§ Clauses up to 16 were agreed to.
§ Upon clause 17,
§ Mr. Watson
wished to know whether 743 any alteration was to be made in the appellant jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery. As it at present existed, it was extremely inconvenient, as the appeal was now from one judge to the Lord Chancellor. Subjects of appeal were now decided by one judge. He (Mr. Watson) thought that three out of the five equity judges should be constituted a court of appeal, to which decisions would be from: time to time referred. The great expense consequent on appeals to the House of Lords would be thus put an end to, or at least diminished. He trusted that his learned Friend would introduce a clause to that effect in the present bill.
§ The Attorney-General
was by no means prepared to deny the importance of the alteration suggested by the hon. Gentleman, or that great and valuable changes might be made in the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery; but he did not hesitate to state that he had no intention whatever of introducing into this bill any such clause as that proposed by the hon. Gentleman. If he did so during the present Session, he would be fairly chargeable with crude and hasty legislation.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ On clause 56, which proposes compensation to certain officers of the Court of Exchequer,
§ Mr. Ward
rose, and said this was the fit occasion for him to propose an amendment, for the purpase of bringing before the House a subject to which he was anxious to draw their attention. He alluded to the case of the hon. Mr. Scarlett, to whom it was proposed by this clause to give compensation for being deprived of an office—that of a Master of the Court of Exchequer, to which he had been appointed by Lord Abinger, the Lord Chief Baron. He had to beg pardon for renewing a question in which a Gentleman, now an hon. Member of that House, was concerned; but at the same time the case was one which he felt imperatively called upon to bring under the notice of the House. The effect of the amendment which he should propose, was, that the compensation proposed by the clause should not be granted to any officer of the Court of Exchequer who had been appointed to his official employment subsequent to the 14th of March, 1840, an amendment that would at once bear upon the appointment of the hon. Member for 744 Horsham, which was made subsequently to that day. On the day in question, the 14th of March, 1840, a bill was proposed, with the concurrence of all parties, for the purpose of changing the constitution of the Court of Exchequer. Before the bill could be proceeded with, however, a life dropped, and an office became vacant that was in the gift of the Lord Chief Baron, which, although by the bill in question it was about to be abolished, be immediately filled up by the appointment of his son, the hon. Mr. Scarlett. Yet that Gentleman, after only having held the office since March, 1840, now came and claimed compensation for an office to which he had been appointed by his own father, after an announcement from the highest law officers in the country that it would be included in the proposed changes. And it further appeared, that the same Lord Chief Baron was, together with the Commissioners of the Treasury, the very person to whom the decision on the question of compensation was to be referred. Then, supposing the emoluments of the office to be about 1,800l. or 2,000l. a-year, it might fairly be expected that the public would be annually charged with a sum of at least 1,200l. or 1,400l. a-year. Now, after the House had taken the trouble to come to a division on the subject of the salary of the Vice-Chancellor, surely in a matter involving a much larger sum, and when the justice of the proceeding was much more doubtful, they would not refuse inquiry. It appeared, however, that by the 58th clause it was further provided, that when the hon. Gentleman should succeed to the peerage, the compensation should cease. But surely this made the whole subject still more remarkable, for if the hon. Mr. Scarlett was fairly entitled to receive the compensation now, he would be equally entitled to it should he succeed to the peerage. He might perhaps be told that this 58th clause had been inserted in consequence of a tacit understanding that had been come to in the late House of Commons on the subject. But even if such a compact existed, it was nothing at all to them in the present consideration of the matter. They were to take the case on its own merits as it came before them. He denied, however, that there existed any compact or understanding on the subject. On the contrary, it was only by a majority of three, on a division, 745 that the question was carried. An hon. Member certainly did afterwards move a proposition to the effect, that the compensation should cease on Mr. Scarlett becoming a peer of Parliament, but that seemed to him only an additional reason why they should look most strictly at this clause before they again made themselves parties to so equivocal an arrangement. If the hon. Gentleman were entitled to the compensation, then let him have it for his whole life; but if he was not, then he thought the House would scarcely refuse to agree to a proviso to the effect, that the compensation clauses should only apply to those who were appointed to their offices prior to the 14th of March, 1840. The hon. Member concluded by moving, to insert the following words in the clause: —Who was appointed to his office prior to the 14th March, 1840.
