§ Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
§ MR. NAPIERsaid: Sir, I have to move that the Bill be read a Third Time this day three months, and as this Bill has been resisted by some, on peculiar grounds, I am desirous to state clearly and candidly the exact reasons which influence me in giving to it a decided but a constitutional opposition. It is presented for our adoption in this way—"Here is a State," it is said, "with which it is important we should have diplomatic intercourse; that such intercourse has been carried on in an underhand manner hitherto; it should be open and avowed. The law which regulates it has been doubtful, and should be made clear, in conformity with usage and reason." And then it is stated that this is opposed by stale and bigoted prejudices, which are at variance with the spirit of the times in which we live. In the first place, I answer, no case has been stated requiring any legislation to facilitate our intervention in the affairs of Italy. I have the high authority of the noble Lord the late Secretary for Foreign Affairs, that, in reference to such a purpose, this measure would be not merely useless, but objectionable; and after what has taken place in this House, I cannot for a moment doubt that it is not for the sake of Italy this Bill is now forced upon us by the mere power of Government. It is abundantly evident that the real object is to facilitate a policy which proposes to make use of an influence which may seriously affect the character of the constitution, the lawful supremacy of the Sovereign, and the allegiance of the people. On this principle, I have throughout consistently opposed this Bill. I abstained from any interference in Committee, except so far as I supported by my vote the Amendments of the hon. Member for Lambeth, regarding them merely as tests of the real motives of the Minister; and on mature consideration of the statements made, the statements suppressed, and the votes which have been given, I 616 am bound to say, in the language of the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford, "We are legislating under false pretences." So far, then, as the affairs of Italy or the character of England required legislation, I think I have disposed of the case of the promoters of this Bill; and I would say this—that however unconstitutional such a measure would be if the real purpose were expressly avowed upon the face of the Bill—however plainly it would thon violate those great principles which are coeval with the constitution—solemnised by the Reformation—and sealed by the Act of Settlement; tenfold, truly, is the objection increased, when, under pretence of open legislation, the purpose is concealed under language which is to be exceeded, and which may afford more convenient shelter for a Papal diplomacy, such as never has been attempted with impunity by any former Government in this country. To put a true value upon this Bill at the present period, it is necessary shortly to refer to its history. It grew out of the mission of the Lord Privy Seal. He was accredited to all the Italian States, except the Papal; it was supposed that he could not be accredited there by reason of the law of this country—to remove such an obstacle was the object this Bill first avowed. Let me here observe, that whatever impediments obstruct the desired intercourse, they originate with Rome, and not with England. The claim of the Pope to ecclesiastical supremacy conflicts with the common law of this country, of which the supremacy of our Monarch is a part: it conflicts with the Reformed religion, which regards this claim as a usurpation of Divine sovereignty; and in both respects it conflicts with the foundation of the Throne as it is fixed by the Act of Settlement. Before the Reformation it was allowable to negotiate with the Pope, but merely as a temporal prince. The limitation shows the rule of the constitution. The practical difficulty of separating the spiritual and temporal authority seems even then to have been felt; it is solved rather by casuistry than by common sense; it is increased of course by the Reformation, and since the Revolution; and so long as this claim is persevered in by the Pope, it is not possible for us, consistently with the very essence of our constitution, to avoid the difficulty which is peculiar to the question of Papal diplomacy. No doubt it was not unlawful to negotiate with the Pope, when he simply 617 treated with us as a temporal prince; and before and since the Reformation the occasional intercourse seems to have been conducted on that principle. I entirely deny the assumption that it was underhand or unlawful, so long as it was confined in the manner which I have stated. It did not go beyond the particular emergency, nor did it violate the law; the manner of it showed a real deference to the principles of our constitution and the feelings of the people. But it is now proposed by this Bill to set up a standing system of diplomacy with the Court of Rome; it has no reference to any proper purpose, nor anything which shall forbid negotiation, unless where the Pope consents simply to appear as a temporal ruler. The principle of the law, as it exists, provides for that. The language of the present Bill disturbs and confuses that principle, and although it