HC Deb 28 June 1844 vol 76 cc105-16

On the Motion for reading of the Order of the Day for the third reading of the Dissenters Chapels Bill,

Mr. Colquhoun

There was one remarkable circumstance respecting this Bill, and that was that while all the weight of authority and argument within the House was in its favour, out of the House the feeling of the country was quite in an opposite direction. This was to be gathered from the great number of Petitions that had been presented. The great body of Dissenters in England had no hostility to the Unitarians, they had fought for a long time beside them, more particularly during the past year in the struggle on the education question. He therefore repudiated, on the part of the Church and the great body of Dissenters, the charge of hostility against the Unitarians. As far as the present Bill went to place the Unitarians on a footing with the great body of Dissenters he had no objection to the Bill, but he did not wish it to go further. If the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had issued a commission to examine into the grievances complained of, and the circumstances of the several chapels, he should cordially have approved of such a step; but the present Bill went greatly beyond the alleged grievances. The Dissenters and the Church admitted that there were grievances which might call for legislation. They admitted that, where chapels originally Trinitarian had been rebuilt by Unitarians, or where widows received annuities, that then, although it might be strictly legal, it would not be equitable to interfere with such arrangements. But the remedy for such grievances would have been found by a commission such as that of which he had spoken. The Bill as it now stood would touch a great many cases where interference was not necessary, and in many cases its provisions would be extremely unjust. Now, as to the necessity for this Bill, his hon. and learned Friend had stated at the commencement of the discussion, that but for this Bill there might be litigation in the cases of three hundred chapels, but his answer to that was, that it was impossible. In the great majority of the chapels there were no endowments, and thus the expense of a law-suit would be more than the whole value of the chapel. He thus disposed of that class of cases at once. He admitted, that in cases where endowments were attached to chapels litigation might ensue, but it should be remembered that the hon. and learned Attorney General had stated, in answer to the hon. Member for the West Riding that cases similar to that of Lady Hewley's charity would not come within the scope of the Bill. Now, the same evidence was procurable as to the intention of the founders of chapels, as of the intentions in Lady Hewley's case, and he asked then how in reason or justice, how one case could be excluded and the other preserved? He would call attention to the case of a parish in Halifax There a chapel was founded in the middle of the last century, not by deed or instrument, but the general evidence wen[...]tha it was founded for the service of the Church of England. In 1833 a majority of the congregation became independents, and wished to change the form of worship, but the minority insisted that it should continue as it was, at its original foundation. The majority acted as honest men, and left the chapel in the hands of the minority. The case of the chapel of Wolverhampton formed a strong contrast to the case. In 1781 the majority of the congregation wished for Trinitarian worship, but the trustees held a deed, under which they excluded the majority and the minister. The minister and the majority were poor, they had no means of applying to the Courts, and had, therefore, to submit to the force employed against them. Now, under this Bill, the case in which the people acted honestly would be unprotected, while the other, in which the majority were ejected by force, the persons using the force would be confirmed in their possession. A great deal had been said of the case of the Presbyterians of Ireland, and it had been quoted as a reason for the passing this Bill. Now he thought that case showed that the Bill would inflict a great amount of wrong. The Synod of Antrim seceded from that of Ulster in the last century, and were protected from litigation by the difficulty of getting up evidence respecting the chapels to satisfy a Court of Justice. The secession of 1829 would not be protected by the Bill, which required a possession of twenty-five years. Of the five hundred Presbyterian chapels in Ireland, not one would be protected by the Bill—there was not one in which litigation might not arise, because there was not one in which it might not be alleged that within twenty-five years Trinitarian doctrines according to the tenets of the Synod of Ulster, had been preached. How was it possible to prove that the same class of doctrines had been preached continuously for twenty-five years in any chapel. He would mention a case in which this Bill would inflict a great hardship. A gentleman in Scotland had expended 30,000l. in building chapels, his intention being to go to India and there spend a great portion of his life. Now, he asked, suppoposing this gentleman to return after an absence of twenty-five or thirty years, would it not be hard to have been excluded by the prescription mentioned in the Bill, from insisting that the doctrines in furtherance of which he had founded the chapels should be preached there. The statute of limitations was wisely applied in cases where private interest was concerned, but the case of foundations for public purposes was different. These must be confided to trustees, who might be unfaithful, and therefore no time should run against them. That was the law at present, but a deviation was made, for the first time, in the present Bill. Last year, when the right hon. Member for Devonport proposed a Bill for the regulation of charitable trusts, he was met by the assertion that they were sufficiently protected by the courts of law. He (Mr. Colquhoun) thought the courts of law could meet the present case and remedy all tangible grievances, and he should therefore move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a third time that day six months.

