HC Deb 12 July 1847 vol 94 cc201-14

, in moving that the Speaker leave the Chair, in order that the House might resolve itself into a Committee on this Bill, said that he wished to make a short statement to the House on the nature of the measure. The Bill embraced two distinct objects, one of which was the abolition of the Court of Review and the jurisdiction dependent upon it, and the other was the transfer of certain authority now vested in the Bankruptcy Commissioners in London, to the Insolvent Commissioners in London, and to the Judges of the county courts. A further object of the Bill was to save the country between 16,000l. and 17,000l. a year, by certain alterations to be made in the practice of the Insolvent Debtors' Courts, which would dispense with the necessity of the Commissioners travelling circuits in the country. while the business which was formerly done there would be transacted by the judges of the local courts. He believed that the first part of the Bill, when properly understood, would be as acceptable to the House as the latter part of it seemed to be, if he might judge from the cheers with which the announcement of the pecuniary saving to the country was received. Before, however, he touched upon the Bill itself, he must refer to a statement made by the hon. Member for Montrose the other night, that a Committee of the law Lords had expressed their opinion that any alteration in the law of bankruptcy and insolvency should be suspended until a general measure could be introduced on the subject. If, however, the hon. Member for Montrose would refer to the paper which he had alluded to, he would find that although the Committee were of that opinion, they were also of opinion that certain measures should be carried into effect at once; and the Bill before the House had for its object the accomplishment of those measures, and had received the sanction of the Lord Chancellor, Lord Brougham, and Lord Lyndhurst. He would proceed, therefore, now to explain the different objects of this Bill; and he confessed he did not understand the grounds which had been urged for the further postponement of the measure, so far as it related to the three or four clauses abolishing the jurisdiction of the Court of Review. It had been urged that the Bill had been brought forward for the purpose of increasing the patronage of the Lord Chancellor—a charge which had been made by persons who wished to stop the further progress of this measure, because they knew that as long as the Court of Review stood, they had a chance of being promoted to higher offices than those which they now filled. Those who stated that the Lord Chancellor's object was to exercise his own patronage, ought to recollect what his Lordship had already done in the course of the present Session. A vacancy occurred among the Masters in Chancery—an office in the Lord Chancellor's gift; but as his Lordship thought the appointment unnecessary, the office was immediately abolished. By abolishing the Affidavit Office, also, he had relieved the country from considerable expense, and had given up much more patronage. It would be found, also, that the very first clause of the present Bill took from him the patronage which he undoubtedly possessed of appointing four Judges of the Court of Review; and subsequent clauses in the Bill took from him the power of appointing two Commissioners of Bankrupts, and from the Home Secretary the appointment of one Commissioner of Insolvent Debtors. So far, therefore, was this Bill from being intended to confer on the Lord Chancellor any patronage whatever, that it took from him patronage which he might have exercised without objection. Some years ago the whole law of bankruptcy was put upon what was considered a proper footing. Jurisdiction in bankruptcy was taken away from the Court of Chancery, and an appeal in bankruptcy matters was given to the Court of Review; but it was soon found out that the court was nearly useless, and that the machinery was very expensive. Four judges of the court were at first appointed, but the numbers being reduced by deaths and the acceptance of other appointments, Vice Chancellor Knight Bruce was made Chief Judge of the Court of Review, receiving, however, no increase of his salary as Vice Chancellor. In that state of things the Court of Review had continued for a considerable period; and, in everything but in name, the business of the Court of Review was transacted by the Court of Chancery, through the instrumentality of one of the Vice Chancellors. The Lord Chancellor, therefore, thought that it would be better to abolish the Court of Review, which now existed simply in name, and to transfer its jurisdiction to a Vice Chancellor whom he should appoint for that purpose, but not to alter the law of bankruptcy, nor the mode of administering it, because the Bill provided that the business of the court should be carried on by the party acting as Vice Chancellor, which now was administered by him as Judge of the Court of Review. It had been hinted to him that there was an object in this Bill of giving some patronage to some parties who were not named in it. He believed he might say that, so far was this from being the case, that it was directly the reverse. Mr. Ayrton had been appointed a Bankruptcy Commissioner, partly because the Lord Chancellor believed him to be the fittest person whom he could select for that office, and partly because he thought that a second registrar of the court was not necessary, and that if the office were abolished, the holder must receive compensation. Mr. Ayrton was, therefore, appointed a Commissioner in Bankruptcy, and the vacancy in the office of registrar would not be filled up. As to the other portion of the Bill, he thought that there could be no question. He believed it to be generally admitted that the new system of giving a mixed insolvency jurisdiction to the Bankruptcy Commissioners, in addition to their own especial duties, had interfered with the efficiency of the Bankruptcy Court; and if that could be put an end to, and the authority transferred to another jurisdiction, that that course would be advantageous. The chief, as well as the second Bankruptcy Commissioner, had kept accounts of their circuits, from which it appeared that the first named gentleman had visited six towns in his list without finding a single insolvent. Mr. Commissioner Phillips had also set apart one week for Liverpool. He went down there, and found that he could dispose of his business in two hours. Now this was certainly a department of judicial business which could be safely transferred to the local tribunals. He had mentioned the principal points of the Bill, and he hoped that the House would have no objection to proceed to consider the clauses in Committee.