may not really increase the power of the Government in reference to diplomatic intercourse, it certainly affords greater facility for infringing the law, which never has been doubted—which forbids any recognition of the Papal authority beyond the limits of its Italian territory. What doubts is this Bill intended to remove? Is it as to intercourse with the Pope as a temporal ruler? That intercourse is not what is really sought; and what are called doubts, even in that case, are merely the difficulties which spring from the feelings of the people. Is it intercourse with the Pope, as claiming Divine sovereignty over the world, to ask his aid in governing the subjects of our Monarch's dominions? When and by whom has it been doubted that such intercourse is unlawful? Where is our oath against that supremacy, and why are we pledged to swear it? Because we affirm thereby the fundamental principle of the constitution; and, in the language of Sir M. Hale, by that recognition we unrivet Papal usurpation. The Roman Catholic swears that the Pope has no temporal power directly or indirectly in this realm; and though, on the principle of toleration, he is not compelled to deny the spiritual headship of the Pope over his Church, it is an influence which the constitution cannot further recognise; just as it must tolerate the Repealer or the Chartist, but could not stoop to share the sovereignty with the peculiar principles of either. I do not advert to any reasons that are not strictly constitutional: there are considerations of religious feeling, as powerful as they are pro- 618 found—as sensitive as they are strong; but I am conscious that it would not be consistent with the fair exercise of my privilege, nor with a high sense of duty, to wound even the prejudice of any, when I contend here for a duo respect to the feelings of a large body of the people. In reference to Ireland, it is impossible to regard this measure without deep anxiety and apprehension. The noble Lord, who is about to visit my native country (Lord J. Russell)—the noble Lord may, perhaps, be reminded that the first conspirators against its liberties and its early Christian faith were England's Monarch and the Pope of Rome. He may trace the course of events until Sir John Davis tolls us, "that when the Irish had once resolved to obey the King, they made no scruple to renounce the Pope;" and he may yet conclude that it is consistent with the great principles of the English constitution, neither to allow united sovereignty nor divided allegiance. These are the grounds on which I have hitherto opposed the Bill, and on which I still continue to give it my opposition. Seeing that the purpose for which it was intended was not avowed, I think it better to meet the enemy in the first place, and declare that such a course is inconsistent with British legislation, and will, if not effectually stopped, prove detrimental to the best interests of the country.
§ MR. M. MILNESsaid, he should not have ventured to address the House immediately after what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin, had he not known that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Serjeant Talfourd) was prepared to supply any deficiency in his reply to the legal arguments which had just been addressed to the House. He did not wish to say anything offensive to the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin; but it did appear to him that he had quibbled considerably upon the word "constitution." He believed that the English constitution did not in any way admit or recognise the Interference of the Papal authority with the ecclesiastical authority of this realm. But the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman would go to this, that every time the Roman Catholic hierarchy of this country manifested any submission to the Papal authority, they did something that was illegal and unconstitutional; nay, his arguments went so far as to justify and to render it logically necessary that all the violence and 619 atrocities that had ever been inflicted upon the Roman Catholics of this country should be put into requisition again. He maintained that an Englishman was permitted, by the laws and constitution of this country, to submit his judgment in religious matters to whatever authority he chose. Protestants might regard that authority as false; they might condemn his submission as slavish; but still the right to do so unrestrictedly was undoubtedly his. And if the right was not impugned, why should the Protestant Members of that House say that it was an infringement of the fundamental laws and constitution of this country for the millions of Roman Catholics in this country to acknowledge the Pope as their supreme ecclesiastical authority? He could not recognise the law as laid down by the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin. He maintained that the Roman Catholics of this country had, by this country's laws and constitution, as much right to enjoy their religious opinions as he had to enjoy his Protestant opinions. If public order was broken, the offenders would be punished, not for holding any particular religious opinions, but because they had disturbed the public peace. Even in the gloomiest times—shameful times, indeed, for Protestantism to look back