§ The Attorney-General,
(Sir Frederick Pollock), rose, in the first instance, to correct a misapprehension on the part of the hon. Member for Sheffield, when he had said, that clause 58 was the result of a compromise. That clause was not inserted as a compromise, but because it was considered that, on succeeding to the peerage, Mr. Scarlett would cease to hold the office, and that, therefore, as it had been by Lord Abinger himself, that the appointment had been made, it was only fair that the compensation should cease also. With regard to the question itself, he quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman, that, where feelings of personal friendship and kindness were mixed up, it was always unpleasant to enter upon discussions of this kind, but, at the same time, both the hon. Gentleman and himself must do their duty. Not having been present at the former discussion, he did not vote in the division to which the hon. Member referred; but, at the same time, he entertained a very distinct impression on the subject, which he would state to the House. Lord Abinger, at the time the bill was brought in, was Lord Chief Baron, and a vacancy occurred in the Court of Exchequer, which he filled up, before the bill for abolishing that court had been proceeded with in Parliament, though a bill to that effect had been brought in in a former Session of Parliament. This was quite true; but it was a mistake to suppose, as the hon. Gentleman had done, that the proposition to abolish the Court of Exchequer met with the entire concurrence and appro- 746 bation of all parties concerned. Lord Abinger himself, for instance, had felt disposed to resist the abolition of the court until a period long after the appointment of his son, and many Members of the profession regretted the step. The complete severance of law and equity which that bill would create, was considered by many Members of Westminster-hall as a sort of professional grievance, though for his own part, he would at once admit the full benefit which the bill would produce, and he did not mean to say one word in favour of the continuance of the court. But the duty of Lord Abinger, under such circum. stances, was clear. When a vacancy occurred in an office of considerable importance, requiring for the fulfilment of its duties a person of considerable experience and professional skill and knowledge, he could scarcely expect that the place would be accepted by one of fully competent powers, if his tenure of it was only to be temporary, and he certainly must say, he considered Lord Abinger was justified under such circumstances, in looking on the office as a part of his patronage as Lord Chief Baron; and, on the other hand, it would not have been consistent with what he owed the public service, to have appointed any other person who would have taken the office on less favourable terms than the hon. Member for Horsham. That Gentleman was at the time a member of the legal profession, and had given up one or two situations of considerable amount, for the purpose of accepting this; and he repeated, that he thought Lord Abinger had a perfect right to appoint him to the office. He did not see that Lord Abinger had any legal, political, or moral obligation, to consider the office condemned at the time. Relationship constituted no disqualification for an office under such circumstances. Why should Lord Abinger pass over his own relation, a person every way qualified, and one who would only hold the office during his (Lord Abinger's) life, and appoint a less efficient person, unless indeed he had appointed some person who would have claimed permanent compensation? He had had no communication with Lord Abinger on the subject, and, therefore, did not know the exact circumstances under which the appointment was made: I but he certainly would say, that consistently with the public service, and a due regard to his own right of patronage, he could 747 not have made, under the circumstances which he had alluded to, a more judicious appointment. He trusted the House would not alter the arrangement made last Session. If the question came to a division, he should certainly support the clause.
§ Mr. Ward
admitted, that there was no legal or political obligation on Lord Abinger not to fill up the situation, but he thought the hon. Attorney-general went a little too far, when he said there was no moral obligation upon him. He thought there was upon him the moral obligation of consulting the public interest in preference to his own private interest, which seemed to have prevailed in the selection he had made. With reference to what the hon. Gentleman had said, as to the impossibility of Lord Abinger obtaining a successor to the office if his holding was to be only temporary, he (Mr. Ward) could only say, that the emolument of 2,000l. a-year would be quite sufficient to secure a competent person, even though his tenure of it might be short. The hon. Gentleman had also urged, that Mr. Scarlett had given up offices in order to take this appointment. No doubt he would have been very willing to give up those offices in order to secure a compensation of 1,400l. a-year until he should succeed to the peerage. But he put it to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who came into office with great claims on the public consideration, and disavowed all private and personal considerations in the preparation of the measures which he might recommend to the country, whether it was an auspicious commencement to his new career, in which they were told he would do so much when he had matured his views, and came to state his plans?
