HC Deb 14 February 1850 vol 108 cc763-75

, having first presented a petition from Cork, signed by 12,000 persons against the rate called ministers' money, and another to the same effect from Kinsale, said, that in rising to submit for the third time to the consideration of the House the Motion of which he had given notice, he would not occupy at any length its attention. It was not necessary for him to do so. The House was already familiar with the question. On the first year he brought forward this Motion, he detailed the grievance of the imposition of ministers' money on corporate towns in Ireland, which were principally inhabited by Roman Catholics—namely, Dublin, Cork, Clonmel, Limerick, Kinsale, Kilkenny, Drogheda, and Waterford; while the corporate towns in Ulster, such as Belfast, Londonderry, Carrickfergus, were free from the tax. He showed likewise that even in these eight Catholic towns the poor Catholic inhabitants were principally pressed on because inhabiting generally the old quarters of towns which had fallen one-fourth in value, while the valuation for ministers' money there remained the same, they were quadrubly assessed, while the new and wealthier parts of these towns which were inhabited principally by Protestants, were comparatively lightly taxed, because no matter how high the valuation of the houses they dwelt in, they could not be assessed for ministers' money beyond a shilling in the pound on 60l. Irish. He showed likewise how this tax, though amounting in the whole to no more than 15,000l. a year, kept alive religious dissension and rancour amongst the different sects of Christians, causing perpetual division and unceasing irritation amongst Irishmen—not only in those towns where the tax was paid, but alike throughout the country, because every Catholic felt that the payment of such a tax by his Catholic countrymen was a mark of degradation, and a disgrace and insult which was inflicted on him as well as on those who paid. Last year he proved from the evidence before the Select Committee, as well as from letters he had himself received, that the clergy who received the tax, were as anxi- ous that it should be abolished and a substitute found as the Catholic taxpayers themselves. He could scarcely wonder at that. These clergymen feel that it is exceedingly unpleasant for them to obtain their incomes by distraining the miserable furniture of those with whom they have no religious communion. In the discharge of their clerical functions they think it is their duty to preach against and disparage the religion of the people from whom they derive their incomes, and therefore they feel anxious that any substitute should be found to relieve them from so unjust and so painful a mode of levy. He held in his hand a handbill which was within the last few days distributed amongst the Catholics of Cork. It is addressed to the Roman Catholics, and it invited them to come to hear a lecture delivered on Ash Wednesday in one of the churches of that city, "in which it will be proved that the Church of Rome has erred from the faith and structure of the Apostolic Church." The rector received a large income from ministers' money paid by the Catholic inhabitants of the parish; and it is not to be wondered at, if he have the feelings of a Christian minister, that he should desire the mode of receiving his income should be altered. This offensive practice of lecturing during Lent is always carried on in Cork. The walls are placarded with the most offensive statements against the Catholic religion, and the least the Catholics should obtain in return from the Legislature is, that they should not be forced to pay those who thus insult their religion. Last Session he endeavoured to demonstrate that a substitute was to be found in the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, as was recommended by a Select Committee of that House. That there was some weight in the argument he made, was proved by the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary moving the previous question, or, in other words, admitting the justice of the demand and the truth of his statements; but alleging that the time was not arrived to carry his views into effect. Subsequent to the debate, he (Mr. Fagan) had an interview with Sir George Grey, who assured him that he concurred in most respects in his proposition, but that the Lord Lieutenant, who was then in town, did not see how anything could be effected that Session. Since then Lord Clarendon had announced to his (Mr. Fagan's) constituents, that the question was under consideration. He therefore came forward to submit his Motion with renewed confidence. He had the promise of the Minister—the favourable disposition of the Lord Lieutenant—the visit of Her Gracious Majesty to Ireland—as an earnest of Her desire to do that country justice. He had the pledge of Parliament, and of the Sovereign of these realms, to redress all the proven and real grievances under which it laboured. Such being the position of the question—the admitted injustice of the tax, and desire of the clergy and taxpayers, the Government and the Parliament, to get rid of it as a proven grievance—he came forward with confidence to propose a substitute. With such a disposition towards Ireland, it shall not be said that an endeavour was not made to get rid of this tax, which was hateful to the clergy who received, as well as the people who paid. He maintained that in the fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, that substitute was to be found, notwithstanding apparently their present deficient state. He repeated what he said last year, that there was nothing in the Church Temporalities Act which prevented the annual sales of perpetuities being used as income. What is the money received by the conversion of bishops' leases into perpetuities? Up to 1844, the money so obtained was used as income, and expended annually for the repairs of churches and other church purposes. That year Lord Heytesbury directed that the amount of these annual sales should be capitalised and funded, and interest alone used as income. But in the Church Temporalities Act there was nothing to prevent its being expended as it came in. The question, then, is simply this—was it right and expedient to follow the course which was adopted by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners up to 1844, and expend as a substitute for ministers 'money, in order to get rid of an obnoxious tax, a portion of the annual receipts from the sales of perpetuities, in the same manner as they did for repairing churches, while their ordinary income was inadequate for that purpose. The entire value of the perpetuities was valued by the lowest estimate at 1,200,000l., and of this nearly 700,000l. is still outstanding. The lowest sum received within the year for these sales was 13,000l.; it may be safely estimated at 20,000l., if sufficient encouragement be given the tenants to purchase. When the bishoprics of Armagh, Derry, and Clogher become vacant, 16,500l. will be added to the income of the Ecclesias- tical Commissioners; and Mr. Quin, one of these commissioners, estimates the probable increase to be derived from the tax on benefices and bishoprics, and dignities yet to be voided, at 13,600l.; both these sums make over 30,000l. a year, an income which will arise within a very few years, for the present incumbents of these bishoprics, and dignities, and benefices, are all far advanced in life. If, then, until this increase of income arrives, 15,000l. a year out of 700,000l., to be obtained from the sales of perpetuities, be appropriated as a substitute for ministers' money, there would not be much injury done to the property of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and no one would say that it was not appropriated to a church purpose. It was true, that of late years the sales of perpetuities had fallen off. There are several reasons for this. But the principal one was the change made of late in the mode of estimating the value of the perpetuity, and the inadequate bonus given to the purchaser. The old mode of estimating the sales of debentures was this—the diocesan annual value of the land held by the tenant, being ascertained from this annual value, was deducted, the rent and annual fine paid by the tenant, and the difference multiplied by 20, for the value of the fee-simple. Then the rent paid by the tenant, with the annual fine added thereto, was multiplied by 12, 821, to ascertain the value of his interest. The one was subtracted from the other, and the difference, deducting 4 per cent bonus, paid for converting his lease into a perpetuity. Now, the diocesan value, which consisted of the rental paid, together with five times the usual fine, was far below the real bonâ fide marketable annual value or rent of the land. Now, of late years, the Commissioners, under the advice of the law officers of the Crown, in ascertaining the value of the perpetuity, take the solvent tonanttest of value of the land; and, consequently, the tenant has a much larger sum to pay for the perpetuity. Therefore, it is, that unless a larger bonus than 4 per cent is given, no purchase will be made. Now, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are deeply interested in having these purchases effected, while no person is interested in their not being effected. Every sale made adds to their income, and neither bishop, nor other ecclesiastic, nor bishops' tenant, is interested in these sales not being made. Therefore, though increasing the bonus may take something off the 700,000l. yet to be brought in by these sales, he would still maintain the expediency of making the bonus 8 per cent instead of 4. There was another reason why these sales had fallen off. It has been lately ascertained that the tenants of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners need not come in annually and pay their fines; but that if they deferred doing so until the very last year of the lease, they would be entitled to a renewal without any additional charge. This is not the case with the leases held under the bishops. In these cases, if the tenant deferred, until the last year of his lease, he would have an enormous sum to pay. Now, this knowledge, enjoyed by the tenants of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, lessened the income of the Commissioners considerably, and indisposed the tenants to purchase perpetuities. It was, therefore, necessary to amend the law in that particular, so as to oblige the tenant to renew yearly. This would be a stimulus to him to purchase. If this course was adopted, the revenues of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would be amply increased by the sales of perpetuities, to enable them to provide a substitute for ministers' money. Allowing the receipt from the sales of perpetuities to be 15,000l. a year, the account would stand thus:—