to—when the Roman Catholic religion was persecuted in this country, the Roman Catholic was punished, not for holding such and such opinions, but because such and such opinions were regarded as likely to lead to the disturbance of the public peace. The Government had found it necessary to enter into diplomatic relations with the Court of Rome; but it had been doubted whether such intercourse, in the present state of the law, would be legal. No less eminent a legal authority than Lord Lyndhurst, when he filled the office of Attorney General, declared to Mr. Canning, who was desirous of establishing such relations, that the law as it stood would not sanction any intercourse with Rome. He had heard that Lord Lyndhurst had since retracted that opinion; but it would not be decorous on the part of Her Majesty's Government on so important a question as this, to act without distinct legal sanction, and therefore it was that this Rill had been introduced. He believed that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Napier) would find that there were many persons in this country who were opposed to all intercourse with Rome, political as well as reli- 620 gious. Their opposition was inspired by fanaticism, and nothing else. He hardly thought it necessary to protest against the fanatic spirit by which the progress of this Bill was impeded at a time when his noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Lord Palmerston) had undertaken a great work of pacification—and he believed that England loved peace as much as she abhorred war—when he had taken the course of a great and virtuous Minister, it did appear to him (Mr. Milnes) that it was most unreasonable for any one in that House to say that he should be impeded in the accomplishment of that great work, because one of the means of accomplishing it—diplomatic relations with the Court of Rome—was distasteful to a certain portion of the people of this country. Was it to be said that his noble Friend might, for the purposes of peace, prevent the Austrian army from invading Piedmont, but he must not be allowed to prevent it entering the Roman States; that he might check the approach of the French to Vienna, but that he must not resist them at Ancona; that whilst his negotiations may take place in Northern and Southern Italy, there is an interval, a large portion of the middle of that great country, which English diplomacy is bound absolutely to ignore, and with which it is illegal to enter into diplomatic relations. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that this measure might lead to an intercourse with the Pope in his spiritual capacity; but Her Majesty's Government had consented to a modifiation of the Bill, so as in that respect to meet the objections of its opponents in the House of Lords. He (Mr. Milnes), under such circumstances, could not consent to this system of continued opposition to the Bill. He denounced it as unjust to the feelings of the great majority of the Protestants throughout the country, whose feelings, he hoped it would be distinctly understood, were not represented by those who put themselves forward in that House as the great supporters of Protestant principles. He thought such restrictive laws as the present Bill was intended to remove, were averse to the true principles of Protestantism, which was friendly to perfect toleration, and needed not such support. He thought an additional reason for the passing of this Bill was to be found in the present state of Ireland. The policy of this country there had been forced into a different channel from that which it formerly traversed. The Roman Catholics 621 were dealt with on terms of equality, and their prelates treated by the Government with all the respect due to their dignified position. An Act of Parliament recounted the names of the Roman Catholic bishops and archbishops, and the whole current of our policy and legislation of late years was utterly opposed to that interpretation of the principles of our constitution which hon. Gentlemen opposite would fain put upon it. He thought that if the Papal authority and the genuine power of the Roman Catholic religion were brought to bear upon Ireland, neither this country nor that would be the sufferer by it. It was impossible for them, looking out as they were for some hold on the unstable and excitable people of that country, trying experiments here and there to control and regulate them—to disregard altogether the Church of the majority of the people—it was impossible for them longer to say that the State could take no cognisance of the existence of that Church. It was said, that the Irish Catholic Church would be tampered with at Rome through our Ambassador; but that could be more efficiently done at present through unavowed agents. In a word, the Bill was demanded by the special circumstances of the time; and he trusted one of its effects would be the settlement of Italy—the suppression of war, and the restoration of tranquillity to that country. Peace was the dearest wish of every Englishman; and although the attempts of our Government to bring about peace might be frustrated, yet it would be a gratification to every man of right feeling to know that the British Government had left nothing untried to stop the effusion of blood and restore order.