§ Sir R. Peel
said, if he remembered rightly, the noble Lord opposite, when leader of the House, and the representative of the Government there, entertained considerable doubts as to the propriety of this compensation. The hon. Gentleman to whom the compensation was to be paid was not then in the House, and his brother stated the circumstances under which he had accepted the office, and there was at that time a claim for compensation.
§ Sir G. Grey
said, that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had proposed the bill with precisely the same words in it as those now embodied in the motion of the hon. Member for Sheffield.
§ Sir R. Peel
had understood the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) to have acquiesced in the arrangement as being perfectly just.
§ Sir G. Grey
said, that in the course of the discussion on the former bill the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had spoken of the point as one on which two opinions might fairly be held, but that his own was against giving the compensation to Mr. Scarlett. The noble Lord accordingly voted against the compensation. But, after the division, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wells suggested, that at all events the compensation ought not to be continued after Mr. Scarlett had, by being raised to the peerage, ceased to hold the office, upon which the hon. and learned Member for Exeter at once said, the proposition was so reasonable, that although it had not struck those who called for the compensation, they could not object to it, and it was agreed to accordingly. But, in the first instance, his noble Friend had been against the compensation.
§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer
remembered it was at the close of the debate, and on it being stated, that the hon. Member for Horsham had given up other offices in order to accept this, that the noble Secretary for the Colonies said, that circumstance, of which he was not aware, very much altered the case.
§ The Solicitor-General
(Sir W. Follett) said, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, after hearing that the hon. Member for Horsham had given up other offices in order to accept this, at once said he would be willing to give him compensation to the extent of those offices, and the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) then also thought, that the case was much altered by the fact of those offices having been given up. The right hon. Baronet opposite was quite right in saying, that the noble Lord had voted against the compensation in the division on that occasion.
§ Sir R. Peel
continued by observing, that his only wish had been, that the bill should be now brought forward in the same state in which it had been dropped last year, and his impression certainly had been, that the noble Lord (Lord J. Rus- 749 sell), on hearing the statement of the brother of the hon. Member for Horsham, that he had given up other offices in order to accept this, had acquiesced in the reasonableness of the principle of compensation, and the House of Commons were of that opinion. He was at once ready to admit, that the decision of the late House was not necessarily obligatory on this, and that the decision of the present case ought to rest on its merits, but at the same time it did appear to him, that the present claim for compensation rested upon the same principle on which compensation in such cases had usually been granted. The hon. Gentleman opposite was clearly wrong in supposing, that any compromise had been entered into in limiting the compensation to the time at which the hon. Member for Horsham should succeed to the peerage; on the contrary, the office was not tenable by him after his elevation to the peerage. It had also been stated to the House, that at the time at which the appointment was made, it was necessary that the office should be filled, and the court could not do without an officer of the sort. That being so, and Lord Abinger being then in the possession of the legal rights and privileges of his office as Lord Chief Baron, the mere notice of an intention on the part of a Member of Parliament or of the Government to bring in a bill to deprive the officer in question of the emoluments to which he was entitled, ought not to be considered equivalent to a dismissal of him from them. Notice of an intention to bring in such a bill had certainly been given, but no act of the Legislature had passed affecting: the legal privileges of the court— privileges which had, no doubt, always been considered as part and parcel of the remuneration of the judicial office, and so looked upon in estimating the amount of salary to be attached to it, as affording the means of providing for members of the family. In the present case, what had been affirmed to be a fitting and necessary appointment had been made, and the choice of the judge had fallen on a member of his own family, who had relinquished his profession and other lucrative situations in order to accept this appointment. He submitted, that no political considerations ought to interfere with a just view of the case, or ought to be suffered to violate the principles which had regulated retiring pensions; and the pre- 750 sent case was also analogous to those other cases where compensation had been granted with limitations. With reference to the bill of last year, he had certainly entertained a strong impression that the noble Lord had felt that the principle of compensation (after the explanation of Major Scarlett) applied to the case of the hon. Member for Horsham; but he certainly must now repeat, that on the very reason of the thing, the justice of giving some compensation being admitted on all hands, no personal nor political considerations ought to be allowed to interfere. It certainly would be a most dangerous principle to establish, should a mere notice of an alteration in the law be sufficient to disentitle an individual from the exercise of privileges of which he was then in the enjoyment.
