HC Deb 31 March 1841 vol 57 cc754-67

Mr. Divett moved the third reading of the Jews' declaration bill.

Mr. W. Gladstone

rose, pursuant to the notice he had given, to move as an amendment, that it be read a third time that day six months. If it was possible to draw a broad line of principle between a bill to admit Jews to municipal offices, and one to permit them to hold other offices, including seats in Parliament, the subject would be different from that which they had now to discuss; but he was satisfied that such a line could not be drawn; and the advocates of this measure must, to be consistent, follow it up with another, throwing open to Jews seats in Parliament, and all other offices which might be held by Christians. On that point there would be but little difference, so that it would be of no use to argue it. He would, however, state his reasons for objecting to the bill, and, without leading the House into theological questions, such as had been urged on a former discussion, he would state the grounds of his objection in that way which appeared most plain to himself, and most likely to be intelligible to the House. His reason for opposing the bill was this—that the profession of the Jews was of itself in the nature of a disqualification for legislative office in a country where Christianity was interwoven with the institutions of the State. It had been said on high authority, that Christianity was part and parcel of the law of England. He would not stop to inquire how far in strict truth that dictum was tenable. It was not necessary that he should define it. It would be sufficient for his purpose to state, that in our general practice our laws were modelled on the principles of Christianity, and they had a solemn recognition of those principles in a practice—which he trusted would never be discontinued—of commencing the daily proceedings in both Houses of Parliament by the solemn invocation and worship of the Almighty. He would not travel into a religious question, seldom entered upon in that House with advantage, but he would say, that the practice of this daily worship implied what he had already stated—that they were to set before them as the object of all their measures, in the words of the service "the promotion of true religion and the glory of God." Such being the case, they were not at liberty, according to the sense of the Constitution, to include every religion as the true one. The question then really before the House as it appeared to him was this, whether they would consent to destroy the distinctive Christianity of the Constitution? He had heard much sneering on a former occasion at an expression used by his lion. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford—namely, that they were about to unchristianize England by this bill. When his hon. Friend used this expression he knew that an attempt would be made to put a misconstruction on his meaning; but his hon. Friend did not conceive that lie could use a more appropriate term, or one more approximating eyen to the nature of a truism with regard to this subject. The test for office was at present a Christian test—this test the bill went to remove and to annul. Was not this to unchristianize? The profession of Christianity was made distinctly and clearly the qualification for the discharge of the functions with which the bill proposed to deal. He did not know whether, by speaking thus, he might not be rendering himself liable to the imputation of "sheer intolerance" from the noble Lord and from hon. Gentlemen opposite. But the ground which he occupied, was precisely the same ground which he would occupy if he were discussing a purely civil question, and speaking as to any other class which he did not consider sufficiently qualified to discharge the duties imposed on them by the Constitution, Let him guard himself in speaking of the Jews as a body. He hoped, that it was not imagined that he intended to speak of them as a class with disrespect. If it were true, as who could doubt, that there were very many honest, upright, and zealous-minded men amongst the Jews of England, the more entirely true such an allegation was, the stronger was the objection to investing them with these privileges, because it was the more impossible that an earnest Jew could apply his mind to anything that tended to the promotion of Christian objects. But further, in speaking of the Jews as a class, he did not pretend to say that every particular Jew was necessarily unfit for every municipal office in the country. It was very possible that they would find individual Jews who would discharge particular duties better than many of themselves. What he said was this—that, in every case of this description, they must judge by the general character of the class, and the business of the State was, to choose those most competent for the particular duties, and appoint them to office according to the standard and measure of their competence. He would therefore argue this question, just as he would argue a question of lowering the franchise. If it were proposed to establish a 6l. or an 8l. instead of the 10l. franchise, it would be a very proper argument to say, that on the whole, those who held the 10l. qualification were competent in a superior degree to the exercise of the Parliamentary franchise, and that if they descended to a lower class, they would find them not superiorly qualified. Such an argument would be an entirely legitimate one. Now, as guardians of the constitution, and of the principles on which it was based, he did not see how they could hold that the Jews, generally speaking, could be in the position of having the necessary qualification. But if, from general principles, he were to come to this particular question, he would ask the House to consider what it was upon which the whole course of our history and our national progress chiefly turned. Even within the last ten years had they not had a sufficient number of questions before them, essentially connected with the highest Christian considerations? What were the questions which had chiefly interested the people of this country since the Reform Bill, and exercised the most determining influence upon the state of parties in this country? What had been the most difficult and perplexing questions with relation to every one of the three kingdoms, except those relating to the Christian religion? If there were any questions which involved the greatest possible amount of difficulties—questions upon which a peculiar degree of animosity prevailed—questions on which they found it utterly impossible to agree, it was undoubtedly those questions which, though not directly religious in themselves, were in some way blended with religious associations. If they looked to the questions which had agitated them most in England, was it not Church-rates, and not a State question; national education, and not a State question; Church extension, and not a State question? If they looked to Scotland, what was the great question which was at this moment connected with the social condition of Scotland, but the question which related to the appointment of the ministers of her Established Church? And what question could there possibly be which it was more absolutely necessary j to approach in a truly Christian spirit? He need not allude to the case of Ireland. It was too notorious how widely separated was the community there by religious differences, and what immense difficulties had beset the course of their legislation in that House in consequence. If Christianity was a great pervading principle of their law, if the glory of God was proposed in their daily worship as the principal ground of their acts, if also most great questions which came before them were intimately associated with the distinctive principles of Christianity, he conceived himself at perfect liberty to pronounce that those who, as conscientious