HC Deb 04 June 1849 vol 105 cc1094-107

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."


said, that unless he knew the names of the commissioners to be appointed under this Bill, he must, as a matter of duty to his constituents, move that it be read a third time that day six months.


seconded the Motion.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."


said, he did not believe the Bill would effect any of its proposed objects. He denied that Ireland was so circumstanced as to call for so extraordinary a measure. So far from Ireland requiring facilities to sell land, the fact was that half the property in that country had changed hands twice over within a very short period. In France, a Bill very like the present was introduced under Louis Philippe by a very able lawyer, but was rejected by a large majority. A change of proprietary never could relieve agricultural distress. Mr. Longfield, one of the witnesses examined before the Committee, declared that the only difficulty in selling land in Ireland was caused by the Registration Act; while Mr. Butt, another witness, considered the great difficulty was want of purchasers. If the Court of Chancery was not fit for its business, why not reform it, or bestow on it the powers of those commissioners to he appointed under the Bill? As to the measure itself, it violated every principle of law and justice, and would still further alienate Ireland from this country. The House had tried confiscation after confiscation, but Ireland was to-day in the state which Spenser described it as being in the days of Elizabeth, while her people were flocking to the shores of America, and carrying with them feelings which were not favourable to the legislation of this country.


felt it his duty to oppose the third reading. The amendments were not improvements, and in the course of his experience he never knew such an Algerine measure proposed in Parliament. No English Member would trust three unnamed commissioners with such extraordinary powers in England under any pretence whatever, and he thought they should hesitate before they consented to make such a precedent. In the present state of feeling he did not think it good policy to apply different legislation to the two countries.


said, he felt bound, in justice to the constituency he represented, to state the grounds on which he thought the Bill should not pass. In many of its objects—such as affording facilities for sales of land as far as was consistent with the rights of property—he fully concurred; but he thought that, to carry the main object, two sets of machinery, one judicial and the other administrative, were required, and that some special administration should be directed to distressed properties, more particularly those in Chancery. Before the Consolidated Fund was saddled with this large additional expense, it was the bounden duty of the Government to explain why the Irish Court of Chancery was to be superseded. Admitting that the existing machinery of the Irish Court of Chancery required modification, he denied the justice or the expediency of sweeping it altogether away. The Bill proposed the continuance of three commissioners for five years, at an aggregate annual salary of 7,000l., and he thought it only due to the country to explain why this additional expenditure could not be saved. The Bill had been so loosely framed, that whilst it provided that the commissioners should not sit in Parliament, it assigned no court for them to sit in. He objected to any legislation which should enable a commission of this character to supersede the high legal functionaries composing the Irish Court of Chancery. It was not pretended the court had not time to discharge its duties; but the Government came down with a Bill, not to administer insolvent property, but to transfer all property at the request of the slightest incumbrancer from the highest court of equity in the country to three Government commissioners. He would not, as an Irish barrister, consent to be a party to any measure to affirm that those high functionaries, the Lord Chan cellor and the Master of the Rolls of Ireland, were not able to perform their business, or to frame new rules, such as they were empowered to do by the Act of last year—a power which was transferred to the commissioners by the present Bill. Was all Ireland in such a state as to require this measure? Were there no places in the laud where the hardworking and industrious had invested their earnings, and the result of their toil and labour in the purchase of land, to which this Act would not extend? And yet it applied to all Ireland, solvent and insolvent. If the rights of property were thus invaded and taken from under the settled control of the laws, the Legislature did injury to the constitution, and struck at the very roots of society. They were separating Ireland every day from England by such laws as that. It would be fair and honest policy to apply it to certain parts of Ireland, or even to appoint a commission to and the Court of Chancery; but he could not consent to vest such arbitrary power over all the country in the hands of three men. Even the very right of appeal to the Privy Council was left to the will and pleasure of the court to be appealed against. The Court of Appeal consisted of six Members of the Irish Privy Council; but it should be remembered that those persons were not really a judicial body. To the discretion