§ Mr. Aglionby
quite agreed with the right hon. Baronet, that nothing could be more unjust than to allow personal or political considerations to interfere with the just settlement of this question. He hoped, that hon. Members would guard themselves against the great danger of being influenced in the vote they should give by motives of personal kindness and affection towards those who might have a strong pecuniary interest in this question. It had been stated, that Mr. Scarlett had given up other offices, the retention of which was incompatible with a a mastership in the Exchequer; he should be glad to know what those offices were; he did not think they could be fairly called offices. One, he believed, was an appointment as counsel to the Mint. In that capacity he might take on himself to say Mr. Scarlett had most efficiently performed his duties; indeed, he knew no man who was more respected in the profession, or who was accustomed to perform the duties which fell to his lot in a more creditable manner, than his hon. Friend the Member for Horsham. But, apart from all such feelings, he (Mr. Aglionby) must be guided, on a question of this nature, by a sense of public duty. Mr. Scarlett must have taken this office with his eyes open, well knowing that it must soon be abolished, and having then made the necessary calculations of profit and loss, he could not fairly be considered entitled to compensation under this bill. At all events, the arrangement which he understood was suggested in the last Parliament, limiting the compensation to the 751 loss sustained by resigning the previous appointments, was a much more reasonable proposition, and he hoped the Solicitor-general would see the propriety of adopting it as an equitable compromise. With respect to the 58th clause of the bill, he could not help regarding it as alike derogatory to the dignity of the House, and the station of his hon. and learned Friend.
§ The Solicitor-General
begged the hon. and learned Gentleman to remember, that in referring to the arrangement suggested last Parliament of a compensation restricted to the loss which Mr. Scarlett sustained by resigning the offices previously held, he the (Solicitor-general) had given no opinion whatever favourable to such a proposition; nor had he alluded to it as any reason why he should not receive compensation under this bill. The ground on which he had put the matter before, and that on which he rested the claim now, was this: Mr. Scarlett was in justice entitled to compensation, not with reference to anything he had given up, but because he was holding now an office in the Court of Exchequer which was to be abolished by the bill now before the House. The hon. Member for Sheffield had expressed an opinion, that the Lord Chief Baron was not, in justice to the public, called upon to fill up the vacancy which had occurred. The hon. Member should have been aware, that by act of Parliament the Lord Chief Baron was bound to fill it up. But even if no statute applied to the case, it was quite impossible that the Lord Chief Baron could allow one of the offices of Master in the Court of Exchequer to remain vacant. The performance of the regular business of the court, in which every suitor had an interest, required that the vacancy should be supplied. The hon. Member for Sheffield was also mistaken in supposing, that when the bill was brought into the House of Lords there was a general concurrence of opinion as to the propriety of abolishing the office. It was quite essential, he repeated, that the Lord Chief Baron should fill up the vacancy. That being so, some practising barrister, some one taken from the bar, must have been appointed; and whether he held the office of counsel to the Mint or not, he must give up some practice and some emolument; why, then, should he not be entitled to compensation when the 752 office he held was abolished by Parliament? In no single instance where compensation had been awarded by the House, had the principle been laid down or acted upon which was now contended for by the hon. Member opposite. The invariable practice had been to give compensation to persons actually in possession of the offices to be abolished. Having, therefore, shown, that not only was there no moral obligation on the Lord Chief Baron not to fill up the vacancy, but that he was bound by act of Parliament and in justice to the public to make the appointment, he would only refer to the observations upon this point made last Parliament by two hon. and learned Gentlemen, who were certainly not agreed in politics with Mr. Scarlett—the one was the hon. and learned Member for Chester (Mr. Jervis) the other his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. C. Buller). Mr. Jervis said,That he meant to vote for the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Exeter, on the ground that Lord Abinger had a right to appoint a person to the office, and that the individual so appointed, had therefore a right to compensation on being deprived of it."*The other hon. and learned Gentleman said,He thought that the House ought to act liberally in compensating persons deprived of any office in consequence of improvements in the law. They ought to do so, not only in justice but in policy, because the slightest disposition on the part of Parliament to act illiberally towards persons so situated would make the passing of any measure of reform matter of great difficulty. What was the worth of these two-penny-half-penny questions compared with the great good which would be gained by a reform like the one now proposed? He thought, that the Court of Exchequer had behaved admirably on this occasion, as Lord Abinger had offered no opposition to a bill which would strip him of a great deal of patronage.With respect to the 58th clause, he had only to say, that Mr. Scarlett had himself stated to him, that as he could not with propriety hold the office of master in the Exchequer when he should have succeeded to the dignity of a peer of the realm, he felt that the compensation should not extend beyond the time during which he should continue to hold* See Hansard, Vol. lvii (Third Series,) p. 1052.753 the office. That was the ground on which the proposition then made was acceded to by the friends of Mr. Scarlett. He had only further to state, that the amendment, if adopted, would not merely affect Mr. Scarlett, but deprive other officers of compensation who had purchased their situations in the Exchequer at the usual rate. He therefore hoped the hon. Member would not press his amendment to a division; if he persisted in doing so, he had no doubt the House would adhere to the decision it had formerly pronounced upon this matter, and thus do justice to all parties.