men, rejected Christianity as a fable and imposture, could not be competent to enter on the consideration of such subjects. It was said, however, that the State had admitted Dissenters and Roman Catholics to office, and some said, that it was not worth while to exclude the Jews. Others said, "We have admitted the one class, and in common courtesy should admit tin other." That he begged leave to deny. The proposition was a very different one from those which were made when the claims of the Catholics and Dissenters were before Parliament. Parliament was then told, and to a great extent reasonably, that a bond of common Christianity united them all together. He well remembered a most interesting passage, which had been received with much applause in that House—a passage in a speech delivered by Sir George Murray, who spoke of the sympathy which had existed in the campaigns in which he had taken a part, between his Roman Catholic fellow-subjects and himself, and alluded to the common bond of a belief in the same redemption. But these were sentiments which were totally inapplicable to the consideration of the present question. There were other con- siderations, too, which broadly distinguished the case of the Roman Catholics and Dissenters from the case of the Jews. In the first place, it could not be said of the United Kingdom, or of the whole of one part of it, when, in point of fact, three-fourths or four-fifths of its population were Roman Catholics, that it was a Protestant country. The Roman Catholics formed a large proportion of the population there; and it was not to be expected that the great bulk of the population was to be excluded from the advantages and honours of citizenship. But, besides that they formed the bulk of the Irish community, and had therefore a right to expect to be represented in the Legislature of the country, they were persons whose minds were naturally embittered by the recollection of former grievances, for the Roman Catholics smarted under the remembrance of centuries of oppression. [Hear.] He did not shrink from that expression, and the only remark he would add was, that they were oppressed partly as Roman Catholics, partly as Irishmen, partly on the score of their religion, and partly as belonging to a country which had been unjustly and monstrously used. They could urge an indisputable claim; they were constantly brought into sharp collision with the other classes of their fellow-subjects; they had suffered in former times, and might suffer again from the same parties. Even if it had been true, that they were not to suffer again, that was not enough, unless the Legislature gave security against the recurrence of the suffering. Let them compare this case with the case of the Jews. First, the one adhered as strongly as themselves to the test of Christianity, the others did not. Secondly, the one constituted a large body, which formed the great majority in one portion of the United Kingdom; the others were hardly perceptible on the face of English society, forming an extremely small—a fractional, an infinitesimal section of the community. They might say that it was scarcely worth while to exclude go small a portion; but when he was asked to surrender a great principle of the constitution—for to that it amounted—he had a right to consider who were those who asked him, what Was their weight in the social scale—their weight, not physical, but moral. So much as to relative numbers; now as to grievances. He was not aware that the Jews had any special grievance for which they suffered, that they were persons against whom the feelings of the people were violently excited, that they had been smarting under grinding laws, and were likely so to smart. There was no case of practical grievance which could be made out in their behalf, nor any probability of such a case arising. No allegation of this kind had been made by any body of petitioners; whereas in the case of the Dissenters, still more of the Roman Catholics, there were well founded allegations of practical grievances. He would explain what he meant by a practical grievance—something which went beyond mere abstract political right. An invasion of personal liberty was one; a withholding of political privilege was also one, he admitted, but in a weaker sense. The privilege was, however, a question open to discussion, and to be decided by the balance of political considerations on one side and on the other. It was to be borne in mind, that there were still some offices in this country to which the religious test was strictly applied: to the holder of the Crown, to the Lord Chancellor, to certain great offices in Ireland. He had never heard it stated that in these particular cases there was involved a practical grievance, because these were subjects which did not admit of a rigorous application of abstract principles. If this were held to be a practical grievance, they had only to apply the principle in another direction, and it was a practical grievance that the unenfranchised man was not enfranchised. If such were their definition of a practical grievance, it was better that they should come to an understanding at once. He need not trouble the House much further. In his mind the constitution would be much better served and preserved by this limitation in the power of holding offices to Christians than by admitting Jews. There had been days, and they might recur, when the Parliament of England was called on to exercise functions still more directly ecclesiastical than of late had fallen to their lot. It might be said that the questions lately before them had reference merely to the temporalities of religion. But there had been days, like the days of Elizabeth, Charles 1st, Charles 2nd, and William 3rd, when the British Parliament was called on to apply itself directly to the consideration of almost every possible question; roost important in a religious point of view—the frame and form of the State religion, the regulation of the public worship of the whole nation; all these most important subjects passed under the revision of both houses of Parliament, and the adoption of one or other form depended on the decision of both Houses. He admitted that the present House was, to a certain extent, disqualified by diversity of religious professions from discussing such questions as these. He did not complain of this change in the constitution of the House. He admitted that it had lost a portion of its competency to discuss these questions, which were called on for discussion in the 16th and 17th centuries; but that competency must necessarily be regulated by circumstances; and the circumstance of their having incorporated with them very many persons differing with them in religious opinions would make it unreasonable, even if it were possible, to retain the same authority over the Church. The more of her opponents, however, they introduced into Parliament, it was manifest that the more did they increase their incompetence. The time might come when the admixture of creeds amongst them would be so strange and particoloured that it would be an insult to public opinion to think of discharging ecclesiastical functions. In introducing these men, therefore, to Parliament, and to other high offices, there existed an absolute tendency to disqualify Parliament from the performance of any duties connected with religion, and therefore, by an easy transition, to overturn the very principles upon which the national religion was based. The further these charges were extended, the more difficult would it be to do that which in ancient times the House of Commons and the Crown had combined to accomplish; and in all such measures as this he contended that there was largely mixed up the danger of subverting the whole superstructure of the established religion. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the bill be read a third time that day six months.

