CHURCH OF SCOTLAND—BENEFICES

HC Deb 10 August 1843 vol 71 cc516-30

Sir James Graham

moved the order of the day for a committee of the whole House on the Church of Scotland Benefices Bill.

On the question that the Speaker do leave the Chair.

Mr. P. M. Stewart

said, nothing but a knowledge of the importance of this subject to the country with which he was connected, would induce him to add even a few minutes to the length of this expiring session, by any remarks on this ill-timed and ill-advised bill. The dilatoriness of the Government in introducing this bill was only to be equalled by the precipitancy with which they were now hurrying it through, at a moment when the Commission of the General Assembly had met to judge of the merits and demerits of the measure, all tending to raise suspicion against the measure. The Church of Scotland had been allowed no time to take the measure into consideration, and pronounce an opinion on it, as she had undoubtedly a constitutional right to do. Coming down from the other House, denounced by all the great authorities of the law, and only upheld in that House by a political majority of eighteen, if he looked on the bill as a party measure, he would be content to leave it where it was. If the sentiments of the representatives of Scotland who were most interested in the question, and best able to appreciate its bearings, were to have any weight with the House, he begged to remark that the bill had been opposed by a majority of two to one of the Members from that country; and such had been the preponderating majority of Scotch Members on every occasion, when this subject was discussed; but the indifference with which Scottish affairs were viewed here, induced a disregard of the consequences which the course pursued in settling them might produce. He did not complain of any unkindness of feeling towards Scotland on the part of the representatives of England, but this indifference had always prevailed, even so long ago as the time of Lord Clarendon, who remarked that, at the commencement or the troubles of 1638, although the people of England had manitested the greatest anxiety to learn what was passing every week in countries so remote as Germany, Poland, and Turkey, they were utterly incurious respecting what was passing in Scotland. Lord Clarendon's words are, "no men ever inquired what was doing in Scotland, nor had that kingdom a place, or mention, in one page of any gazette;" and yet we all know the important part which Scotland took in the period alluded to. No event of a domestic character had taken place within the memory of living men, so important to Scotland and to the whole Christian world, at the late sad destruction of the Scottish Church. It might well be asked why, in this case, involving as it did the most momentous interests of the people of Scotland, they had been turned over to the Noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. If they had had the benefit of the masterhand of the Premier, from his experience, and from the impartiality he had shown in the destribution of Church patronage in Scotland, they might have expected a better result. The associations connected with the Gordons of Haddo, in the minds of Scotch Presbyterians, were not of the most national or patriotic character. He spoke in the presence of his hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Aberdeenshire, and near relative of the noble Foreign Secretary, and his hon. Friend would correct him, if he was wrong in saying, that every title which that family had received, they had gained by unremitting opposition to the Presbyterian interest. In Charles I.'s time, John Gordon of Haddo was second in command to Huntley, of the forces raised to oppose the Covenanters, and he was made a Nova Scotia Baronet for his conduct at the Battle of Turriff. "Haddo's Hole," so well known in Edinburgh, was his prison, whence he was led to trial and execution by the Covenanters whom he had persecuted, and his estates were forfeited, and not restored until the restoration of Charles II.; and the Noble Lord's ancestor, when Lord Chancellor of Scotland, had been distinguished for his hostility to Covenanters and Presbyterians, down to his retirement from the Privy Council, as the history of Bishop Burnet fully showed. He was the first Earl who received that honour for his persecution of the Covenanters; and, quarrelling with his brethren of the Privy Council, he resigned office, and retired to the country, to avoid taking the oaths of allegiance to William III. The people of Scotland would as soon expect to gather figs from their native thistles, as expect any pure Presbyterian measure from the hands of a Gordon of Haddo. The bill came down, marked with the disapprobation of the most eminent Judges of the other House, as declaring that to be law which was not law, and overturning the authority of the judgment pronounced in the