of this body was left the altering the rules of the commissioners. He asked whether it was fair so to legislate for Ireland—whether it was wise to go on alienating the people of that country by such a course of policy? The scheme propounded by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth did not contemplate, as this Bill did, the superseding by a commission of the Irish Court of Chancery. His commission would have proceeded to the spot, and have sought to negotiate between conflicting interests; whereas the present commission might adjudicate upon titles, and declare the priority of incumbrances in the absence of the parties interested. A Parliamentary title was of value in proportion as the people had confidence in the Legislature; but he did not think that the present course of legislation was calculated to give that confidence. Any man having a claim to the property could get it placed at his mercy. On the allegation that there was no such thing as a marketable title to be found in Ireland, it was proposed to appoint commissioners, with plenary powers of investigation; no provision was made for the supervision of any court; and a tribunal which should act on a loose popular principle was to be substituted for that which now existed. The commissioners were to have the power of taking any man's property on the application of any incumbrancer, and of deciding according to their discretion, and without appeal, on the rights of all parties having an interest. The measure tended to encourage frauds on the part of tenants for life; of which description was one of the few cases of sale attempted under the Bill of last year—he referred to a case which occurred in the north of Ireland. To supersede the functions of a court which Parliament last year thought perfectly competent to deal with the question to which the present Bill related, was neither a wise nor a judicious course. It was a course calculated to shake the confidence of the country in the administration of justice by the ordinary tribunals. The commissioners were to be exempted from that control to which other tribunals were subject; their decisions could not be subjected to review by mandamus, certiorari, injunction, or any other proceeding. If a title were to be given good at once against all challenge, the more emphatically necessary was it that the question should be decided on in such a way as should be perfectly consistent with the general rules as to property, and subjected to the review of the judicatories which usually regulated all rights of property. To pass such a measure was not dealing fairly with those parties who had, to the best of their ability, and in the midst of great difficulties, been endeavouring to discharge their duty on the properties they had inherited. On the other hand, cases of collusion might occur between owners and incumbrancers, for the purpose of forcing a sale to the disadvantage of the other creditors, who would then be loft to their general remedy against the person; so that the Bill might be made an instrument for perpetrating perjury and fraud. The Government by this measure declared in substance that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who was of their own selection, and who was a highly eminent man, was incompetent for the discharge of his duties, and must be superseded by the commissioners. It might be asked whether the commissioners were to appoint masters, whether their court was to be open to the public, whether professional assistance was to be allowed, and where were they to sit? If Parliament were to pass a Bill for the purpose of compelling purchasers to buy, there was abundance of property for sale. One of the Masters in Chancery had told him that he had for sale 300,000l worth of property, but had sold only to the extent of 3,000l. A portion of the Goldsmiths' property, the Bles-sington estates, and also Mr. D'Arcy's, in the county of Tyrone, and a number of other large properties, all in the north of Ireland, were at present for sale. There were at present under Chancery receivers, estates to the value of upwards of 2,000,000l., which the Government had it in their power to manage as they pleased, but of which the management was an utter disgrace. Were that management such as it ought to be, it would soon have the effect of restoring confidence and of elevating the value of property, which was now selling at eleven years' purchase, but which, some years ago, would have fetched thirty years' purchase. It was provided that the commissioners should not be liable to an action at law for anything done by them in the exercise, or the supposed exercise, of their powers. But why apply a Bill which conferred such powers to the whole of Ireland? Why not rather confine it to the properties which were placed in such peculiar and special circumstances as might have suggested the measure? Commissioners and receivers might be appointed, as in bankruptcy proceedings, to act with reference to those peculiar and special cases. He objected to the Bill as being levelled at the whole of Ireland, as superseding the ordinary tribunals, and as declaring them incompetent to modify their rules so as to meet the emergency; but, if the House were resolved to proceed with the measure, the responsibility was theirs and the Government's. It was something for him at least to know that he had done what he could to prevent the measure from being carried into a law.