Sir R. Inglis

, in seconding the Motion, said, that although the Bill had been somewhat altered since he had last opposed it, it was still the same in all its objectionable features. To the first Clause he did not object; but to the second, which went to establish the prescriptive right, he had a decided objection. The third Clause was not only at variance with the law as it stood, but also with the Bill as it appeared on its first introduction. He had not treated the question as a religious question, nor did he mean to do so now, but would merely state that, under all the circumstances, he felt bound to second the Amendment.

Lord Eliot

said, that before the question was finally disposed of, he wished to say a few words as regarded the Irish Presbyterians. He could assure the House that when first made acquainted with the case of the non-subscribing Presbyterians, he had no prepossessions in their favour. He was, therefore, an unbiassed witness. He had had various communications both with non-subscribing Presbyterians, and with a deputation of the Synod of Ulster—that deputation headed by gentlemen for whose character, opinions, and talents, he had the highest respect. He had been anxious to effect an amicable settlement of differences; but, unfortunately, his endeavours altogether failed, and he was bound to say, after giving the most calm and attentive consideration to the subject, that legislation was actually necessary to prevent the infliction of a grievous wrong on the non-subscribing Presbyterians of Ireland. He felt that an attempt to revive an obsolete law which, during its existence, had never been put in force in this country—certainly not in Ireland—ought to be resisted. It was very clear that in most cases to which reference had been made, that if it had not been for the previous state of the law between the passing of the Act of Uniformity in Ireland and the repeal of that Act, it would be impossible for the Synod of Ulster to establish their case against the non-subscribing Presbyterians. At the time of the repeal of the Act of Uniformity there was a sort of general agreement in both Houses of Parliament, and the only trace of a discussion which he was able to find was in a few words which had dropped from the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Chester, who said that they rose not with the least intention of opposing the measure, but simply to say that it was not called for by any attempt to impose penalties, or to impede the worship of the Unitarians, or to withhold from them that universal toleration which was the peculiar glory of the Church of England. Had they been aware that the Act would be understood as it now, by some parties, appeared to be, they would not have said this. He thought it necessary that Parliament should now give the protection which was really intended to be given by the repeal of the Act of Conformity. In a great majority of cases, the Unitarians dissenting had built houses, chapels, &c., and created the value of the property, and it was impossible to distinguish between such cases and cases where the foundation was said to be for purely Trinitarian purposes. No private interests were affected by this Bill. The Unitarians were not even members of these congregations; and, if they succeeded in dispossessing those who now administered the funds, it was impossible to say on whom they would devolve. He believed by leaving the law in its present state they would only leave a door open to litigation, and he, therefore, felt no hesitation in recommending the Bill to the House. The Bill did not in the least affect any case in which specific mention was made of the trusts or objects for which property was set apart for religious purposes. His hon. Friend said it was not expedient, that because a wrong became general it should be considered as a right. But he did not think there was a wrong. The question was not that of a part of a congregation separating from another part on a question of opinion, but whether where the congregation was unanimous and the founder had not specified his intentions, lapse of time should not be taken as the evidence of those intentions. Looking to all the circumstances of the case, he had come to the conclusion that in agreeing to this Bill the House would simply perform an act of justice.