would very gladly have consented to the Motion that the Speaker do leave the chair, and then have discussed the clauses of the Bill in Committee, without offering any observations to the House now, had it not been for the speech just made by the Attorney General; and perhaps it might be for the convenience of the House that he should take that opportunity of stating his views of the measure. He would begin with what was the most agreeable part—that of stating his entire concurrence in a very large proportion of the Bill. To the latter portion of the measure he had no objection. He thought the abolition of the Circuit Insolvent Debtors' Court a great improvement, and he thought the transfer of their jurisdiction to the county courts would be found to be attended with great advantage. Neither did he think there could be any suspicion that the Bill was one intended to give patronage to the Lord Chancellor. But, while the larger part of the Bill had his approval, the first three clauses must be objected to by every one who wished to separate the jurisdiction in bankruptcy from the Great Seal. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, the measure had received in its favour the concurrent opinion of the Lord Chancellor, and the ex-Chancellors in the other House; but he did not know that this was a question which ought to be decided by Lord Chancellors. He did not know that Lord Lyndhurst had taken any part in the discussion; and no doubt there were Members in the House who would be able to state what the views of Lord Brougham were upon that subject. But he repeated that this question was not to be decided by Lord Chancellors, or by ex-Chancellors. It was a question that the trading community had the deepest possible interest in, and on which they were able to form a competent opinion; and he must say that the present Government had an immense advantage in its composition in this respect, possessing, as it did, Members representing the great trading communities of the country. He saw opposite to him the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Hawes), who, himself connected with trade and commerce, represented a great metropolitan constituency, and had directed much of his attention to the subject. He must say, then, that on a question of this kind the Government had not acted with the prudence which he would have expected, to rely for advice on the Lord Chancellor, and not avail themselves of the experience of those metropolitan Members of their own body who were so intimately connected with the interests of trade and commerce. The House would recollect that this subject was sent to a Commission—a mixed Commission—composed partly of lawyers and partly of gentlemen connected with trade. That Commission unanimously recommended two things: in the first place, that bankruptcy proceedings should be severed from the Great Seal; and, in the second, that separate tribunals should be established—that the Court of Review should be maintained, to which all such questions should be exclusively referred—and, taking a view of the subject very different from that of the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General), they urged, as a reason for the maintenance of the Court of Review, that it was politic to afford to the Commissioners of Bankruptcy the stimulus of some preferment. In this report the Commissioners unanimously concurred: the report was received, and, upon that report, an Act was passed which formed the law as it now existed. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that the whole aspect of the law would be remodelled in the next Session of Parliament; and he had also informed them that the present was a mere nominal change. He suspected, however, that there was more than the change of a name in this proposition. Why, if it was only the change of a name, could they not let matters stand as they were till next Session? The hon. and learned Gentleman said there was no desire to create new patronage by the Bill; but was it equally certain that there was not, under this transfer, a desire to maintain useless offices connected with the Great Seal? It would go far to uphold an office of very doubtful policy—that of Secretary of Bankrupts; but, at all events, it appeared to him clear that if the change was merely a nominal one, it ought to be reserved till the next Session of Parliament. Was there, he would ask, any reason why creditors in this country should desire to go to the Court of Chancery for the despatch of business? Was there likely to be great expedition in that court with reference to bankrupt affairs? There was every reason why they should be jealous in the extreme of any measure which gave increased jurisdiction to that court. He did not wish to speak offensively of that tribunal; but it was matter of notoriety that great abuses still existed in connexion with the Great Seal; that the fees were felt to an undue extent by the suitors in that court; and that the hungriest and poorest suitor in it contributed to those fees. He, therefore, looked to this whole question with the greatest jealousy, and must repeat that he did not see any necessity at the close of the Session to retransfer the business connected with bankruptcy to the Court of Chancery. He had stated that he could not support the first three clauses, and also expressed his regret that the advice of the hon. Member for Lambeth had not been taken respecting the measure, which was in many respects a most excellent measure. He hoped that the Government would not press those clauses to which he objected upon the House; for if they went into Committee, and he should stand alone, he would most assuredly give those clauses his most determined opposition.