said, he had given the Bill of last Session, on this subject, a qualified support, but had felt bound to resist some of its provisions (which, however, the Government had obstinately retained), because he thought those provisions, so far from carrying out the excellent principle of the measure, would operate as a practical prohibition and injunction against the investment of capital in landed property under mortgage in Ireland. He regretted that the Solicitor General had not introduced a clause into this Bill, repealing the Act of last Session—so far as the provisions he had mentioned were concerned—retaining the clauses which independent Members had introduced—such, for instance, as that most valuable clause which the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin introduced into the former Act. If the learned Colleague of that hon. and learned Gentleman had had as much experience of courts of equity as he had had of the common-law tribunals of his country, he (Mr. Sadleir) believed he would not have so strongly pressed on the House his views against this Bill, as damaging the existing rights of property. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman think he could preserve the leading characteristics and main features of the equity courts of Ireland, and at the same time entrust them with the functions proposed to be vested in the commissioners under this Bill? He had said that a large quantity of property already stood decreed for sale, but had not been sold as yet. Now, that very fact was a reason why he (Mr. Sadleir) was favourable to the creation of a new and independent tribunal for effecting sales. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman think that property could continue perpetually in the master's office without ruin to the owner, or without destroying the industry of the tenants, and retarding and obstructing the industrial development of the country? If he had taken the trouble to examine into the cases, he would have found that in each instance where masters offered landed property for sale, they were obliged to offer it to the intending purchaser clogged with a series of conditions, binding him to go into court before the Chancellor, and perhaps afterwards before the House of Lords, should there be an appeal, to defend some obscure old testament, or sustain some doubtful deed—conditions which were quite sufficient to deter capitalists from purchasing, even in the most prosperous times. He (Mr. Sadleir) assumed that the commissioners would turn their attention at once to the circumstances and position of the incumbered estates for the sale of which application may be made to them, and that they meant altogether to dispense with those expensive written pleadings by which, according to the costly and dilatory system of the Court of Chancery, the most simple and indisputable titles had heretofore to be established. After having ascertained the circumstances of and the title to the property—which they might do in a summary and effective manner—he assumed that they would next proceed to discover the undisputed and disputed demands upon the estate, and having effected a sale, he supposed they would, having reference to the priority of the claimants, distribute the proceeds among the first class of claimants, and place the residue of the money under the control of the Court of Chancery. He (Mr. Sadleir) was anxious to support the third reading of this Bill, because he thought it not only enunciated the principle of the Act of last Session, but took a bolder ground, and recognised the necessity for a distinct tribunal to administer the affairs of these estates, ascertain the incumbrances, and effect the sales. Nevertheless, if the hon. and learned Solicitor General did not take a further step so as to extend the efficacy of the Bill, and give to it a more comprehensive character than it at present possessed, he greatly feared that it must also break down, like the Act of last year, for want of purchasers. This was the third edition, "revised and corrected," of this Bill, and yet, unfortunately, some of the best suggestions that had been made were not included in its provisions. The absence of one feature, in particular, from this Bill he extremely regretted. He meant that the Bill as it now stood, deprived persons who were owners of life-interests in property in Ireland, as well as their creditors, of the power of putting this Act in motion. A majority of the incumbered estates in Ireland were those in which parties had life-interests; and what objection could there be to giving those parties, as well as their creditors, the right to sell a portion of the estate? Every interest in land, however limited, ought to be brought under the power of the commission, at the instance of the owner; and the same right ought to be given to the creditors. This would be really and practically to facilitate the sale of estates in Ireland. As long as this commission existed, no man could effect a sale except under it; and on this account it was most desirable that the provisions of the Bill should embrace all classes of interests. The absence of such provision was the great weakness of the Bill. He would notice the defects which he conceived to exist in the Bill, and hoped that the hon. and learned Solicitor General would act on the suggestions he was about to offer. With respect to the 16th section, he thought it might be usefully altered by giving the owners or incumbrancers of any estate the power of applying for a sale. He thought they ought to expunge the 17th section altogether, the effect of which, he thought, would be to narrow the operation of the Bill. With regard to the 23rd section, he was of opinion that those individuals who had lent money in the character of trustees, under the operation of Lynche's Act, should be allowed to become purchasers of those estates on which they had lent money. By the 25th section he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman intended to give a power to the commissioners to apportion the quit rents. But as the clause now stood they had no such power. With regard to the 25th section, the hon. and learned Gentleman had neglected to provide for the production of the tenant's lease or equitable agreement. He did not think it would be considered a hardship on any party if the commissioners had a power to compel the production of the tenant's lease, when the landlord, as was frequently the case in Ireland, held no counterpart. There was another consideration which made him regard the Bill as it stood as a most puny effort to grapple with a great and pressing difficulty, and that was, that in cases where the owner of an incumbered estate in one part of the country was desirous of selling that estate for the purpose of acquiring by purchase an incumbered estate in another district, which had gone out of its hands, in consequence of the imprudence, it might be, of some improvident ancestor, he would be unable, whilst the commission existed, to effect a sale upon fair terms, except through the medium of the commissioners. Another defect was, that the 12th section did not give sufficient power to enforce the production of deeds, and compel the attendance of witnesses, thereby weakening the means for checking fraud and deception. It was true the 14th section was in and of the 12th; but it supplied only a very clumsy mode of enforcing the wishes of the commissioners. He would beg to urge upon the House the importance of enabling the commissioners to proceed at once to effect the sale of those bankrupt estates, which already had been placed under the control of the Court of Chancery and Equity Exchequer in Ireland. Nothing could be more calculated to stop that system of emigration, which, for the sake of the interests of the country, should receive some kind of check. Nothing could be more calculated to give the tenantry some hope for the future, than to find that the commissioners, under this Bill, were enabled to offer for sale those bankrupt estates which, for several years, had been under the control of the equity courts in Ireland. Where vast arrears of rent had accumulated on such estates, it would be necessary that an adjustment should be come to with regard to them; for it was notorious that purchasers were frequently annoyed and harassed by proceedings taken to enforce the payment of arrears that were treated as irrecoverable previous to their purchase. He was sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General, in dealing with the question as to the partition of land, had confined the measure to the partition of incumbered estates. He was sorry that he did not agree to the proposition of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the county of Limerick, and adopt means by this Bill to effect, where necessary, the speedy and economical partition of estates not incumbered. A most serious objection taken by him to the present Bill had reference to the properties of those parties whom he called the professional absentee proprietors of the country. They were, unfortunately, not very likely by this Bill to hold out even an inducement to those owners of property to part with at least a portion of their large possessions in Ireland. He was sorry the Bill was not framed in such a way as would afford them an advantageous mode of parting with the estates of which they were owners. He alluded, of course, to those gentlemen who had for years been absentee proprietors. When he considered the great and flagrant evils resulting from this system, he wished the Government had introduced something into the Bill to induce those absentee proprietors to divest themselves of those estates. With regard to the evils of absenteeism, he begged, in the first instance, to refer to the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tam-worth—an opinion most deserving of the attention of the House, and delivered at a time when the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary for Ireland, and represented an Irish constituency, and therefore had an opportunity of forming an accurate opinion on the subject. The speech was made in reply to the memorable statement of Sir John Newport, in the year 1816. The right hon. Gentleman then said, that if he were asked from what measure the greatest benefit to Ireland would accrue, he would say from a measure that was calculated to induce, or, if that was not sufficient, to compel those individuals to reside in Ireland who spent the money they got from Ireland elsewhere. At a later period. Chief Justice Blackburne stated, before a Committee of the House of Lords, that absenteeism, independently of its abstraction from the country of so much wealth, produces great mischief in the whole frame of society. The names of absentee proprietors were rapidly and daily increasing; and he saw nothing in any projected reform with respect to the poor-law that did not continue the practical bonus which hitherto had been held out to those absentee proprietors with regard to the poor-rate. It seemed to him that they would be precisely in the same state as at present when the projected Poor Law Amendment Act became the law of the land. At present, if a man wanted to exonerate himself from a just and fair demand on foot of poor-rates, he had only to become an absentee. To show the extent to which absenteeism had reached, he referred to a barony in the county of Kerry, where, out of 100,000 acres, 92,000 belonged to four absentee proprietors, and the remaining 8,000 acres belonged to small proprietors, one-half of whom were absentees. He thought that the establishment of an effective system of registration was necessary; for under the present system, there was great delay and difficulty in vouching titles to lands. So long as those anomalies existed with respect to real property in Ireland, so long must capitalists decline to become extensive purchasers of incumbered estates in that country.