Sir T. Wilde

said, that this Bill had occupied a considerable portion of his attention, and he admitted that he had originally entertained an opinion adverse to it. At an early stage of its progress, he received a deputation from members of his constituency, consisting of Wesleyan Methodists and other bodies of Dissenters, who required him to give the Bill his opposition. At that time his own opinion was adverse to the Bill, though he differed from the Gentlemen who composed the deputation in many points. Subsequently to that occasion he conversed with many persons, and amongst whom were several to whose judgment he paid deference, and who urged very strong opinions in favour of the Bill. Eventually he (Sir T. Wilde), upon mature consideration of the subject, became convinced that the Bill was a good one, and so far from being one of injustice, would have the effect to prevent the confiscation of property and the misapprehension of the intentions of the founders of religious trusts. This Bill could not extend, as seemed to be apprehended, to afford protection to trustees who should abstract the property of which they were trustees, and apply it to their own uses; or in any other way contrary to the purposes of the trust; but to afford relief and protection, after lapse of time, against vexatious and expensive inquiries as to who were the precise parties for whom he ought to consider himself trustee. The Bill would avoid much expensive litigation—so expensive, that in the one case of Lady Hewley's charities, which had been several years in progress, it was said that as much as 30,000l. had been spent. He believed, however, that this was an exaggeration, though the costs of this suit had certainly exceeded 10,000l.; and yet so far was the case from being settled, that they were even upon the threshold of a fresh inquiry. It was a well-known maxim of the English law, that a title became stronger as it became older; and it was so upon this principle, that in lapse of time the evidence of title might become lost or impaired. Now, the present Bill did nothing more than apply this principle to the case of trust properties for religious endowments, the specific intentions of which it might be difficult, perhaps impossible, to prove, in order to prevent much ruinous and useless litigation. The Crown and the Church had given up their claim of prescription, that no time should run against them; and why should not the same principle be applied to parties and individuals, particularly when the settlement of their claims, by the very nature of the case, must be involved in hopeless obscurity and difficulty? In Lady Hewley's case it had been found that neither the Church nor the Unitarians were entitled to the property; but it was not ascertained who were. The consequence was, that fresh litigation was about to be commenced by a new set of claimants. The case of Lady Hewley, therefore, had settled nothing to guide them in the decision of similar cases; in every case the same long expensive inquiries would have to be gone into to ascertain what were the intentions of the founders. He thought, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government had done quite right in stepping forward to pass this measure, in order to prevent the wholesale destruction which threatened property of this description—the costs of litigation, which must often far exceed the whole value of the fund. He did not think that any injustice would be done to founders by fixing a limitation of twenty-five years within which suits to enquire into the original trusts could be instituted, because the natural consequence of this enactment would be, that founders would take precaution to define the purposes to which they intended their endowment to be applied, and would thus prevent the possibility of any misapplication of the funds. Before he sat down, there was a point affecting his (Sir T. Wilde's) conduct in regard to this measure, upon which he felt bound to say a few words. An hon. Gentleman had stated the other day, and that without any previous communication with him, that certain persons had been prejudiced in their opposition to this Bill on its second reading, in consequence of his not having fulfilled the expectations which he had held out of taking their cause in hand; and that it was only very suddenly, previous to the day fixed for the second reading, that these parties became aware of his intention not to carry out their views. Now, he begged to say that this charge was wholly unfounded. The hon. Gentleman he alluded to said that he had undertaken to lead the Opposition against this Bill in this House. He never did anything of the kind. The facts were simply these:—He met the parties, discussed the question with them, when, as he stated before, his opinion was adverse to the Bill; but that opinion, in consequence of subsequent conversation and inquiry with other parties, he saw reason to change. The hon. Member who brought this charge said that he (Sir T. Wilde) had the papers of the parties, containing the grounds and materials of their opposition, in his hands. Now, the fact was, he had received no other papers but such as were generally distributed amongst Members of Parliament and others, against this Bill. He had asked the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), to delay the second reading, in order to give time to those parties who were opposed to the Bill to be heard, with which request the right hon. Baronet had, in the most obliging and courteous manner, complied. From that moment he had no communication whatever with those gentlemen, until, to his great surprise, he saw it announced, that he was to take an active part in opposition to the measure. It was true he had intimated that his first impressions were adverse to the Bill; but as to his having been asked by anybody out of the House to take the lead, or any active part against the measure, or that he had received any other papers than those which were commonly distributed, there was not the least foundation for the statement. This was the state of the case down to the day previous to the second reading, when he received in court a note from the committee in Palace-yard, to which he returned an answer within half an hour stating that his impressions with regard to the measure were altered, and that he proposed to state in his place in the House the reasons which had induced that alteration. So far from his having undertaken to oppose the second reading, he had never understood that any objection was to be made to the principle of the measure, but merely to certain of its details: in fact, the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Inglis) himself, assented to one clause of the Bill. He must repeat, he could not understand how his intentions with respect to the measure should have been so far mistaken, inasmuch as long previous to the second reading, he communicated to every person who spoke to him on the subject, that he did intend to support the Bill, believing it, on full consideration, to be a useful and a good measure.