Suppressed bishoprics £50,279 2 10
Suppressed benefices 15,574 14 6
Tax on benefices 8,784 4 1
Received from Bishop of Derry 4,160 0 0
Interest on mortgages 2,618 0 0
Mines 402 0 0
Sales of perpetuites 15,000 0 0
£96,818 1 5

The expenditure, which is higher than it has hitherto reached to, had from the income, would leave over 16,000l. to meet the payment of ministers' money. The reason there was hitherto no surplus was, that the Commissioners had to repay the debt due to the Government. This debt was now reduced to 30,000l.; and it was part of his plan that this sum should not be demanded by the Government. They forgave a million sterling during the tithe contests; and it was not too much to hope that to assist in settling this painful question of ministers' money, they would abandon their claim to this paltry sum—more particularly when it is recollected that the original debt of 100,000l., of which this was a balance, was contracted to meet the demands which ought to have been paid by the arrears of church rates, but which the Legislature declared should be forgiven. His plan then was, firstly, to make the annual sales of perpetuities income: this required no alteration in the law; secondly, to increase the bonus from four to eight per cent, and to oblige the tenant to pay their fines annually; thirdly, to place the payment of the incumbents in the eight corporate towns where ministers' money is paid, the ecclesiastical funds in lieu of that tax which he would abolish: for this purpose he proposed bringing in a Bill altering the Church Temporalities Act in these respects, and extending the provisions of the 72nd section of that Act to the payments of these clergymen; and, lastly, he would wipe off the debt remaining due to the Government. There can be no fair objection to this proposition, and he put it to Her Majesty's Government whether they will any longer resist it. The sum is small, but the evil effects of its collection is greater than if the sum were ten times as large, and was not connected with religious belief; for, after all, that was the powerful part of the subject. That being the case, the smallness of the sum is a reason why an effort should be made to get rid of this obnoxious tax. It is for that reason, therefore, that he appealed for the third time on the subject to the House, confident that, now that there is a disposition to redress the present grievances of Ireland, the tax of ministers' money will not be allowed to remain on the Statute-book—a tax as disagreeable to the clergy who received it, as the people who paid it. There is no other substitute except the one he devised that can be satisfactory. It cannot be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. The people of this country will not listen to such a proposition. It cannot be put on the landlords; for it has been shown in the evidence before the Select Commit- tee that the house property in these towns belongs principally to Catholics. The tithes were put on the landlords in the form of rent-charge; but nineteen twentieths of the landed property of Ireland was in the hands of Protestants, therefore the analogy does not hold good. The great argument for the continuance of the Protestant Church Establishment in Ireland was, that it was part and parcel of the United Church of Great Britain and Ireland. If that be so, why not put both churches on an equality? In England there is no ministers' money except an ancient tax payable in the city of London. Why, then, should it exist in Ireland? He had studiously avoided any reference to the general church question; that belonged to his hon. Friend the Member for Middlesex, and whenever he brought it forward, he (Mr. Fagan) would not shrink from taking a part in that discussion. But he could not avoid saying that it was too bad that they should be year after year petitioning for relief from an obnoxious tax, while there were 600,000 acres of the best land in Ireland belonging to the Established Church; while the clergy received a half a million annually; the bishops 60,000l. annually; the Ecclesiastical Commissioners 100,000l. a year—all to support the religion of 800,000 persons out of a population of 8,000,000. He, therefore, conscientiously believed that he did nothing to injure or weaken the Protestant religion, or to subvert the Church Establishment in moving the resolution.