highest judicatory of the realm. Lords Brougham, Cottenham, Langdale, Campbell, had all strenuously opposed it; and, if report spoke true, even the highest law officer of the kingdom privately condemned the measure, which, out of deference to his colleagues, he supported in his place in the House of Lords. The most distinguished men who remained in the Church of Scotland, the Moderator of the General Assembly, Dr, Cook, Dr. Bryce, and others, so far as their individual opinions were known, all denounced the bill. For what purpose, then, was this bill brought in, but to increase the dissensions which prevailed, and shut the door for ever against the possibility of any future conciliation of those who had quitted the Church. Who asked for it? Who wished for it? Who supported it? None but one or two individuals—the noble author of the bill, who cherished a sort of paternal attachment to it, and an individual in Edinburgh, who had much to answer for, distinguished as he was in the evils which had vexed the Church. If the Commission of the Assembly which just met should oppose the bill, as he believed they would, he hoped that Government, notwithstanding the disregard which they had shown to the wishes of the Church, would at least act on the constitutional principle of not forcing on the measure against the declared opinions of the General Assembly. They had only the solitary opinion of the Solicitor-General in favour of the bill, and he would like to ask his right hon. and learned Friend whether that opinion was merely official or a real one? Did the Attorney-General agree in it? If so, where was that distinguished lawyer in all those discussions? Had he said anything in reply to the able arguments of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Rutherfurd)? Was not his opinion the same as that of the majority of the lawyers in the other House, that this was an unjust measure? The pre- amble of the bill was enough to condemn it in the judgment of every Scotsman. It professed to narrate those statutes on which the Presbyterian rights are founded, and having quoted the acts 1567 and 1592, it jumped over the most important of all,—the Revolution Settlement of 1690, with the Claim of Right, and the Union Settlement, with the Act of Security—and embraced its sister in principle, the Act of Bolingbroke 1712. The doctrine of non-intrusion of ministers against the will of the people was established by the provisions of the act of 1592, and that of 1690 confirmed the system of Church government erected by the former. The authority of the Second Book of Discipline, notwithstanding what had been alleged to the contrary, was ratified by the Acts of 1592 and 1690, for they expressly confirmed the "discipline" of the Church as then established; and the Second Book of Discipline states, that An election is the choosing of such persons as are most able for the office of minister, by the judgment of the eldership and the consent of the congregation. There was another authority of eminence which had not been quoted on this subject, which was strongly in favour of the same view. He alluded to the opinion of William Grant, Lord Prestongrange, who says that Patronage, though not abolished at the Reformation, was subjected to the strict control of the Church judicatories, which invariably required the concurrence of the parishes. This regulation was established by the acts of 1567 and 1592. It would not go down either with the Scotch lawyers, who best knew their own law, or with the people of Scotland, that there was no statutory settlement of the principle for which the Church of Scotland had been contending. They had it from the Judges who had decided the Auchterarder case—the bitter and fertile source of all these discussions—that if Parliament persisted in enacting this measure, and in declaring that to be law which was not law, there ought to be a re-hearing of that case, and on re-hearing it, they declared they would reverse their judgment. This was a confirmation of the views of the brilliant minority of the Court of Session, who had taken a different view of the case from that of the House of Lords, and among whom were Lords Jeffrey and Cockburn, and Fuller- ton, and Ivory; and last, not least, Lord Moncrieff. He said, therefore, that there was a cruel hardship in the fate which had fallen on the Church and people of Scotland, which, though beyond redemption, ought to excite the deepest sympathy for those who, like himself, had been forced to leave the Church of their fathers, for striving for that which now appeared to be the rights of the Church of Scotland. The provisions of the bill showed the confusion which must have existed in the minds of its framers. It enacted that, on objections being made by any one or more of the congregation, the Presbytery might reject the candidate for reasons assigned; while another clause directed that the Presbytery