Mr. Shaw

assured the hon and learned Gentleman (Sir T. Wilde) that he had been misinformed as to the observations which he had thought it right to make with respect to the course taken by the hon. and learned Gentleman, in reference to the second reading of the Bill. His right hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel) and the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), from the other side of the House, had both remarked that, in the debate on the second reading, the balance of speaking and argument had been largely in favour of the Bill—to which he replied that the opposition to the Bill had laboured under great disadvantage from the loss of the hon. and learned Gentleman's support, which had been fully expected on the part of the opponents of the measure up to the night before the second reading—that he (Sir T. Wilde) had to that period given them advice, been perfectly prepared with their facts, and led them to count upon his powerful advocacy of their claims in that House—and that then, and not till then, he suddenly informed them that he had changed his opinion and would, as he afterwards did, vote for the second reading of the Bill. He never cast any doubt upon the sincerity of the hon. and learned Gentleman's change of mind; but he had said, as every one must feel, that it had caused a serious loss to that side of the question, which the hon. and learned Gentleman had been expected to support, and afterwards, in fact, opposed. Before he stated which he would do in a few words — the reasons why he had voted against the second, and then would vote against the third reading of the Bill, he begged the House to grant a few minute's attention to an explanation of some observations which he had made the last night that question was before the House, respecting a rev. gentleman of great eminence connected with the Remonstrant Synod of Ulster—he meant the Rev. Dr. Montgomery. He had been informed by some Gentlemen then in town, and forming part of the deputation from the General Synod of Ulster, that Dr. Montgomery and other ministers of the Remonstrant Synod had, on their original ordination, subscribed a Trinitarian confession of faith, and upon their authority, he (Mr. Shaw) made that statement to the House. He had not done so for the purpose of throwing the least censure on those ministers who had so changed their opinions, but merely with the view of pointing out the liability there was to such a change of opinion, and the necessity of taking precaution against it. He had not named Dr. Montgomery; but, as he certainly had meant to include him amongst the number to whom he referred, he felt it due to Dr. Montgomery to read to the House an extract from a letter he (Mr. Shaw) had received from that gentleman on the subject. The part which bore upon that point was as follows:— I was licensed by one non-subscribing Presbytery, and ordained by another; and, consequently, I was never called upon to subscribe, nor would I have subscribed, being then, as now, an Arian. Almost the whole of my brethren were similarly circumstanced. He would be very sorry in any degree to misrepresent the rev. gentleman's sentiments. He had on a former occasion mentioned to the House his authority for making the statement, and was then happy in having the opportunity of reading to the House the rev. gentleman's own explanation. It remained for him to state to the House—and he would do it in the briefest possible manner — the grounds upon which he should vote for the amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Colquhoun). He, with every respect for the House, verily believed, that one in ten of those who had supported the Bill by their votes were not aware of its real principle. He was persuaded that the great majority of them thought that the Bill only placed the Unitarian Dissenters upon the same footing as the other dissenting communities of the country. That he denied. The first Clause of the Bill did that; it gave the full benefit of the Act of Toleration to the Unitarian body and their possessions, and placed them exactly in the same condition in respect of every property they enjoyed by gift, endowment, or of their own creation, as all other classes of religionists. To that Clause few objected; and he would willingly have supported a Bill containing that Clause, and also securing to the Unitarians all additions they might have made to property originally Trinitarian—that is what were technically termed Unitarian accretions—and that those should be wholly reserved to the Unitarians, but the objectionable principle of the Bill—the stress of it, as it had been emphatically called by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Macaulay) — lay in the second Clause: that was indisputably and avowedly for continuing and confirming in one class of Dissenters property which they were wrongfully in possession of, and which the law of the land declared rightfully belonged to another. He admitted that it was a principle, and a just one known to our law, that long possession should quiet title—and to a fair extension of that principle to the present Bill—to the few and excepted cases where there was an obscurity in the original foundation on the one hand, and long possession On the other—he would have consented—but against the second Clause in its present form he protested as a gross misapplication of that principle. It, indeed, allowed the declarations in deeds of endowment to prevail against the short usage it established; but in the vast number of cases where there were no such deeds, and frequently no endowments by founders, it shut out documentary evidence as clear as any deeds could contain, such as that upon which he had in the Committee dwelt, in the instance of that great body of Irish Presbyterians comprised in the Synod of Ulster—where the ministers of every congregation had, in fact, subscribed a Trinitarian confession of faith; the proof of which was preserved in the authentic records of the body, and the Bill permitted the chance and doubtful usage of the short period of twenty-five years, which might occur twice over in the life of a single minister, to prevail against the most positive and incontrovertible written testimony. This he pronounced absolute injustice towards the great mass of the dissenting religious communities of the United Kingdom. Instead of quieting possession, and settling the minds of those congregations, he thought it would render them unquiet and unsettle their religious feelings, and excite jealousies and suspicion in the minds of the congregations against their ministers. So far from stopping litigation, it would force it upon all prudent dissenting bodies which had not deeds of trust, lest otherwise the lapse of time should operate against them. Moreover, without attributing any such object to the Government who introduced the Bill or without meaning offence to any class of Dissenters he must be permitted to observe, that the obvious tendency of the measure would be to encourage and favour one small body of the Dissenters—namely the Unitarians, who alone desired the Bill; while the great, overwhelming majority of the Dissenting community of all parts of the kingdom warmly opposed it as injurious to their just rights of property, and offensive to their conscientious principles in religion.