had expected that the hon. Gentleman who just sat down would conclude by moving that the Bill be recommitted, for though he had in the commencement of his speech stated that he intended to vote for the third reading, he seemed to have given every reason, both in detail and in gross, against the Bill. How any Gentleman could vote for the third reading of a Bill which he had so pulled to pieces, he (Mr. Henley) could not understand. He would now state the reasons that prevented him from voting for the third reading of the Bill. In the first place, the Bill came before them under a title that was not true—it did not deal with incumbered estates alone. It was alleged that there are in Ireland a vast mass of incumbered estates, which it was necessary to let loose for the sake of the country at large; and that might be a good object; but they did not confine the application of the Bill to that object, nor did they take any security at all that the Bill would be confined to that object. There was in Ireland, as in all countries, a great deal of property without a marketable title, and this Bill would enable parties having such properties to avail themselves of its provisions and sell their estates. They might thus forestall the sale of incumbered estates at a sacrifice that every person would not be disposed to make. They had done many things by this Bill which many persons thought would shake the rights of property, and for a purpose which they had taken no step to secure, because the Bill might be put into operation to effect an object entirely dissimilar to that contemplated. He next objected to the nature of the commission. They did not take care that the gentlemen who were to supersede the Court of Chancery should execute their functions in public. A man might have his interests dealt with, and absolutely destroyed, by three gentlemen sitting with closed doors, the public not knowing what was going on. The commissioners would probably have most complicated questions to decide, and they had no right to withdraw those questions from the ordinary tribunals of the country, and yet give the parties no power of appeal except at the will of the judges themselves. Those commissioners, before they sold an estate, must inquire in a certain degree into the nature of the incumbrances upon it, and that inquiry must to a great extent, be ex parte. However judicially constituted their minds may be, there must be some kind of impression created on them by that process. After an estate was sold, then came the distribution of the funds, and persons would not be satisfied to have the money produced by the sale distributed by men who had made an ex parte inquiry, and, therefore, were not looked upon as impartial judges of the matter. He wished the Bill had been so framed as to effect the objects in view; but he felt assured that in its present shape it would not secure those objects.


would not detain the House by entering into the minute details relating to this Bill, which had been gone into at considerable length by the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlow. He would only refer to the leading points to which they had drawn the attention of the House, and he thought that was the more satisfactory, because this Bill was carefully considered in Committee, and those little details with regard to the working of the measure were more fit to be discussed in Committee than on the third reading of this Bill. It appeared to him that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire had fallen into an error when he spoke of the inconsistency of the hon. Member for Carlow; for the objections he made to the Bill were directly opposite to those made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin. The improvements suggested by the hon. Member for Carlow were such as he thought might be considered in a future Session with advantage. With respect to the hon. Member for Oxfordshire, he begged to differ with him in opinion with respect to the operation of this Bill: he (the Solicitor General) believed it to be strictly confined to incumbered estates. An objection had been raised to the measure, on the ground that it proposed to supersede the existing tribunals of the country; and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin had asked why they could not reform the present Court of Chancery, and why the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland was not competent to carry the provisions of the Bill into effect? There was no person who could be found second to himself in praising that most excellent and learned Judge, or in believing that he would be fully competent to carry into effect any measure of this description; and it was a great satisfaction to him to consider that this Bill had the fullest sanction of that noble and learned Lord. With respect to reforming the Court of Chancery, his hon. and learned Friend had forgotten the difference which existed between attempting to reform an old established system, and attempting to carry into effect, by a new and temporary one, something which the established system had been found manifestly insufficient to perform. It was impossible to hear the details referred to by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, upon a former occasion, without feeling that the Court of Chancery, as at present constituted in Ireland, was incompetent to perform those duties which, under the existing state of things, were required, in order to allow persons who were desirous of disposing of their estates an opportunity of doing so. Its incompetency did not arise from any indisposition on the part of those who presided in that court, but by reason of a system which had grown up through a long series of years, partly arising from the complication of the system itself, and partly from the defective system with respect to incumbrances on land which prevailed in that country. A necessity for an altered state of things had now arisen; and instead of attempting to reform a system in which they would be met by the claims of a vast number of persons interested in fees derived from a number of offices of different descriptions, which it would be almost impossible accurately to ascertain, he thought it would be much more desirable to appoint three competent persons, who, by devoting their time and attention to the subject, might be able to lay down proper rules upon which to proceed; and see whether, by getting rid of every species of technicality, and looking in a broad and common-sense view at the whole question, they might not devise some plan by which they might deal in justice with the division of land, or the distribution, among those who were entitled to it, of the proceeds of the sale. The measure was but a temporary one, and no great evil could arise from its failure; but if by effecting, without due consideration, great changes in the Court of Chancery, they produced evil results, the injury might be irreparable. The duties of this commission, when appointed, would be confined to the consideration of two classes of cases—the disputed and the undisputed. The latter class of cases would, no doubt, be disposed of rapidly. In the disputed cases the commissioners would have the power of obtaining the assistance of all the courts in Ireland, in order to enable them to come to a safe and accurate decision on the subject. They would be empowered either to pay the money relating to the sale of disputed estates into the Court of Chancery, to be distributed by that court; or they would have the power, by summary jurisdiction, of dealing themselves with the interests concerned, and of obtaining the opinion of any one of the courts of law to enable them to solve any question which might be essential to the due distribution of the property among the persons interested. He believed that if a similar plan were adopted to that of the commissioners in deciding on the West Indian compensation, of dividing the cases into the two classes of disputed and undisputed, there would be found to be very few, comparatively, that they could not decide upon at once. An objection had been urged to the efficacy of this measure, on the ground that there would be a difficulty in finding purchasers for the property. In his opinion, the contrary would be the result. There was, at pro-sent, no lack of sellers; and he felt convinced that the effect of the Bill would be to produce a large number of purchasers. He had received communications on this subject from a large class of proprietors in Ireland, and from various quarters, not only suggesting points for the improvement of the measure, but all expressing their sincere desire to see it carried into effect. There were other points which he might be desirous of referring to, but on that occasion he would not detain the House. With regard, however, to his own feelings, he must, before concluding, express the gratification he felt for the assistance he had received from a very old and sincere friend of his, Mr. Coulson, without whose great abilities and legal knowledge he should have found it impossible to have presented to the House a Bill which he really believed would carry into effect that which was the object of all parties, and which would be a useful and beneficial measure, though not alone able to carry into effect those reforms which they considered necessary to the regeneration and amelioration of the existing state of things in Ireland.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 117; Noes 12: Majority 105.