§ MR. C. ANSTEYdenied, if there were secret intrigues carrying on at Rome by Ministers, to govern Ireland through the Irish Church, that that could justify the Bill before the House. But when Ministers had a recognised agent at Rome, such as this Bill went to appoint, the independence of the Irish Church would be most materially affected; for then the Irish prelates and clergy could hold no intercourse with the Holy See, unless through the medium of that agent, as such communication would still be interdicted by the third section of this Bill. Parliament had refused to pass the Catholic Relief Bill, which would have thrown open that intercourse to all; and now it proposed to restrict all communication with the centre of Catholic unity to the Protestant Ministers 622 of Her Majesty's Government. Therefore, the hon. Member for Pontefract was wrong in calling this a measure of religious toleration. The hon. Member was also wrong in stating that the ecclesiastical intercourse of England with Rome was first prohibited in consequence of the Papal bull for deposing Queen Elizabeth; as it was the fact that such intercourse was made illegal by the Act of Supremacy, which was passed antecedently, and which led to the issue of the bull in question. It was also a mistake to conclude from the fact of no resident Minister having been sent from this country to Rome, that the present law was opposed to it. The truth was, that before jealousies arose between the two Courts, diplomatic intercourse was not conducted as it is now. There were no resident Ministers of this country at any foreign Courts until within a very recent period; and the mode in which the intercourse with Rome was now carried on by this country, was strictly in accordance with the old practice. Whenever anything was wanted, a special Envoy went; sometimes it was Garter King at Arms; sometimes (as lately happened) a Lord Privy Seal. There was then no wasteful and mischievous expenditure on what was now called diplomatic establishments. And so far as Rome was concerned, the wise economy of our forefathers was not yet departed from. He, for one, wished that they might continue long to adhere to it in that instance, and to apply it to all. The Bill before the House was still open to all the objections he had formerly stated, nay, it was more open to them than ever; and therefore he should vote against it, even if he divided against all the House. It was offensive in its nature to the Court of Rome, and a stigma cast on the Papal prerogative by this country. It was more. It was a measure framed for the subjugation of the independent Church of Ireland to the arbitrary will of a corrupt Administration, and for giving into the hand of the Minister another potent engine for disturbing peace and destroying freedom all over the world. For these reasons he should vote for the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University.
§ MR. SERJEANT TALFOURDhad been an attentive listener to the debate, and watched with anxiety the progress of the Bill through every stage. He had maintained an entire silence up to this time, not from any indifference to the Bill, but because there seemed to be quite speakers 623 enough without him—and because he thought he would best testify his regard for the precept of making short speeches by the example of making no speech at all. However, having now reached the last stage of the Bill, he would trespass for a short time on the attention of the House. He was the more anxious to do so, as he wished to explain why he had supported the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lambeth (Mr. Pearson). He had supported that Amendment, not because he thought it necessary to protect the subjects of the British Crown from any lurking danger in the Bill, but because he thought it would be a just concession to the feelings of a large number of the population of this country, and because it would remove every shadow of objection, and every scruple which the most sensitive could entertain upon the provisions of this Bill. It was quite immaterial to him whether this Bill was enacting or declaratory—whether the doubts which it was intended to remove were well founded or not—there was an ambiguity at all events which raised obstacles to that sort of communication with the Pope which he for one thought desirable. When he found the Bill finally adopted without a division in the House of Lords, of which the Prelates of England were the distinguished ornaments—when he found it sanctioned by the practical wisdom of the Duke of Wellington—when it removed ambiguities, was approved by such authorities, and amended by such wisdom, he did not consider it would be wise or fitting to reject it. The fact was, that a European Sovereign was