The House divided on the question that the word "now" stand part of the question, Ayes 201; Noes 81: Majority 120.

List of the AYES.
Acland, Sir T. D. Duncombe, hon. A. E.
Acland, T. D. Easthope, Sir J.
A'Court, Capt. Egerton, W. T.
Ainsworth, P. Egerton, Lord F.
Aldam, W. Eliot, Lord
Arbuthnott, hon. H. Ellice, right hon. E.
Archbold, R. Entwisle, W.
Arkwright, G. Escott, B.
Bagot, hon. W. Esmonde, Sir T.
Baird, W. Ewart, W.
Bannerman, A. Fielden, J.
Barclay, D. Ferguson, Col.
Baring, hon. W. B. Fitzroy, Lord C.
Baring, rt. hon. F. T. Flower, Sir J.
Barnard, E. G. Forman, T. S.
Barrington, Visct. Forster, M.
Bellew, R. M. Gardner, J. D.
Bernal, R. Gaskell, J. Milnes
Boldero, H. G. Gibson, T. M.
Bowes, J. Gisborne, T.
Bowles, Adm. Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.
Bramston, T. W. Gladstone, Capt.
Brotherton, J. Godson, R.
Browne, hon. W. Gordon, hon. Capt.
Bruce, Lord E. Gore, hon. R.
Bulkeley, Sir R. B. W. Goulburn, rt. hn. H.
Buller, E. Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.
Byng, G. Granby, Marq. of
Campbell, J. H. Hanmer, Sir J.
Christie, W. D. Harcourt, G. G.
Clerk, Sir G. Hawes, B.
Clive, hon. R. H. Herbert, hon. S.
Cobden, R. Hervey, Lord A.
Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G. Hill, Lord M.
Colborne, hn. W. N. R. Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E. Hodgson, F.
Collett, J. Hodgson, R.
Collins, W. Hogg, J. W.
Courtenay, Lord Hollond, R.
Craig, W. G. Hope, hon. C.
Curteis, H. B. Hope, G. W.
Dalrymple, Capt. Horsman, E.
Damer, hon. Col. Hoskins, K.
Denison, W. J. Howard, hn. E. G. G.
Denison, E. B. Howard, P. H.
Dennistoun, J. Howard, hon. Hen.
D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C. Hutt, W.
Dodd, G. Ingestre, Visct.
Douglas, Sir C. E. James, W.
Douglas, J. D. S. Jermyn, Earl
Drummond, H. H. Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.
Duncan, Visct. Knight, H. G.
Duncan, G. Langston, J. H.
Duncombe, T. Langton, W. G.
Lascelles, hon. W. S. Rawdon, Col.
Leader, J. T. Repton, G. W. J.
Lennox, Lord A. Roebuck, J. A.
Liddell, hon. H. T. Ross, D. R.
Lindsay, H. H. Russell, Lord J.
Loch, J. Sheil, rt. hn. R. L.
Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B. Shelburne, Earl of
Mackenzie, W. F. Shirley, E. J.
Mackinnon, W. A. Smith, B.
Macnamara, M. Smith, J. A.
McNeill, D. Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.
Mainwaring, T. Somerset, Lord G.