did not understand that there was any opposition to going into Committee. If he understood aright the clauses to which the right hon. Member had referred, they did not transfer to the Great Seal the business of the Court of Review, but merely gave the discharge of the duties to the Vice-Chancellor.


contended that they were not in a situation, at the close of the Session, to give that degree of attention to this Bill which it deserved. He had heard, with great pleasure and profit, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham), who had called their attention to some of the more prominent defects of the measure; but the right hon. Gentleman had stated that it was not his intention to oppose their going into Committee. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman, however, to listen to what he had to advance on the subject, with the view of inducing Government not to proceed with the mea- sure, and he thought he would be able to furnish him with reasons why the Bill should not be carried a stage further. The objections to the Bill were of a grave and important character; and even those parts of it that seemed to be beneficial, deserved at the hands of the Government very careful attention. The first clause went to abolish the Court of Review. This court, which was established not many years since, was now said to be existing nominally only. It was said that it was merely a nominal tribunal; but he denied that altogether. He denied the wisdom of the arrangement; as a measure preliminary to the abolition of the Court of Review, there might be circumstances in its favour; but, as a means of adjudicating bankruptcy cases, he denied its wisdom altogether. It was alleged, as a reason for transferring the jurisdiction to one of the Judges of the Court of Chancery, that that Judge had not enough to do in his own court; he denied this, and he complained of the manner in which the business of bankruptcy was managed with reference to the public. [The hon. and learned Member detailed the manner in which causes were set down for hearing in the Court of Chancery, a suitor being invited to make his choice of the Vice Chancellor's Court in which his cause should be heard; and, having done so, when the time came for the hearing, without any notice or warning to the suitor, it was transferred by the Lord Chancellor to some other court.] He appealed to the candour of the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey), and of his hon. and learned Friend, and asked them to postpone the Committee on this Bill. There was nothing before the House to justify the abolition of the Court of Review, and the transferring its business to the Court of Chancery; there was not only no reason for abolishing that court, but the proper and judicious view of the question was the other way. If there was a good tribunal, it ought to be dealt with in a way to make it an efficient one, instead of which this Bill dealt with it in a way to bring it into contempt. No one could accuse the Vice Chancellor in question of incapacity; there were in the legal profession motives of preference for particular courts; but the Vice Chancellor in question, though he had less business than the other Chancery Judges, was a person of unquestioned talent and learning. If it was intended to put a slight upon the Lord Chancellor who created this tribunal, this Bill would do it. So much with respect to the first three clauses of the Bill. The general scope of the other part was to transfer the jurisdiction over insolvents to judges of recent creation in the local courts just established; and he believed that this might prove a beneficial measure; but the degree of experience as to the working of these courts had not been, in his opinion, sufficient to warrant the change at present. He did not say that it might not be beneficial to transfer to the local judges the jurisdiction in insolvency, but not in so hasty a manner; it was the very way to bring those newly-established courts into contempt. He thought that a much more extensive jurisdiction might be given hereafter to these local courts; but he would invest them with a definite jurisdiction at once, on definite grounds, and not shuffle them about, year after year, so as to deprive them of all title to respect. Why not give them something in bankruptcy, and something in charity cases? Had the Government considered this? If they had, the House should hear the reasons why they withheld this jurisdiction from the local courts, or whether they intended to give it hereafter. Why did they proceed piecemeal—one day giving insolvency, another day bankruptcy, another day charities? If enough had been seen of the working of the local courts to justify the giving them the jurisdiction transferred to them by this Bill, why not give them more? No reason had been assigned why the one was given, and the other withheld. He said that none should be given until they had seen more of the working of these courts. When Mr. Serjeant Spankie was taunted with the expense of courts of justice, he said, with great naiveté, that cheap law was a good thing, provided it were worth the little that was paid for it. Now, no one knew the expense of these local courts, and yet they were going to transfer this additional jurisdiction to them by a measure which should be of a more comprehensive and statesmanlike character than this. A petition was presented by the merchants, bankers, and traders of the city of London, who were of opinion that the transfer of the jurisdiction from the Court of Bankruptcy to the High Court of Chancery should be at all events postponed, because they considered bankruptcy cases should be the business of a distinct court, and not that of a court which was a mere set-off of the Court of Chancery; also, because, they thought any sudden transfer of jurisdiction would be injurious; and, lastly, because the transference of the jurisdiction would not effect any saving of expense. By the transfer also of the jurisdiction the funds of the court would have to defray an annuity of 1,000l. or more to the two Registrars of the Court of Review, whose tenure of office had been very brief. He would ask his hon. and learned Friend to consider these reasons, and not urge forward a measure of this kind at this period of the Session. Much injury had been done to the courts of law by the sudden changes that had been made in their jurisdiction.