placed in such a position as to render intercourse between him and this country desirable. If it were right to carry on that intercourse secretly, it was right to do it openly. Diplomatic relations were, after all, but an extension of social relations. There really was nothing dark or mysterious in the Bill, the language of which was plain and simple enough. It was somewhat surprising, notwithstanding, to see some hon. Gentlemen express such fears and forebodings of its influence. One hon. Gentleman was afraid it would make the Protestants Papists; and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Youghal was afraid it would make all the Papists Protestants. [Mr. ANSTEY: I said nothing of the kind.] The hon. Gentleman had not, perhaps, said so in express words, but that was the object of a portion of his argument against the measure. He was old enough to remember that when 624 Dissenters were admitted into a participation of civil rights with their fellow-subjects, some old Dissenters thought such a privilege would be injurious to their religious belief by the free intercourse which it would occasion. He desired to see diplomatic relations produce that very unity which he once heard thus described by a Dissenting minister—not the unity of opinion in the bond of ignorance, not the unity of profession in the bond of hypocrisy, but the unity of spirit in the bond of peace. They saw the Roman Catholic Church in this country under an aspect which no one deplored more than he did—he deplored the secession of many distinguished Englishmen to the Church of Rome; but he could not help this, and thought the position of that Church in this country, invested as she was with all the graces of adversity, more calculated to attract than repel high-spirited minds. On the other side of the Channel they saw the Catholic priesthood so circumstanced that no fair judgment could be formed of their character or motives. No one could doubt that they were placed in a situation of great difficulty—that they filled a post of the greatest responsibility, and needed the utmost forbearance. Adversity in this country brought forth the many excellent qualities of those excellent men who, he believed, for the most part adorned the Catholic faith. But then let them turn to countries in which that religion was triumphant; let them look at it in pride and power, as it was enthroned in Milan, or connected with the glories of art in Florence, or surrounded with the wonders of Christian and Pagan genius in Rome; and, although an Englishman might be impressed with a feeling of admiration or astonishment, he believed his convictions of the truth of his own faith would be strengthened, his gratitude would be the more devout, and his attachment the more sincere to that Church whose doctrines were plain and simple—which observed a happy medium between the baldness of Dissent, and the pomp and ceremony of Catholicism. Upon what principle could we refuse that sort of intercourse with the Supreme Head of the Roman Catholic Church which we accorded to the Sultan and the Emperor of China? How did it come to pass that, whilst the Protestant countries of Holland and Prussia, and even Russia itself, entered into diplomatic relations with the Court of Rome, we alone stood out a solitary exception to the great 625 Christian family—the only nation which would keep up this most un-Christian stumbling-block. He thought the step was a right step, and he would therefore take it. Some expressed fears that the step would lead to mischief; but every great change might be opposed on the same ground—the art of printing might have been opposed because it led to the dissemination of infidelity and disloyalty. He would not attempt to discern mischief in the dim distance of vision; it was enough for him to see that there was nothing wrong in the measure itself—that it was meant to remedy a great anomaly, to make that certain which was before doubtful, to render that open and honourable which was before dark and underhand. He would, therefore, give his humble but unhesitating support to the Bill, believing, as he did in his conscience, that there was really no danger to be apprehended from it—that they were removing an impediment, a phantasm of law or of reality, which prevented a free and honest communion of mind; and that, in fine, we were promoting peace and good fellowship between the inhabitants of Christian States.
§ MR. HENLEYthought the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman more poetical than argumentative, and could not agree in his sentiments. It was a difficult and a complicated question. From the best attention he had given to the subject, he could not get over the difficulties, and, therefore, he would be constrained to oppose it.