Marshall, W. Stanley, Lord
Marsland, H. Stansfield, W. R. C.
Martin, C. W. Stuart, Lord J.
Mildmay, H. St. J. Stuart, W. V.
Milnes, R. M. Stock, Mr. Serj.
Mitchell, T. A. Strickland, Sir G.
Mordaunt, Sir J. Strutt, E.
Morris, D. Sturt, H. C.
Muntz, G. F. Sutton, hon. H. M.
Murphy, F. S. Tancred, H. W.
Neville, R. Thesiger, Sir F.
Nicholl, rt. hon. J. Thornely, T.
Norreys, Sir D. J. Towneley, J.
O'Brien, J. Trevor, hon. G. R.
O'Connell, M. J. Tufnell, H.
O'Connor Don Vane, Lord H.
O'Ferrall, R. M. Vernon, G. H.
Ogle, S. C. H. Villiers, hon. C.
Ord, W. Vivian, J. H.
Paget, Lord W. Vivian, hon. Capt.
Paget, Lord A. Wakley, T.
Paget Col. Walker, R.
Palmerston, Visct. Wall, C. B.
Pattison, J. Wallace, R.
Peel, rt. hon. Sir R. Warburton, H.
Peel, J. Wemyss, Capt.
Pendarves, E. W. W. White, H.
Pennant, hon. Col. Whitmore, T. C.
Philips, G. R. Wilde, Sir T.
Philips, M. Wilshere, W.
Plumridge, Capt. Wodehouse, E.
Ponsonby, hn. C. F. Wortley, hon. J. S.
Powell, Col. Yorke, H. R.
Power, J.
Pringle, A. TELLERS.
Pulsford, R. Young, J.
Pusey, P. Baring, H.
List of the NOES.
Adderley, C. B. Clayton, R. R.
Antrobus, E. Cresswell, B.
Archdall, Capt. M. Darby, G.
Ashley, Lord Dashwood, G. H.
Bagge, W. Dawnay, hon. W. H.
Baskerville, T. B. M. Dickinson, F. H.
Bateson, T. Douglas, Sir H.
Beresford, Major Egerton, Sir P.
Blackburne, J. I. Etwall, R.
Blackstone, W. S. Farnham, E. B.
Broadley, H. Fielden, W.
Brooke, Sir A. B. Fellowes, E.
Bruges, W. H. L. Fitzmaurice, hon. W.
Buck, L. W. Fitzroy, hon. H.
Chetwode, Sir J. Fox, S. L.
Cholmondeley, hn. H. Fuller, A. E.
Goring, C. Palmer, R.
Granger, T. C. Plumptre, J. P.
Gregory, W. H. Polhill, F.
Grogan, E. Pollington, Visct
Hamilton, J. H. Richards, R.
Hardy, J. Rushbrooke, Col.
Harris, hon. Capt. Russell, J. D. W.
Henley, J. W. Seal, Sir J. H.
Hillsborough, Earl of Shaw, rt. hon. F.
Hussey, A. Sibthorp, Col.
Hussey, T. Smyth, Sir H.
James, Sir W. C. Smollett, A.
Jocelyn, Visct. Stewart, P. M.
Jones, Capt. Taylor, E.
Kemble, H. Thompson, Ald.
Lawson, A. Tollemache, J.
Lefroy, A. Trollope, Sir J.
Lopes, Sir R. Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Lygon, hon. Gen. Verner, Col.
McGeachy, F. A. Vesey, hon. T.
McTaggart, Sir J. Vivian, J. E.
Manners, Lord C. S. Wawn, J. T.
Masterman, J. Welby, G. E.
Mundy, E. M. TELLERS.
Newport, Visct. Colquhoun, J. C.
O'Brien, A. S. Inglis, Sir R. H.

Bill read a third time, and passed.