House in Committee on the 1st Clause.


moved its omission. With respect to the 2nd and 3rd Clauses, he thought there was considerable force in the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Newark, that the working of the local court system had not yet been developed. He thought that these clauses should also be withdrawn.


thought the right hon. Baronet had misapprehended the bearing of the clauses in question. As to the objections which had been urged by the hon. and learned Member for Newark (Mr. Stuart), they were not so much directed against the three clauses, as they were to the arrangement made by Lord Lyndhurst, by which the Court of Review was virtually extinguished. The object of the clauses was to give the authority of Parliament to the arrangement which already existed, by which the business which used to be transacted in the Court of Review was transferred to the Court of the Vice-Chancellor, who disposed of it according to the rules upon which the Court of Review was to be conducted. The difficulty which he felt was in defending the clauses; for he did not consider them to be of any great importance. The transfer had already taken place by Lord Lyndhurst's fiat; and although the clauses were withdrawn, the business would continue to go on as at present.


had waited patiently in the expectation of some arguments being produced in favour of the introduction of the three clauses, but he had waited in vain; so far, indeed, from hearing reasons tending to make out a case in support of the clauses, the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) had assigned the best possible reasons for omitting them. He had stated that no complaint had been urged against the working of the law as it at present stood—then why alter it? But if there were no petitions in favour of an alteration, one petition of very great weight had been presented against it. The state of business in one of the Vice Chancellor's courts had been urged as an argument in favour of the change; but if there were so little doing in that court—there was not much doing in any of them—would it not be wise to consider, in the event of a vacancy occurring, how far it was advisable to fill it up? He did not think that the matter involved was so unimportant as the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) seemed to suppose. It was really wasting the time of the House to discuss clauses which were deemed to be of so little importance by the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey), and when the whole subject must next year undergo a full discussion.


thought the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Stuart) had mistaken the nature of the clause. By the Act as it at present existed, four Judges were authorized to be appointed; but it was found there was not employment enough for one; and, as far as the shuffling of jurisdiction was concerned, that shuffle had taken place long ago, by the late Lord Chancellor appointing one of the Vice Chancellors to the office of Judge. Now, this was very wrong; because such an arrangement ought to have a legal sanction, which this Bill proposed to give. Therefore, instead of the Government being called upon to adduce reasons in support of the Bill, he thought rather that the opponents of the measure ought to adduce reasons against it; because this Bill was intended to prevent any Government from exercising patronage in filling up the offices of the four Judges which the Bill allowed. The present state of things was felt to be satisfactory; and all that the present measure proposed to take was to legalize it.