should have regard to the number and weight of the objectors. What was this but "show me the man and I will tell you the law." Being thrust out from the Church of his fathers by the late dissensions,—being a member of the Free Church of Scotland,—he thanked God he was out of the reach of legislation such as this. But still there was an invasion of the constitutional rights of the remaining Church, and of the people of Scotland, by this bill, which it became every Member of Parliament of that country to oppose. There was a pertinacity on the part of the right hon. Baronet in pressing forward this bill, not by strength of reason, but by reason of strength, which he could not account for. A majority of the Scotch members were against it when discussed in full House; and the whole weight of legal authority in this country was against it, with the exception, indeed, of the hon. and learned Solicitor-general, who had acknowledged, in trying in vain to answer the speech of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Rutherfurd), that he was not so well conversant with Scotch law as that right hon. Gentleman; and the Lord Chancellor, who, he believed, had expressed opinions adverse to the present bill. He believed that that noble and learned Lord had, in writing to an hon. Member, condemned the bill. However that might be, and they were welcome to the last edition of his Lordship's opinion, the Government had, by a denial of the rights of the Scottish Church, split that Church into two, and divided families and those who had been heretofore friends. The gentlemen of England who were about to visit Scotland would find Scotch- men in thousands and tens of thousands, on the sides of their mountains and in the depths of their valleys, cheerfully worshipping their God; and where such cheerfulness may be dimmed by the tears of humanity, the source of those tears would be easily traceable to the Claverhouse cruelty of that unrighteous Legislation which had driven them from the graves of our fathers and brethren. Throughout this dreary Session, he had abstained from addressing the House, and from troubling a too-troubled Government. He had left it to the Representatives of Ireland to thank the Government for the continued prosperity of their fine but ill-governed country, and to the Representatives of England's best interests—her agricultural, manufacturing, commercial, and shipping, for the full measure of prosperity with which these were blessed, and also to the men of Wales, to offer their gratitude for the peace and quiet which brooded over their shores and mountains. But now, when Government, in the exercise of its only virtue—he meant that impartiality with which it confers, not its favours, but its disfavours, on every portion of our land, and on every one of our great national interests—now that it pounces with venomed beak upon Scotland, he must be forgiven for making this effort to avert and void off the blow. When at the close of this long and worse than useless Session, he found a Government with a commanding majority at its back, and too much at its beck, struggling day and night, wasting alike the light of the noontide sun and of the midnight oil, in forcing through Parliament such measures as the Coal-whippers' Bill, and the Irish Arms Bill, and this wretched attempt at useless legislation for Scotland. He must be forgiven for reminding the Government of that celebrated couplet, by which Windham once enumerated the faults of a Government not worse than the present— ——"Your faults—they are but two; There nothing good you say, there's nothing right you do. This bill was not right, it was not just, it was neither a lawful nor a constitutional act. A distinguished writer had said, that— Every struggle for liberty in Scotland since the Reformation has been by Presbyterians. Under an administration favourable to liberty they have been cherished, while under Governments of an opposite stamp the utmost pains have been taken to oppress and destroy them. The present bill was one of oppression to the remaining liberties of the Church of Scotland, and an act denounced by every great law authority, deprecated as he believed it would be, by the few eminent men now left in the Established Church of Scotland, as giving dangerous power to the clergy of that Church at the cost of the people, and as containing that monstrous principle, "Show me the man and I will tell you the law." He called on the Government to desist from their unwise course, and on hon. Gentlemen opposite to refuse to aid and abet in such a deed of monstrous injustice to Scotland and to the Christian world at large, and with confidence he turned for support to every friend of civil and religious liberty, on whichever side of party politics he might be ranged. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the House do on this day three months resolve itself into the said committee.