Mr. Pringle

seconded the amendment. He said that he did so on the ground that it was the paramount duty of a great national Legislature to instruct the people in the principles of the Christian religion The importance and value of Christianity were recognised in all the public transactions connected with the State. The bill before the House was an infraction of the constitution. The Jewish nation had committed a great national crime, for which they were now suffering. He thought the Jews had higher destinies than could be bestowed upon them by that House. They were as distinct a nation as were the Israelites of old. He objected to the principle of the bill, as being repugnant to the feelings of Christians, and on that ground it should meet with his resolute opposition.

Mr. Macaulay

, amidst cries of "Divide," said he could make allowance for hon. Gentlemen, and he would detain the House for a very little while indeed. He would confine himself to a few words upon a remark made by his hon. Friend, and repeated by the hon. Gentleman who seconded the amendment. Those hon. Gentlemen had treated the bill in a very improper manner. They had discussed it as if it would relieve the Jews from all civil disabilities whatever, and would render them eligible to sit in Parliament. The bill had no such object. It was true that his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) had said, that they ought to be admitted to seats in Parliament, and he (Mr. Macaulay) was of the same opinion. But that was not the question at present. This was a measure for admitting them to civil and municipal offices, and his hon. Friend opposed it, not because he gave any reasons for thinking Jews incompetent to fill such offices, but because he thought them not competent to act in the Legislature. He had listened with great attention to the speech of the hon. Gentleman, and he was quite unable to discover any argument therein against the removal of these Jewish disabilities which might not be urged with equal force against a large proportion of the Members who, at that moment, had seats in the House. His hon. Friend alluded to the prayers which were offered up in that House, and he asked, could Jews join in them? But that was a question which would apply to many Gentlemen already in that House. There was one Gentleman, a member of a highly respectable sect, which considered such a form of prayer to be irreligious. His hon. Friend said, that the prayer asked for the promotion of true religion. But there was as much difference already in the House on the subject of true religion, as there was between the Jew and the Christian. The Roman Catholic differed from the Protestant, and the Unitarian differed from the Trinitarian, as to what was the true religion. Whichever of them was right, there must be great deal of false religion in the House of Commons. But it was not the object of the bill to introduce the Jews to Parliament. He called on every Gentleman who thought the Jews competent to discharge the duties of municipal officers to vote for this bill, without being deterred by an apprehension, that if he conceded now what was right and just, he might next year be asked for something which he considered improper. Political measures were not connected together by so logical a sequence as to make it essential that some further measure must follow this. The hon. Member had started a special ground of apprehension, as he conceived it. He said, that so much attention having of late years been paid to religious questions in that House, and religious disputes continuing to form so prominent a feature in Parliamentary discussions, it would be peculiarly wrong to admit Jews into the House to decide upon matters of such vital interest and importance to the Christian community. In the first place, let him repeat it once more, this was not a bill for admitting Jews to the House of Commons; and, in the second place, even if it were, it was quite impossible, that any Jewish Members of the House could differ more widely from the Christians, upon religious questions, as they came before the House, than the Christian Members did among one another. Take the Scottish Church question, for instance; the Jews were by no means a proselytizing nation, and the utmost they would do, if they interfered and took ever so warm a part, would be perhaps to abolish the present Scottish Established Church, and introduce the voluntary system; and for that matter he (Mr. Macaulay) thought he could find forty Christian Members of the House who would go quite as far. He must say, that he considered it in the highest degree disgraceful to humanity—disgraceful to a civilised community, to treat or speak of the Jews in the manner which had been exhibited on the occasions on which this question had been discussed. Much as he condemned and regretted the conduct of the Church to the Dissenters, he did not see that this bore any comparison with the hardships to