Motion made, and Question proposed— That this House will, To-morrow, resolve it-Self into a Committee, to take into consideration the Law relating to the Rate or Tax called 'Ministers' Money, 'in Ireland, with the view to the repeal of so much thereof as relates to the said Rate or Tax; and further to take into consideration the Act 3 and Will. IV., c. 114, called' The Church Temporalities Act,' for the purpose of amending the same so as to provide thereby a substitute, out of the Revenues of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, as a provision for the Protestant Ministers in certain corporate towns in Ireland, in lieu of the annual sums now received by them under and by virtue of the Act 17 and 18 Charles II., c. 7.


seconded the Motion.


must say that the hon. Gentleman had brought forward the subject again in the same spirit of fairness, and with the same temper and discretion, as in last Session. He only regretted that, the circumstances being almost identical, he was compelled to take the same course as on the former occasion, and move the previous question. The hon. Gentleman had stated that in moving the previous question he had admitted the hon. Member's case; and, to a certain degree, he had. He had admitted that it was much to be deplored that the income of some of the clergy in the towns in question was dependent upon a source obnoxious both in their own opinion, and in the opinion of those who paid it. In the report of the Committee upon this subject in 1848, there was a reference to the conduct of some of those clergymen in foregoing their dues rather than incur the odium to their religion, as well as to themselves personally, of coming into collision with their Roman Catholic neighbours. But the hon. Gentleman had not stated the resolution of that Committee. The Committee, after adverting to several propositions for providing a substitute, not proposing the abolition of the tax without a substitute—in which the hon. Member appeared to concur with them—said they had proceeded to make inquiry into the receipt and expenditure of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and that they had arrived at the conclusion, not that there was in the hands of the Commissioners a fund sufficient to provide a substitute, but only "that the existing income of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners was adequate to their actual expenditure," and that prospectively and contingent upon the occurrence of certain events a large increase in their funds would take place, and the augmentation of their funds might be rendered available as a substitute for ministers' money. They did not say that it then existed, but that when it arrived a substitute might be provided for this impost. To adopt this Motion, therefore, now, would not be acting in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee. A suggestion was, indeed, thrown out by one of the witnesses, but it was not adopted by the Committee, that this charge might be borne by "some Government fund—say the Consolidated Fund." He understood the hon. Member not to concur in this suggestion, but he adverted to the debt due to the Government from the Commissioners, and thought the Government would do well to abandon it and let the amount be available for the proposed object; but that was only a circuitous mode of charging the Consolidated Fund. It was desirable, no doubt, to find a substitute; but the circumstances contemplated by the Committee did not at present exist, He felt it his duty, therefore, to move the previons question.


could state that payment of this tax was often obtained by distress and sale of the goods of poor Roman Catholic artisans. The right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary appeared to say that the difficulty in the way of removing the tax, was the impossibility of finding a substitute. His hon. Friend the Member for the city of Cork, however, though not hound to do so, had pointed out that substitute. But was it not a heartless mockery to tell the people of Ireland they were to pay the tax because the most richly endowed church in the world was unable to provide for a few of her clergy? The time was coming when the whole question of the Irish Church would be thoroughly sifted. Ireland must be held by force, and not a man could be reduced from the army maintained there by this country so long as the Established Church, which was the cause of all the misery and bloodshed that had taken place, was allowed to continue. He believed the Government wished to do justice, and the people of Ireland were persuaded it was the sincerest wish of their Sovereign's heart to redress their grievances; but that temple of peace to which the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had once alluded, would never arise till its foundations were laid on the ruins of the Established Church.