§ Mr. Hawes
thought the question narrowed itself to this—whether, at the time of this vacancy, it would not have been quite possible to make a provisional appointment? He had no doubt that Gentlemen could be found who were fully competent, and who would be quite willing to take the office on such conditions. The right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), seemed to think that this office should be looked on as patronage, going in the shape of just emolument to the judge. Was not 7,000l. a-year sufficient? And were we to understand that family jobs were necessary to make this large salary still larger? If this were so, what became of the recommendations of this Gentleman, and of the professional skill said to be so essential to the office? If it were a mere instrument for the aggrandisement of the judge, a man who was no lawyer could be appointed to the office just as well as one who was. They should be careful not to lose sight in that House of the principle of a just economy, and he should therefore support the amendment.
§ Mr. Watson
believed, it was generally understood that the Court of Exchequer, as at present constituted, would be abolished when this situation was filled up. Now, what was the course taken in a case precisely similar? In 1830, it was proposed to abolish the Welch judicature, but it was found necessary to appoint judges after this notification, and those so nominated were deemed not entitled to compensation though the others were. And not only the judges, but the officers appointed after the announcement of a determination to do away with the tribunal, distinctly understood that no compensation was to be given for their services. If the principle contended for on the other side were a just one, a man might be ap- 754 pointed to an office in the Court of Exchequer this very day, and yet claim full and entire compensation for the loss of a situation which he knew he could not hold for a month.
§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer
wished to state to the House, exactly what was the history of this clause. The bill, as it originally stood, had not a clause limiting the compensation to those who held offices in the Court of Exchequer, prior to the 14th of March, 1840; but his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Portsmouth (Mr. F. Baring), introduced one to that effect as an amendment. The hon. Member for the county of Waterford, towards the end of the discussion stated, that,Mr. Scarlett had actually given up a situation worth 500l. a-year, in order that he might be able to attend to the duties of his new situation.Upon which Major Scarlett observed, that the situation which Mr. Scarlett so resigned, was that of counsel to the Mint and to the Post-office. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer then said, he thought that the fact of Mr. Scarlett having resigned another situation ought to come under the consideration of the Treasury. He hoped that the clause would be so altered as to give the Treasury a discretionary power to grant a limited compensation. His hon. and learned Friend (Sir W. Follett), however, did not feel justified in assenting to the proposition. Mr. Scarlett, he said, had certainly given up the situation referred to; but he rested the claim to compensation on other grounds.
§ Sir R. Peel
said, the doctrine he held upon this subject was at any rate not a novel one—namely, that in the abolition of patronage attached to judicial offices it was but right to consider its amount in estimating the compensation. There were two or three reports of committees which recognised the means of appointing members of a family, duly qualified of course, as a very valuable piece of patronage, and the principle for which he contended was, in fact, recognised by the statute law of the land. The right hon. Baronet read the preamble of an act passed in 1825, which made a provision for the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, in lieu of certain valuable patronage which was taken away by the act.