Mr. Hume

seconded the motion, because it affected Scotland in a particular degree, and it came before them with powers to alter the constitution of the Church of Scotland. The Church of Scotland was a popular body; the bill would place in the bands of an oligarchy a power which would destroy that constitution. He wished, then, for a little time. What purpose could it answer to force on the measure? No man demanded it. The Government incurred a great responsibility in taking this course to hasten a measure altering the constitution of the Church of Scotland, which ought not to be done without great deliberation.

Dr. Boyd

knew nothing of late years which had so much agitated the Presbyterians of Ireland as the state of the Church of Scotland, as well as the question of Presbyterian marriages, which he should not then go into. The Presbyterians who settled in Ireland upwards of two centuries ago, had persevered against the greatest difficulties in introducing peace and order into the province of Ulster, and had raised it to the position it now occupied. The question of Repeal of the Union, had been attempted to be urged and advocated in Ulster, but the Presbyterians of the north would not listen to those attempts. The Presbyterians of the north of Ireland had since their settlement there enjoyed the right of selecting their own clergymen—they had greatly increased in numbers and importance. When they first settled there, their numbers were so few that their clergy consisted only of five individuals. They had now 500 clergymen, and the numbers of the Presbyterians had increased to nearly a million. The Presbyterians of the north of Ireland warmly sympathised with their brethren in Scotland—a fact which the House could form a judgment upon when he assured them that in Belfast the sum of 3,000l. was subscribed in one evening for the assistance of their brethren in Scotland. He hoped the bill would be postponed, and that the Government would at a future period bring in a measure of a more liberal kind.

Mr. Pringle

trusted, that a measure which was now so near its final stage, and which was calculated to set at rest the excitement which had for some time prevailed in Scotland, would not be postponed, but that, on the contrary, the House would lose no time in passing it. It was said that the Church of Scotland had had no time to take the measure into consideration; but no question had been more discussed than this of the Church of Scotland. If the General Assembly wished to discuss the question, they might have long ago called the meeting which was held yesterday; but the fact was, that that meeting was only the usual quarterly one. If there was any one legislative measure more desirable than another, since the Auchterarder decision, it was the one then before the House. An ample opportunity had been afforded parties in the Church who were opposed to this bill of expressing their opinion upon it; and if two Presbyteries had petitioned against the bill, all other Presbyteries had had an opportunity of following their example if they had chosen to do so. It had been said that this measure was opposed to the wishes of the Church of Scotland, but such was not the fact. It was the most anxious desire of the Church that this bill should be adopted. He believed that if this bill was passed into a law, and fully carried out by the patrons, the Church would continue to embrace as large a proportion of the Inhabitants of Scotland as were in connection with her before the recent secession. It was, however, true that many individuals in the Church of Scotland were opposed to this measure. He, and those who entertained similar opinions, believed that it would not alter in any degree the constitution of the Church, and he hoped it would receive the the assent of the Legislature.

Mr. Bannerman

asked the House to reject the bill. He had expected, after the lengthened discussion which this measure under went on its second reading and after the very small majority on that occasion in favour of the bill, that her Majesty's Government would have withdrawn it, and not have pressed forward so uncalled for a measure at this late period of the Session. He confessed he was surprised to see the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department supporting this bill. It could only operate as a salve to the consciences of some sixteen clergymen who were anxious to remain in the Church of Scotland and receive their stipends, and one of whom had lately declared in the Presbytery of Edinburgh that Ministers were solemnly pledged to carry this bill, without the slightest alteration or amendment. It professed to remove doubts existing as to the right of presentation and of rejection of ministers to the Church of Scotland. And what was it that the right hon. Gentleman had himself been doing for the last four months? He had been filling up livings for Scotland without entertaining any doubt at all as to the right of the Crown to make the appointments. Had the right hon. Gentleman been giving the congregations the opportunity of rejecting the presentees, or of making objections to be considered by the Presbytery? No such thing. The right hon. Gentleman had been acting according to the law of Scotland; and now he came down to Parliament and asked diem to stultify himself by passing an act to remove doubts, while he himself had been acting without entertaining any doubts at all upon the subject. He could not conceive what possible object the Government could have in passing such a bill. But the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government it seemed, was determined to carry this bill, and declared the other evening that he would summon the whole forces of the Government, in order to enable him to pass it. There was a pretty strong muster to-night; and, perhaps, the right hon. Baronet would even condescend to solicit Young England to unite with Old England, in passing the measure. He hoped, how- ever, he would not succeed. The only object he could see the Government could gain by passing this bill would be to enable them to put something ecclesiastical into the Queen's speech; but, after the fate of the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill, he hoped he would at least have the vote of the Judge-advocate against this bill. He called on the House to reject the bill.

