chaplin, Colonel
Dundas, Captain Cooper, Hon. A.
Hudson, Thomas Dare, R. W. Hall
Humphery, J. Eastnor, Lord
Key, Sir J. Hardy, J.
Oswald, J. Hardinge, Sir H.
Tennyson, Rt. Hn. C. Knatchbull, Sir E.
Tynte, C. J. K. Lamont, N.
Wood, Charles Lennox, Lord A.
Milton, Lord