§ Mr. Ward
Is the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer prepared to act on the grounds which he attributes to the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, as forming the reason why the latter assented to some compensation, and to say, that he will confine the amount of compensation to the loss sustained by Mr. Scarlett, in giving up the situations which he held previous to his appointment of Master in the Court of Exchequer?
§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer
The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baring) seemed to conclude that Mr. Scarlett was entitled to compensation for the office of Master, which has been abolished in consequence of having given up the situations which he previously held.
§ Mr. C. Wood
His right hon. Friend (Mr. Baring), never admitted that a positive right to compensation was made out on the part of Mr. Scarlett. All he said was, that a discretionary power should be given to the Government as to what allowance should be granted, the plain meaning of which was, that Mr. Scarlett should receive a recompense for the offices which he had abandoned on being nominated to the Exchequer. That this was the determination of his right hon. Friend, was plainly shown by the fact, that he voted against the amendment of the hon. and learned Solicitor-general (Sir W. Follett), for giving full compensation for the loss of the Mastership.
§ Viscount Palmerston
His hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, had asked a question to which no distinct answer had been given. His hon. Friend had asked, whether the Government would agree to limit the compensation to be given to Mr. Scarlett, to the value of those offices stated to be abandoned by him when he accepted the situation in the Exchequer? That was a plain, simple question, and it would be satisfactory to have it replied to one way or the other.
§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer
I am quite ready to say, that, having well considered the grounds of my vote on a former occasion, I am not prepared, for the sake of any temporary or apparent popularity, to swerve from the opinion then acted upon. I believe that Lord Abinger had a perfectly legal right to make the appointment; that Mr. Scarlett was properly nominated to it; that the business of the court could not have gone on without filling up the vacancy; 756 and that no inducement being held out to any individual to resign, and all imputation of jobbing being therefore groundless, it will only be in accordance with all former procedure, that the clause should pass in its present shape.
§ The committee divided on the question that the words proposed by Mr. Wood be inserted in the clause:—Ayes 81; Noes 140:—Majority 59.
|List of the AYES.|
|Aldam, W.||Leader, J. T.|
|Berkeley, hn. Captain||Martin, J.|
|Bowring, Dr.||Mitchell, T. A.|
|Brotherton, J.||Morris, D.|
|Browne, hon. W.||Murphy, F. S.|
|Bryan, G.||Napier, Sir C.|
|Busfeild, W.||O'Connell, M. J.|
|Cave, hon. R. O.||Paget, Colonel|
|Clements, Viscount||Palmerston, Viscount|
|Cobden, R.||Parker, J.|
|Collins, W.||Pechell, Captain|
|Cowper, hon. W. F.||Philips, M.|
|Crawford, W. S.||Pinney, W.|
|Dawson, hon. T. V.||Plumridge, Captain|
|Dennistoun, J.||Protheroe, E.|
|Divett, E.||Ramsbottom, J.|
|Duncan, G.||Rawdon, Colonel|
|Dundas, Capt. D.||Reade, W. M.|
|Easthope, Sir J.||Rennie, G.|
|Ebrington, Viscount||Seale, Sir J. H.|
|Ellis, W.||Seymour, Lord|
|Elphinstone, H.||Smith, rt. hon. R. V.|
|Ewart,.W.||Somers, J. P.|
|Ferguson, Colonel||Stansfield, W. R. C.|
|Fielden, J.||Stanton, W. H.|
|Ferrand, W. B.||Stewart, P. M.|
|Forster, M.||Stuart, Lord J.|
|Fox, C. R.||Thornley, T.|
|Gill, T.||Towneley, J.|
|Granger, T. C.||Troubridge, Sir E. T.|
|Grey, rt. hn. Sir G.||Tufnell, H.|
|Harris, J. Q.||Wakley, T.|
|Hawes, B.||Walker, R.|
|Heathcoat, J.||Watson, W. H.|
|Hollond, R.||Wigney, I. N.|
|Hoskins, K.||Williams, W.|
|Howard, Lord||Wood, C.|
|Howard, hon. H.||Wrightson, W. B.|
|Humphery, Mr. Ald.||Yorke, H. R.|
|Larpent, Sir G. de H.||Ward, H.|
|Layard, Captain||Aglionby, H. A.|
§ Remaining clauses agreed to.
§ The House resumed. Report to be received.