Sir J. Graham

could assure the House he would not trespass many minutes on their attention, and if he wanted any additional reason for that assurance, it would be found in the fact that of the last thirty-six hours he believed he had spent twenty-six within the walls of that House. Nothing, he could assure the House, but a sense of duty could induce him to address them on the present occasion. The hon. Member for Montrose had reminded the Government that a heavy responsibility rested upon them for the present measure. He (Sir J. Graham) was conscious of the full weight of that responsibility, and feeling most anxious to consolidate the strength and to secure the permanent safety of the Church of Scotland, with a view to promote the interests of that Church and of the people of Scotland—he implored the House to allow this Bill to proceed. The hon. Member who just sat down had stated that he (Sir J. Graham) in the discharge of his official duty, had nominated, or advised the Crown to nominate, ministers to the livings become vacant by the late secession from the Church. The fact was, he believed, that he had nominated fifty ministers, and he believed that nearly forty livings still remained to be filled up, and it was with regard to this state of things that he felt most anxious that the Bill should pass. He believed that the admission of the ministers so nominated was not yet complete, and that not one of them had been as yet inducted into his living, and this Bill would impose a salutary check on the patronage of the Crown, and would give to the people a full opportunity of stating their objections to each presentee. With respect to the present Bill, he believed that it was strictly consonant with the Presbyterian principles of Church discipline, and that it was calculated to give effect to non-intrusion, and that in each parish the congregations would have the largest right to object, and the Church Courts the most ample right of adjudicating. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. P. M. Stewart), who, on a former occasion, had sounded a such note of anticipated triumph, had talked of the present as a lawless Bill. Now he (Sir J. Graham) confessed that he was at a loss to conceive what was the meaning of that term so applied. This Bill had come down from the other House of Parliament, the seat and fountain of authority in matters of law, yet the hon. Gentleman termed the measure lawless; and the hon. Member must well know, that any law, even with respect to the Church of Scotland, might be made or unmade, might be modified or repealed, by the authority of Parliament. The hon. Member had alluded to the protest of the Law Lords against the declaratory part of this Bill. He (Sir J. Graham) was disposed to treat those Law Lords with all proper respect, but it must be recollected that the doubts which it was the object of this Bill to remove, bad been produced by the dicta of the Law Lords with respect to points not immediately before them, and these doubts had been created by certain declarations of these very Law Lords who had protested. Now, he begged to observe there had come down from the other House a Bill for the more effectual suppression of the slave-trade, which Bill had been introduced with the concurrence of all those Law Lords who had entered into the protest alluded to by the hon. Member. This Bill which had for its object the removal of doubts, and which recited that, certain doubts having arisen as to the true construction and meaning of an Act of Parliament specified, it was expedient that the true intent and meaning of the said Act of Parliament should be explained, nevertheless assumed the shape of an enacting measure. There could be no question that it was the usual course of Parliament to have doubts removed by an enacting as well as by a declaratory form of Bill. He thought that the Bill with which the House was now asked to proceed would have the effect of removing doubts with respect to the right of the people of Scotland on the one hand to object, and with respect to the right of the Church Courts on the other to adjudicate. It was necessary for the interests of the Established Church of Scotland, and the peace of that country, that those doubts should be removed, more especially with respect to the peculiar circumstance now existing, to which he bad already adverted, namely, the large number of livings suddenly become vacant, and the number of ministers who had been nominated to fill up those vacancies. He was also convinced, that this measure was necessary to arrest the progress of secession, and to stay a schism which he considered dangerous. He (Sir J. Graham) thought that the hon. Member who moved the amendment before the House had dealt rather harshly