contended that the question came before the House under different circumstances from those which surrounded it last year. Her Majesty had since visited Her Irish subjects, and had promised them in Her Speech at the opening of the present Session that their grievances should be redressed, and what was defective in the government of that country should be remedied. The right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary admitted this impost to be a grievance, and yet he refused to remove it. This was a grievance, too, which extended to Scotland. Charles II. established a similar impost in Edinburgh and Montrose; and on behalf of his constituents and the inhabitants of Edinburgh, as well as on behalf of the people of Ireland, he demanded the abolition of this unjust and partial tax. It was not the amount he looked at, so much as the principle. The whole amount levied for ministers' money in Ireland, he believed, was not more than 16,000l., and in Scotland it did not exceed 13,000l., therefore the amount was not important. His strong objection was, that it was the stamp of oppression. In Ireland, too, he was sorry to say some of the clergy who received it had lately been preaching damnation, and using language highly irritating to those who paid the money. This was not only an unjust but a most ungrateful return.


said, that his object in rising was to reply to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. That right hon. Gentleman fully admitted a grievance, while he refused to redress it. Now, in the case of a Turnpike Bill, the right hon. Gentleman's argument for the previous question might be a good one; but when a large number of the people were deeply interested, he thought that the course adopted on the Treasury bench was anything but satisfactory. He, would like, however, to quote the authority of a much-respected and beloved prelate' on the subject. He alluded to the Bishop of Limerick. The Bishop of Limerick expressed a decided opinion that if, instead of the present mode of payment, there was a fixed stipend, diminished by one-fourth, much of the difficulty would be obviated. It would appear, also, from a letter which had been addressed to him from the Bishop of Down and Connor, that when that prelate was connected with a parish in the city of Limerick, the great bulk of the payers of this tax were Roman Catholics. The evidence taken before the Committee also went to show that as large an amount on account of ministers' money was paid in respect of houses valued at 60l., but whose value was really only 20l., as for the flourishing establishment of the Messrs. Beamish, valued at 2,300l. The last prelate to whom he had referred, had also said that in the parish of St. Munchins, in Limerick, nearly every contributor to this tax was a Roman Catholic, and that the collection of the money had given rise to much party feeling; he should, therefore, strongly recommend that some arrangement be devised to remove the ground of complaint. Many parishes in the south of Ireland were in the same condition; and he could only assure Her Majesty's Ministers that if they expected the people of Ireland to exhibit towards this country feelings of loyalty and affection, they should take the earliest opportunity of removing this impost—an impost which he believed no other country would bear. Depend upon it the maintenance of this tax would tend to sow the seeds of disaffection and animosity towards this country, and prevent that improvement in Ireland which it now seemed to he the general disposition to inaugurate.


thought that the nature and character of this tax were much misunderstood. It was not personally a tax on Roman Catholic occupiers. It was continued on the settlement of property in the time of Charles II, and it was a very different charge from what was generally supposed. He admitted there was much inconvenience in the collection of the money. He admitted, that in many cases the clergy had forbore their rights, rather than hazard any disagreement with their parishioners. But the fact was, that this money was originally put on corporate towns in Ireland at the time when they were exclusively Protestant; and by an Act of Charles II. the whole property was remodelled, and the course taken was this:—People who had been dispossessed of property in the towns, got property allotted them outside of the towns, and the corporate towns were inhabited by English settlers. The Crown had then the whole fee of the property, no one had any right in it but Charles II.; and having invited English settlers to these towns, he then provided that there should be a charge on the House for the purpose of supporting certain of the clergy. And so far from those who received this money ever preaching doctrines which were obnoxious, he would appeal to both Roman Catholics and Protestants whether there could be a more diligent, useful, or benevolent body of men to be found in any part of Ireland. The charge being on the owners of houses, on whom else could they put it? No substitute for the ministers' money had ever been proposed by anybody, though the question had been discussed year after year. His hon. Colleague and himself, in Committee, had agreed to exempt small tenements from the impost; but as to the removal of the tax, there having been no substitute named, he was confident that no man with a sense of justice would do this. A right rev. Prelate had regretted that there should be another Parliamentary confederacy on foot against the Church of Ireland, and observed that they who knew the effect of the sad tithe war of 1832 should be cautious how they proceeded in such a course. The ministers' money was provided form the Church Temporalities Act, when Mr. O'Connell was in the House. He was willing to remove any inconvenience in the mode of collecting for small tenements; but he hoped that the House would not assent to the views of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the city of Cork, who sought to deprive these reverend gentlemen of their vested rights.