which the Jews had been subjected. The hon. Member said, the Jews laboured under no practical grievance, and spoke of their exclusion from office as nothing to be complained of. That incapacity to hold office which, among the other nations was made part of the punishment of crime, was, according to the hon. Gentleman's singular theory, no ground for complaint, no grievance, no oppression, when put into effect against the Jewish nation. What would the hon. Gentleman think if he had been declared incapable of office? or if, to take his own view of the case in hand, he had been excluded from that House of Commons, of which he was so great an ornament, simply because he had happened to differ in religious opinion from the established creed of the country? Before such a principle was adopted some strong public necessity should be shown. Carry out the principle to its legitimate extent, and what would it lead to? Why, in the lapse of time you would be justified in whipping and burning men for holding certain opinions on religious subjects at variance with what had been considered by many to be the test of what was right on the question. Another proposition was advanced, equally extraordinary and objectionable with the other, that there were so very few of the Jews that it did not much matter whether they had a grievance or not. A magnanimous proposition truly! The Roman Catholics of Ireland, because they were millions, and the Protestant Dissenters of England, because they, too, were some millions, had, it seemed, a claim to political liberty, and a claim which, when they insisted upon it, the Duke of Wellington, with all his nerve and courage, had not thought it advisable further to oppose. But the Jews, truly, because they were not millions—because there was no fear of a state rebellion in Petticoat-lane or Duke's-place—were to suffer their grievances in silence. We need not dread formidable meetings like those in the Corn Exchange, if we withheld from them their rights, and therefore it was said they should be withheld. This argument would be equally strong against the Quakers. The number of Quakers was smaller than that of the Jews, and on what principle did they admit the one and exclude the other? It must be remembered also, that this argument told both ways. If on the one hand serious injury to the Slate was not to be apprehended from the hostility of the Jewish population, on the other hand, there was no reason to apprehend their predominance among the people in such a manner as to diminish the number of Christians, whether they belonged to the Established Church, or to any body of Dissenters. They were a small sect, and not a proselyting one, and therefore, if these circumstances were urged to show there would be no danger in refusing their claims, it might also be used to show, that there would be no danger in granting them. The House of Commons, it had been observed by his hon. Friend, used to exercise functions much more important than now belonged to them. They were formerly called upon to make articles and draw up creeds, and modes of worship, duties which it was not likely they would be again called upon to execute. For his own part, he had of late seen so much proof how little articles and forms were able to bind the ingenuity of casuists, that he should be sorry to see the House again occupied in framing such cobwebs. He could only wish for that which would put an end to this hill and all such bills—enlightened toleration; but if learned persons elsewhere would teach the Jews some of their own ingenuity, there could not then be the slightest doubt but that, as those ingenious persons swallowed confession and absolution, so these tests might also be swallowed by the Jews without the slightest hesitation. He would venture to say, that a better gloss could be found for a Jewish declaration than other glosses which he had seen, and that not merely for the purpose of obtaining civil offices, but in order to hold the faith of Rome with the endowments of the English Church. He regretted, that the hon. Gentleman who had seconded the motion, had introduced some topics which might, in his opinion, have better been omitted. The hon. Gentleman had alluded to the great national crime committed by the Jewish people more than eighteen hundred years ago; but he did not think that House was a proper place in which to make such an allusion. He should at all events say, that, from that event, the most solemn which man could contemplate, there was one lesson to be derived which should not be forgotten. They should remember, that the greatest crime ever committed upon earth was committed by men who knew not what they did under the influence of religious intolerance. For his own part he should say, that on every occasion in which an attempt was made in that House to take away any civil disability imposed upon men in consequence of their religious opinions, it should receive his most strenuous support.