§ MR. SHEILwould be exceedingly succinct and brief in his statements, and would confine himself to the diplomatic part of the question. By the 103rd Article of the Congress of Vienna, the rights of the Holy See were defined and secured. England was a party to that treaty. The name of Clancarty—orthodox to this House—was attached to that treaty. It was laid before this House, and there was not a single remonstrance to the ratification of the treaty by which England became a consenting party to the securing of the rights of the See of Rome. Was it not, then, preposterous that England should secure to the Pope the enjoyment of a portion of his ecclesiastical dominions, and yet that she should deny diplomatic intercourse with the Power of which she was the virtual protector? He would pass then from 1815 to 1832. At the accession of Gregory XVI., reforms were demanded by the 626 Roman people. They were refused by the Pope—the natural consequences ensued—revolt broke out in the legations. Austria seized Bologna, France occupied Ancona, and Europe was on the verge of a general war. What then happened? The Four Powers—Russia, Prussia, France, and Austria—concurred in a remarkable application to England. What was it? That England should send an ambassador to Rome, that so, with the general concurrence of the Five Powers, a final and satisfactory settlement of the disputes between the Pope and his subjects might be made. England had not the power to send an ambassador, but she sent an envoy. Sir Hamilton Seymour proceeded from Paris to Rome. He had now before him the correspondence which took place between Sir Hamilton Seymour and Prince Metternich. The conferences lasted for fourteen months with a view to make the best possible arrangement of the Papal States. The conference terminated in failure; but it was remarkable that Sir Hamilton Seymour addressed a despatch—dictated, he presumed, by his noble Friend beside him (Viscount Palmerston)—in which he foretold all that had since happened, and foresaw that from Rome the disturbances in Italy would sooner or later burst forth. If, then, in 1832 there was a strong reason to send a representative to Rome, surely, in 1848, when the Pope called for our intervention, and at a moment when Italy was giving birth to the most portentous events, it was most preposterous that we should not have a Minister accredited to Rome—it was most preposterous that we should not put an end to a surreptitious intercourse, which was a practical falsehold and a political absurdity.
§ MR. URQUHARTsaid, the debate completely justified the grounds of opposition which he stated when the Bill was first introduced—namely, that it was intended by means of this Bill to use the Pope as an instrument to govern the Roman Catholic Church of Ireland, in dependence upon the English Ministry. The discussion had brought out two conclusions—one, that all the legal men in the House concurred in opinion that there was nothing in the state of the law to prevent merely secular intercourse with Rome; and the other, that there was some secret religious purpose concealed under this Bill, which Ministers did not dare to avow, and which would be in complete contravention of the present law. He had no hesitation, there- 627 fore, in declaring that the Bill was brought in under false pretences, and as such ought to be opposed.
§ MR. REYNOLDSsaid, the Bill, as it stood, did not meet with his approbation; but he could not understand how hon. Gentlemen opposite could object to the measure when they made no objection to ambassadors from the Sultan, the Great Mogul, or Shah of Persia. If he had any influence with the Pope, which he had not, he would recommend him to appoint, as his ambassador, the hon. Member for Youghal. With regard to the Bill itself, he hailed it as a proof that bigotry was declining, and he was sure the people of Ireland entertained no apprehensions on the subject.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEdeprecated the idea that seemed to pervade the mind of the hon. Member for Pomfret, that zeal for a religious principle was of the same nature with bigotry. He (Mr. Newdegate) thought the history of this country was a proof to the contrary. But the hon. Member did not seem to understand the nature of a religious principle, or he treated different religions as alike—a view, he was sorry to say, which was very apt to infect those who had travelled much. With regard to the Bill itself, he hoped his hon. Friends would not divide; they had already divided often enough; and he had risen only to warn Her Majesty's Government that, though by rejecting the Amendments of the hon. Member for Lambeth, they may seem to have a loophole for carrying out their covert views, still they would be acting against the letter of the Bill, and against the intentions of the House of Lords, if they were to use this measure as a means of entering into spiritual relations with the Roman See. Allusion had been made to the conduct of Russia. That country alone, of all the Powers of Europe, had been able to resist the authority of the Pope. Far from being a Conservative Power, as the hon. Member for Pomfret had asserted, the Pope had of late years proved a disturbing influence in Europe. It was the Pope who first acknowledged the new French Republic, and went to war with Austria. But the right hon. the Master of the Mint said, we had once before interfered in the affairs of the Pope. He did not object to that; but what he did object to was, that we should reciprocate that intervention, and allow the Pope to interfere with us.