The observations of the right hon. the Secretary of State seem to me to be fatal to these clauses. The right hon. the Secretary says that we ought not to appoint a Judge of Appeal, because there will not be business enough to occupy his time. Why that, at least, shows that you have not the materials for a permanent settlement. This is the case of the Government: here is a provisional arrangement which works extremely well; and, therefore, it ought to be altered, although, at the same time, we admit that if a settlement be made, there are not materials enough for the appointment of a per- manent Judge. It must, therefore, be a provisional arrangement. [Sir G. GREY: But the business is daily diminishing.] Yes; but that is an additional argument in favour of provisional arrangement, because it appeared that the business would gradually grow finer and smaller, till some better arrangement still could be made for next Session. I agree with the right hon. Secretary of State that these clauses are of no importance, But then I ask you how, at the end of the Session, when you have already given up Bills of so much importance as the Health of Towns Bill and others, you should occupy the few valuable remaining hours of the present Session with the consideration of clauses which you admit to be of no importance? I take the admission, so far as this argument is concerned; but, in point of fact, the real question is this, shall we bring the administration of the Court of Bankruptcy under the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery? That the measure is of no importance, so far as the business of the Court is concerned, only shows that there can be no necessity for having recourse to a measure which is very unpopular among the mercantile part of the community; and, therefore, if the matter goes to a division, I must support the Motion of the right hon. Member for Dorchester.


thought the operation of these three clauses would be very beneficial. He was not much struck with the objection made by the hon. Gentleman opposite, that by this measure the business of the Court of Bankruptcy would be brought into the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery; because if hon. Gentlemen would consider for a moment what that meant, they would find that it did not mean that the principles and provisions and regulations of the Court of Chancery should be applied to the Court of Bankruptcy, but it only meant that the rules and principles of the Court of Bankruptcy should be administered by a Judge who was in the Court of Chancery. Surely that was not an important question. But then there was another question, referring to the subdivision of the Courts of Justice. That was a great benefit to lawyers; but it was a great evil to the public. Every time a new court was created, there was much time and money spent in settling the jurisdiction of these courts in each particular case; and, on the other hand, one of the advantages of suppressing a new court would be that it would get rid of a number of useless of- ficers, for every new court must have a separate staff. For instance, he thought the Secretary of Bankrupts might be dispensed with, if the jurisdiction were transferred to the Court of Chancery, He hoped, therefore, the House would pass these three clauses, which pledged them to nothing, and leave it open to the House to make some new arrangement at the opening of the next Session.

The Committee divided on the question, that the clause stand part of the Bill:—Ayes 44; Noes 37: Majority 7.

List of the AYES.
Aglionby, H. A. Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.
Aldam, W. Howard, Sir R.
Arundel and Surrey, Earl of Jervis, Sir J.
Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B.
Bannerman, A. Maule, rt. hon. F.
Berkeley, hon. Capt. Mitchell, T. A.
Brotherton, J. Monahan, J. H.
Brown, W. Morpeth, Visct.
Buller, C. Morris, D.
Burke, T. J. O'Connell, M. J.
Byng, rt. hon. G. S. Palmerston, Visct.
Clay, Sir W. Parker, J.
Craig, W. G. Pechell, Capt.
Dundas, Adm. Perfect, R.
Dundas, Sir D. Romilly, J.
Ebrington, Visct. Rutherfurd, A.
Fox, C. R. Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.
Gibson, rt. hon. T. M. Somerville, Sir W. M.
Gower, hon. F. L. Thornely, T.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. Ward, H. G.
Hastie, A. Wood, rt hon. Sir C.
Hatton, Capt. V. TELLERS.
Hawes, B. Tufnell, H.
Hayter, W. G. Rich, H.
List of the NOES.
Adderley, C. B. Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.
Archdall, Capt. M. Grogan, E.
Arkwright, G. Hume, J.
Baring, rt. hon. W. B. Inglis, Sir R. H.
Bennet, P. Law, hon. C. E.
Bentinck, Lord G. Lowther, hon. Col.
Bentinck, Lord H. M'Carthy, A.
Bodkin, W. H. M'Geachy, F. A.
Boldero, H. G. Manners, Lord J.
Borthwick, P. Masterman, J.
Broadley, H. Nicholl, rt. hon. J.
Burrell, Sir C. M. Packe, C. W.
Clifton, J. T. Spry, Sir S. T.
Courtenay, Lord Vyse, H.
Disraeli, B. Wakley, T.
Duke, Sir J. Williams, W.
East, Sir J. B. Wortley, hon. J, S.
Evans, W. TELLERS.
Filmer, Sir E. Stuart, J.
Gardner, J. D. Henley, J. W.