Mr. Goulburn

had heard with great pain the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman, that he saw no distinction between the religion of the Jews and the Christians. The right hon. Gentleman had said this, not only once, but twice. If he disavowed it, he was glad to have elicited that disavowal.

Mr. Macaulay

explained that what he had said was, that there were none of the questions which had been agitated in that House, and to which the hon. Gentleman had referred, on which the hon. Gentleman could possibly differ more from Jewish than he had done from Christian Members of that House.

Mr. Goulburn

said, the hon. Gentleman said there was an indifference to religion amongst the Members of that House. He had taken down the expressions at the moment they were uttered, and he was extremely happy to have given the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of disavowing them, though the disavowal amounted to an abandonment of two-thirds of the right hon. Gentleman's argument. The question was, were they to admit into the administration of a Christian community those who held Christianity in aversion and abhorrence? That was the ground taken by his hon. Friend near him. The right hon. Gentleman attempted to grapple with that objection, and in doing so he bad used arguments which he had since disavowed. The right hon. Gentleman complained that this particular measure was opposed as if it involved the admission of Jews to all privileges whatever. But did the right hon. Gentleman really mean to deny that this measure was not viewed as a stepping stone to ulterior objects? Did the right hon. Gentleman expect that any Member of the House who had witnessed antecedent proceedings would be to credulous as to suppose that those who urged the present measure aimed at nothing beyond throwing open corporate privileges? Confining himself to the present bill, he could not admit that a Jew could properly take part in the administration of a Christian community. Christianity was part and parcel of the law of the land. Could they admit Jews to offices which might require them to determine questions affecting Christianity? How could a Jew enforce the law against blasphemy or against Sabbath breaking, or determine questions arising from labour performed on a day on which the Jews thought no labour could be conscientiously performed? The Jews themselves had the same objection to admit heathens to the management of Jewish affairs, that be had to admit them to the administration of the taws of a Christian community. He should support the amendment of his hon. Friend.

Sir K. Inglis

said the discussion could not be confined to the bill alone, because nobody denied that it was intended to lead to further changes. He had mentioned the case of a man imprisoned for blasphemy on a former occasion, who would be most unjustly punished if offices were given to Jews. Exclusion from office was not a punishment. It meant no personal disrespect to the individuals. It was a matter which must be always subject to the freest discretion of the State. They had been told of centuries of misrule in Ireland. He believed there was gross exaggeration in such statements; and whatever misrule there had been, existed long before—distinctions of religious creed had no connection with them. On the principles he had so often stated to the House, he should vote for the amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Newark.

Viscount Sandon

did not think there was anything in the religion of a Jew to disqualify him for exercising corporate office. He thought they might very well administer the law as mayor, or in any other municipal office. Therefore, confining himself to the question immediately before the House, he saw no reason for refusing the concession which was demanded.