§ MR. J. O'CONNELLrose to state the 628 reasons why the Roman Catholics of Ireland opposed the Bill, namely, first, because it was brought forward at a time when the Pope was in political difficulties, and, therefore, was thought to be ready to accede to any measure of this nature; and, secondly, because two of the clauses contained an absolute insult to the Head of their Church.
§ On the question that the word "now" stand part of the question.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 88; Noes 25: Majority 63.
| List of the AYES. | |
| Abdy, T. N. | Lascelles, hon. W. S. |
| Adair, R. A. S. | Lewis, G. C. |
| Anderson, A. | Locke, J. |
| Anson, hon. Col. | Mackinnon, W. A. |
| Baring, rt. hn. Sir F. T. | Matheson, Col. |
| Bellew, R. M. | Maule, rt. hon. F. |
| Bentinck, Lord G. | Milnes, R. M. |
| Berkeley, hon. Capt. | Morpeth, Visct. |
| Berkeley, hon. H. F. | Muntz, G. F. |
| Bernal, R. | O'Connell, M. J. |
| Blackall, S. W. | Ogle, S. C. H. |
| Boyle, hon. Col. | Palmerston, Visct. |
| Brotherton, J. | Parker, J. |
| Brown, W. | Pinney, W. |
| Buller, C. | Price, Sir R. |
| Campbell, hon. W. F. | Raphael, A. |
| Childers, J. W. | Reynolds, J. |
| Clay, J. | Rice, E. R. |
| Cobden, R. | Rich, H. |
| Cowper, hon. W. F. | Romilly, Sir J. |
| Craig, W. G. | Russell, Lord J. |
| Currie, H. | Salwey, Col. |
| Divett, E. | Scrope, G. P. |
| Drumlanrig, Visct. | Sheil, rt. hon. R. L. |
| Drummond, H. | Sidney, Ald. |
| Dundas, Adm. | Smith, J. A. |
| Dunne, F. P. | Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W. |
| Ebrington, Visct. | Stanton, W. H. |
| Forster, M. | Talfourd, Serj. |
| Fox, W. J. | Tancred, H. W. |
| Greene, J. | Tenison, E. K. |
| Grenfell, C. W. | Thompson, Col. |
| Grey, R. W. | Tollemache, hon. F. J. |
| Hawes, B. | Villiors, hon. C. |
| Hay, Lord J. | Wakley, T. |
| Hayter, W. G. | Ward, H. G. |
| Herbert, H. A. | Watkins, Col. |
| Heywood, J. | Williams, J. |
| Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J. | Wilson, J. |
| Hobhouse, T. B. | Wilson, M. |
| Hodges, T. L. | Wodehouse, E. |
| Hume, J. | Wood, rt. hon. Sir C. |
| Humphery, Ald. | |
| Keogh, W. | TELLERS. |
| Kildare, Marq. | Tufnell, H. |
| Labouchere, rt. hon. H. | Hill, Lord M. |
| List of the NOES. | |
| Anstey, T. C. | Forbes, W. |
| Blackstone, W. S. | Fox, S. W. L. |
| Broadley, H. | Goring, C. |
| Burrell, Sir C. M. | Hamilton, G. A. |
| Dick, Q. | Hildyard, R. C. |
| Duncan, G. | Hood, Sir A. |
| Lacy, H. C. | Sturt, H. G. |
| Lowther, hon. Col. | Taylor, T. E. |
| Masterman, J. | Urquhart, D. |
| Mullings, J. R. | Vyse, R. H. R. H. |
| O'Connell, J. | Wyld, J. |
| Pigott, F. | TELLERS. |
| Scott, hon. F. | Spooner, R. |
| Sibthorp, Col. | Napier, J. |