On Clause 2,


thought that the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) was not consistent in confining his opposition merely to the first clause of the Bill. He trusted the Government would at once consent to withdraw it, as it was clear it could not be carried during the present Session.


observed, that persons conversant with the subject attached great importance to many of the clauses of the Bill after the first four. There might be a matter of doubt as to the first four clauses; but there was none with respect to the remainder of the Bill.


said, that the best course to pursue, if they wished to get rid of the opposition, was to strike out the first three clauses of the Bill.


would not at that stage strike out the first clause, as it had been adopted by the Committee.


observed, that there had been a reconstruction of the Court of Chancery, and now Ministers admitted that it was a failure, and more especially that part relating to the Court of Review. They admitted they were going to make another experiment; all that was asked was, that the country should have five or six months for the consideration of it before it was made. The object of all should be, that the jurisdiction in bankruptcy should be as complete as possible. He certainly should again divide on the clause.


felt, after the division, that it was only his duty to urge the Government not to persist with the Bill during the present Session. In the division which had just taken place, 44 were for the clause, and 37 against it; and out of those 44 Members, not less than 20 were Members of the Government. Therefore, the fact was, that the clause was defeated by the independent Members of the House. The provisions of the measure were not known throughout the country, and there were some very unpleasant reports in circulation about it. It had been described to him as a job. This Bill had not been asked for by the public, and it had been concocted merely for the benefit of one or two parties. He had no facts to justify him in saying this, as they were only rumours. It was impossible to discuss the provisions of such a measure at that period of the Session. No one pretended to assert that this was a comprehensive measure; if, therefore, it was postponed, a much more satisfactory measure might be introduced next year.


thought that it was hardly fair to describe the Bill as a job, when at the same time the hon. Member stated that he did not know of a single fact in support of his statement. If the hon. Member had listened to the statement of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, he would hardly have designated it as he had done. The Bill had been on the Table of the House for twenty days.


considered it to be a most improper course on the part of the Government to endeavour to force this Bill through the House after what had occurred. This was not a party question; but it was the duty of all to make a measure of this kind as perfect as possible.


was surprised that his hon. and learned Friend did not divide on the principle of the Bill, as he seemed to entertain such strong objections against it.

The Committee divided on the question that the clause stand part of the Bill:-Ayes 47; Noes 40: Majority 7.

List of the AYES.
Aglionby, H. A. Jervis, Sir J.
Aldam, W. Macaulay, rt. hon. T. B.
Arundel and Surrey Earl of Marshall, W.
Maule, rt. hon. F.
Bannerman, A. Mitchell, T. A.
Berkeley, hon. Capt. Moffatt, G.
Brotherton, J. Monahan, J. H.
Brown, W. Morpeth, Visct.
Buller, C. Morris, D.
Burke, T. J. O'Connell, M. J.
Byng, rt. hon. G. S. Palmerston, Visct.
Cowper, hon. W. F. Parker, J.
Craig, W. G. Pechell, Capt.
Dundas, Adm. Price, Sir R.
Dundas, Sir D. Ricardo, J. L.
Ebrington, Visct. Romilly, J.
Fox, C. R. Rutherfurd, A.
Gibson, rt. hon. T. M. Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. Somerville, Sir W. M.
Hastie, A. Thornely, T.
Hatton, Capt. V. Ward, H. G.
Hawes, B. Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Hayter, W. G.
Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J. TELLERS.
Howard, Sir R. Tufnell, H.
Hutt, W. Rich, H.
List of the NOES.
Adderley, C. B. Filmer, Sir E.
Archdall, Capt. M. Gardner, J. D.
Arkwright, G. Graham, rt hon. Sir J.
Bennet, P. Grogan, E.
Bentinck, Lord G. Henley, J, W.
Bentinck, Lord H. Hume, J.
Bodkin, W. H. Inglis, Sir R. H.
Boldero, H. G. Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.
Borthwick, P. Law, hon. C. E.
Broadley, H. Lowther, hon. Col.
Burrell, Sir C. M'Carthy, A.
Courtenay, Lord M'Geachy, F. A.
Denison, J. E. Masterman, J.
Duke, Sir J. Miles, W.
East, Sir J, B. Newdegate, C. N.
Nicholl, rt. hon. J. Wakley, T.
Packe, C. W. Williams, W.
Rendlesham, Lord Wortley, hon. J. S.
Seymer, H. K.
Spry, Sir S. T. TELLERS.
Stuart, J. Disraeli, B.
Vyse, H. Manners, Lord J.

Other clauses agreed to.

House resumed. Report to be received.

House adjourned at half-past One.