Mr. Milnes

agreeing distinctly with his noble Friend who had just sat down, would not, at that fatal hour of the evening, detain the House by any remarks on the principle of the bill. He would only state that the argument that, the Jews ought not to be admitted to that House, because they could not take a conscietious part in religious discussions, appeared to him of no validity. Religious questions as debated in that House were also political, and it was only as political questions that they could fitly be discussed there at all; the less the House discussed purely; religious questions the better, and if we wanted a proof of this, his right hon. Friend the Secretary at War had furnished it this evening. His right hon. Friend had, unnecessarily, irrelavantly, and unjustly, attacked a body of divines of the Church of England, respecting whose writings the House could know but little and whose principles were at any rate subjects of grave and philosophical discussion. Those principles went far too deep for chance conversation and cursory de- bate, and be should be happy at any other time and place to argue them out with his right hon. Friend, but he must beg him not to deliver over peremptorily and ex cathedra to the Church of Rome, a body of men who professed themselves the most faithful sons, and whom he believed to be distinguished fathers of the Church of England.

Mr. Divett

said in reply, he thought the hon. Members for the Universities, in their opposision to the bill, had not represented the real Christian feeling of those bodies, but rather the jobbing spirit which too often prevailed there.

The House divided on the question, that the word "now" stand part of the question. Ayes 108; Noes 31: Majority 77.

List of the AYES.
Aglionby, H. A. Jones, J.
Alston, R. Langdale, hon. C.
Attwood, M. Leader, J. T.
Attwood, W. Lemon, Sir C.
Bainbridge, E. T. Lennox, Lord A.
Barnard, E. G. Lowther, J. H.
Bellew, R. M. Lushington, C.
Berkeley, hon. H. Lushington, rt. hn. S.
Berkeley, hon. C. Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B.
Bowes, J. Martin, J.
Brocklehurst, J. Maule, hon. F.
Brotherton, J. Mildmay, P. St. J.
Bruges, W. H. L. Milnes, R. M.
Bulwer, Sir L. Molesworth, Sir W.
Busfeild, W. Morpeth, Viscount
Byng, G. Morris, D.
Chalmers, P. Morrison, J.
Cowper, hon. W. F. Muntz, G. F.
Craig, W. G. Muskett, G. A.
Davies, Colonel O'Brien, W. S.
Duff, J. O'Connell, J.
Easthope, J. O'Connell, M.
Elliot, hon. J. E. Oswald, J.
Ellice, E. Parker, J.
Evans, G. Pechell, Captain
Evans, W. Philips, M.
Fazakerley, J. N. Pigot, rt. hn. D.
Freshfield, J. W. Pryme, G.
Gordon, R. Ramsbottom, J.
Greg, R. H. Rawdon, Col. J. D.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. Rice, E. R.
Grosvenor, Lord R. Roche, W.
Hawkins, J. H. Salwey, Colonel
Herries, rt. hn. J. C. Sandon, Viscount
Hill, Lord A. M. C. Seymour, Lord
Hobhouse, T. B. Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.
Hodges, T. L. Slaney, R. A.
Hollond, R. Smith, J. A.
Horsman, E. Smith, G. R.
Howard, P. H. Somers, J. P.
Howard, hn. C. W. G. Somerville, Sir W. M.
Hume, J. Stanley, hon. E. J.
Hutt, W. Staunton, Sir G. T.
Hutton, R. Steuart, R.
Stewart, J. Ward, H. G.
Stuart, W. V. White, A.
Stock, Mr. Serjeant Williams, W.
Strutt, E. Wilshere, W.
Style, Sir C. Wood, C.
Tavistock, Marquess Wood, G. W.
Thornely, T. Wood B.
Tufnell, H. Wyse, T.
Turner, E.
Villiers, hon. C. P. TELLERS.
Wall, C. B. Hawes, B.
Warburton, H. Divett, E.
List of the NOES.
Acland, T. D. Neeld, J.
Antrobus, E. Neeld, J.
Arbuthnott, hon. H. Palmer, G.
Broadley, H. Perceval, Colonel
Buller, Sir J. Y. Pringle, A.
Darby, G. Richards, R.
Duffield, T. Rickford, W.
Estcourt, T. Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.
Gladstone, J. N. Rushbrooke, Colonel
Glynne, Sir S. R. Sibthorp, Colonel
Gore, O. J. R. Smyth, Sir G. H.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H Trotter, J.
Grimsditch, T. Vere, Sir C. B.
Lockhart, A. M. Whitmore, T. C.
Lygon, hon. General TELLERS.
Mackenzie, T. Gladstone, W. E.
Maunsell, T. P. Inglis, Sir R. H.

Bill read a third time and passed.