with his noble Friend (Lord Aberdeen), who had introduced this bill; and he was surprised, that that hon. Member, who knew what the feelings of his fellow-countrymen were with respect to that nobleman, had thought fit to speak of him in a disparaging manner. The hon. Member had spoken of circumstances connected with the family of Lord Aberdeen. Now, his noble Friend had no reason to be ashamed of those circumstances—he was of ancient descent—of noble birth—deeply attached to his country—zealous in its service, and that attachment and those services were repaid by the respect of the Scottish people. He was a member of the Presbyterian Church, and had evinced a constant desire to secure its peace by the early settlement of this question on which he had bestowed his most anxious care. Notwithstanding the failure of former efforts, Lord Aberdeen had persevered from an honest desire to overcome this difficulty. However, this measure was not to be treated as the measure of Lord Aberdeen alone. It was the measure of the united Cabinet, on which they had bestowed the greatest pains and attention. The hon. Member for Montrose had called it an ill-advised measure, but he ( Sir J. Graham) appealed to his Colleagues whether there was any measure on which they had deliberated with greater caution or more constant solicitude; and as to the complaint of the hon. Member for Montrose, that the measure had not been brought forward by his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government, he (Sir J. Graham) would say that he had had the benefit of the advice of his right hon. Friend, and there was no measure which his right hon. Friend had laboured more assiduously to bring to a safe and satisfactory completion. The hon. Member had stated, that in framing this measure, the Government had not the co-operation of any lawyer of eminence. In the absence of the Lord Advocate of Scotland, he (Sir J. Graham) might appeal to any one acquainted with that part of the kingdom whether there was any lawyer practising at the bar in Scotland, or he might even say upon the bench, whose opinion was entitled to more respect in matters of law than that of the Lord Advocate. Now this Bill had been drawn by the Lord Advocate and had received the entire sanction of the Solicitor-general. The hon. Member opposite had talked of the splendid talent and profound learning by which the minority of the Scotch judges who had differed on this question were distinguished but they (the Government) had the opinion of the majority of the Scotch judges with them, and he might confidently say that the balance of authority rested on their side. The necessity for this bill was most urgent, for he believed that, unless it should pass the secession, which they all so deeply deplored, would be much extended; and, considering all the circumstances connected with the present state of Scotland, he never felt a more deep or decided conviction of the policy of any measure, and now for the second time he strongly urged the adoption of this bill. Something had been said about the absence of the support of the General Assembly. He (Sir J. Graham) relied on the declaration made in answer to her Majesty's letter to the General Assembly—that letter in which the principles of the present bill were clearly enunciated. He did not now allude to the Commission of the General Assembly but to the body itself, who, in terms, distinctly declared their confidence in her Majesty's Government, and in the principles of this measure, after it had been announced to them—nay, the very draft of the bill itself was perfectly well known to them at the time; it had been frequently considered by them; in substance it was the Bill of Lord Aberdeen in 1840, to which the majority of the remaining members of the Church had subscribed adheranee; and their confidence having been fully expressed, on their support the Government could confidently rely. The hon. Member who had just sat down had relied on two stray petitions, which had been presented from two different places in Scotland, against this bill, and in one of which he stated that Doctor Cook had concurred. Now, Doctor Cook could not have been a party to the petition from St. Andrews; and it was impossible that Doctor Cook could object to the present bill, for a resolution, moved by him in the General Assembly, in 1833, was the groundwork of Lord Aberdeen's original bill. He (Sir J. Graham) felt a strong desire that this measure should not be impeded, for he was satisfied that if passed it would be conducive to the stability of the Church established by the law in Scotland, and to the best interests of that people, whose happiness had been disturbed so unfortunately by religious strife and by fanatical contention.