List of the AYES.
Adair, R. A. S. Bromley, R.
Armstrong, R. B. Brooke, Sir A. B.
Baines, M. T. Brotherton, J.
Barnard, E. G. Burke, Sir T. J.
Barron, Sir H. W. Busfeild, W.
Bass, M. T. Campbell, hon. \V. F.
Bellew, R. M. Clements, hon. C. S.
Berkeley, hon. Capt. Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.
Bernal, R. Cobbold, J. C.
Blackall, S. W. Cobdcn, R.
Blair, S. Corbally, M. E.
Boyle, hon. Col. Cowper, hon. W. F.
Craig, W. G. Maule, rt. hon. F.
Crowder, R. B. Melgund, Visct.
Cubitt, W. Moffatt, G.
Currie, H. Monsell, W.
Dalrymple, Capt. Moore, G. H.
Damer, hon. Col. Morison, Sir W.
Dawson, hon. T. V. Nicholl, rt. hon. J.
Deedes, W. O'Connell, J.
Devereux, J. T. O'Connell, M.
Ebrington, Visct. Oswald, A.
Ellis, J. Paget, Lord A.
Evans, J. Paget, Lord C.
Ewart, W. Palmerston, Visct.
Fagan, W. Parker, J.
Foley, J. H. H. Patten, J. W.
Fordyce, A. D. Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Fortescue, hon. J. W. Pugh, D.
Fox, W. J. Repton, G. W. J.
Greenall, G. Rice, E. R.
Greene, J. Rich, H.
Grenfell, C. P. Roche, E. B.
Grenfell, C. W. Romilly, Sir J.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. Russell, Lord J.
Guest, Sir J. Rutherfurd, A.
Hallyburton, Lord J. F. Sadleir, J.
Harris, R. Shell, rt. hon. R. L.
Hawes, B. Sidney, Ald.
Hayter, rt. hon. W. G. Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.
Headlam, T. E. Stanton, W. H.
Heyworth, L. Stuart, Lord D.
Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J. Tenison, E. K.
Hobhouse, T. B. Thicknesse, R. A.
Hood, Sir A. Thompson, Col.
Howard, Lord E. Thornely, T.
Humphery, Ald. Townley, R. G.
Jervis, Sir J. Trelawny, J. S.
Keogh, W. Vane, Lord H.
Kershaw, J. Villiers, hon. C.
Kildare, Marq. of Wawn, J. T.
King, hon. P. J. L. Williamson, Sir H.
Lacy, H. C. Willoughbby, Sir H.
Langsten, J. H. Wilson, J.
Lascelles, hon. W. S. Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Lewis, G. C. Wyld, J.
Lushington, C. Young, Sir J.
Maenaghten, Sir E. TELLERS.
Martin, J. Tufnell, H.
Masterman, J. Hill, Lord M.
List of the NOES.
Bentinck, Lord H. Richards, R.
French, F. Spooner, R.
Grace, O. D. J. Stuart, J.
Hayes, Sir E. Turner, G. J.
Henley, J. W.
Jones, Capt. TELLERS.
Napier, J. Dunne, Col.
Newdegate, C. N. Grogan, E.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read 3o, and passed.