Mr. Collett

; Before proceeding to a division, I wish, Sir, to say a few words, and I can assure Gentlemen opposite, that if favoured with a moderate degree of attention, I shall not only not occupy the House for ten minutes as promised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, but I shall not trespass on its patience for upwards of one minute. The same reason which induced me, Sir, to support the measure last under our consideration, will oblige me to vote against the present. I voted, Sir, for the second reading of the Machinery Exportation Bill, because, like the Canada Corn Bill, I considered it a step in the right direction—a little step it is true—but still a step in favour of free-trade, and I vote against the Church of Scotland Benefices Bill, because, I consider it a step in the wrong direction. I am, Sir, for free-trade in corn, I am for free-trade in machinery, and I am for free-trade in parsons. And it is because I consider this bill to militate against this principle of free-trade in parsons, that I shall give my humble but determined opposition to it.

The House then divided on the question, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question:—Ayes 85; Noes 54: Majority 31.

List of the AYES.
A'Court, Capt.	Darby, G.
Allix, J. P.	Denison, E. B.
Antrobus, E.	Douglas, Sir C. E.
Bailie, H. J.	Duncombe, hon. A.
Balldwin, B.	Duncombe, hon. O.
Baring, hn. W. B.	Eliot, Lord
Beckett, W.	Escott, B.
Blackburne, J. I.	Estcourt, T. G. B.
Bodkin, W. H.	Flower, Sir J.
Boldero, H. G.	Fuller, A. E.
Borthwick, P.	Gaskell, J. Milnes
Botfield, B.	Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.
Bramston, T. W.	Gordon, hon. Capt.
Broadley, H.	Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.
Broad wood, H.	Greene, T.
Bruce, Lord E.	Hale, R. B.
Buller, Sir J. Y.	Hamilton, G. A.
Burrell, Sir C. M.	Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.
Cardwell, E.	Herbert, hn. S.
Clerk, Sir G.	Hope, hn. C.
Corry, rt. hon. H.	Hope, G. W.
Cripps, W.	Hornby, J.
Damer, Col.	Ingestre, Visct.

Inglis, Sir R. H.	Rushbrooke, Col.
Jones, Capt.	Sandon, Vist.
Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.	Scott, hn. F.
Lincoln, Earl of	Sibthorp, Col.
Lockhart, W.	Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.
Lygon, hn. Gen.	Smollett, A.
Mackenzie, T.	Smoerset, Lord G.
Mackenzie, W. F.	Stanley, Lord
Manners, Lord C. S.	Stanley, E.
Marsham, Visct.	Sutton, hon. H. M.
Mildmay, H. St. J	Tomline, G.
Newport, Visct.	Trench, G.
Nicholl, rt. hon. J.	Vivian, J. E.
Oswald, A.	Waddington, H. S.
Palmer, G.	Wellesley, Lord C.
Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.	Wood, Col. T.
Peel, J.	Wortley, J. S.
Pollington, Visct.	Young, J.
Rashleigh, W.	TELLERS.
Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.	Baring, H.
Round, J.	Pringle, A.

List of the NOES.
Archbold, R.	Hutt, W.
Barclay, D.	Layard, Capt.
Baring, rt. hn. F. T	Leveson, Lord
Barnard, E. G.	Morris, D.
Bowring, Dr.	Morrison, Gen.
Boyd, J.	Napier, Sir C.
Brotherton, J.	Norreys, Sir D. J.
Buller, C.	O'Brien, W. S.
Byng, rt. hn. G. S.	O'Connell, M. J.
Clements, Visct.	Palmerston, Visct.
Cobden, R.	Pechell, Capt.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E	Plumridge, Capt.
Collett, J.	Ross, D. R.
Duncan, G.	Russell, Lord E.
Duncombe, T.	Scott, R.
Dundas, Adm.	Sheil, rt. hn. R. L.
Easthope, Sir J.	Smith, B.
Elphinstone, H	Somerville, Sir W. M.
Ewart, W.	Stuart, Lord, J.
Ferguson, Sir R. A.	Ward, H. G.
Fitzroy, Lord C.	Wawn, J. T.
Forster, M.	Wood, B.
Gibson, T. M.	Wood, G. W.
Gore, hon. R.	Wyse, T.
Hawes, B.	Yorke, H. R.
Hill, Lord M.
Hindley, C.	TELLERS.
Howard, hn. C. W. G.	Bannerman, A.
Hume, J.	Stewart, P. M.

Bill passed through committee, and was reported.