merely rose to make a few observations in reply to what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin. It seemed to him that the hon. and learned Gentleman, and those who acted with him, though very ready to declare, in general terms, that they were quite prepared to remove the impost, would be likely to find some special objections when the time came to test their sincerity. They would be sure to object to the occasion, to the time, or to the want of a substitute. The right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary had already suggested, indeed, that no substitute had been pointed out; but it was incumbent on Government, when a grievance was admitted by them—a grievance which the Protestants were as anxious to remove as the Roman Catholics—to find one, and not to let it rest on a private individual, or an independent Member of the House. There was something very suspicious about the declaration of readiness to remedy the grievance, particularly when the hon. and learned Gentleman brought in the case of the anti-tithe war. There was no connexion whatever between the two cases. If the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary was, indeed, anxious for the repeal of the impost, why did he seek to prevent discussion? He was astonished to hear the argument of the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin, that when the impost had been first established, the owners of houses were all Protestants. Would the hon. and learned Member say that they were all Protestants now? A more monstrous proposition had never been put forward, when it was known what a mass of houseowners were Roman Catholics. The Rev. J. Elmes, the Protestant rector of St. John's, Limerick, who was examined before the Committee of which the hon. and learned Gentleman was a Member, said he believed that when the enumeration of houses took place in 1782 and 1846, 99 out of every 100 houseowners were Roman Catholics. How could the hon. and learned Member with any face, then, say that ministers' money was not injurious to Roman Catholics, because it only pressed on the owners of houses? He trusted the House would force on the attention of the Government the necessity of removing an impost which was insulting and obnoxious to the Roman Catholic, while it did no good to the Protestant, and the removal of which would confer substantial benefit on the Established Church.


was glad to hear the obnoxious nature of the tax was admitted by Her Majesty's Government; and he was much disappointed, after the expectations which had been held out, that so little progress had been made in respect to the carrying out this question. Two years ago a Commission had been appointed to proceed to Edinburgh to inquire into the annuity tax of Edinburgh. A report had been given in about a year ago, and he had frequently put questions to the noble Lord on the subject, but had never obtained a satisfactory reply. If that House wished to secure the confidence and respect of the people of Scotland, they should proceed to inquire into the circumstances which were so grievous to the people of Edinburgh particularly.


said, he was a member of the Established Church, and had a great veneration for the faith he professed; but he thought that the subject now under discussion resolved itself into one of justice, and that the House would be guilty of continuing an injustice if they exacted from the Roman Catholics, as they were doing, a tax for the support of Protestant clergymen. Some hon. Gentlemen on the opposition benches had recently signed a manifesto, headed by Lord Glengall, in which they promised to inquire into the various grievances of Ireland. This, then, was the time for testing their sincerity, for now they had an opportunity of inquiring into one of those grievances, without, at the same time, injuring the Church in any respect. He was sure that if the tax were abolished, other temporalities would easily be found, to afford the requisite stipend to the clergy, and therefore he should vote now, as he had voted in former years, in favour of the Motion of the hon. Member for Cork city.

Whereupon previous Question put, "That that Question be now put."

The House divided:—Ayes 76; Noes 96: Majority 20.

List of the AYES.
Aglionby, H. A. Bouverie, hon. E. P.
Anderson, A. Bright, J.
Armstrong, Sir A. Brotherton, J.
Barron, Sir H. W. Brown, W.
Bass, M. T. Castlereagh, Visct.
Caulfeild, J. M. Melgund, Visct.
Clifford, H. M. Moffatt, G.
Cobden, A. Molesworth, Sir W.
Corbally, M. E. Monsell, W.
Cowan, C. Muntz, G. F.
Drummond, H. Norreys, Sir D. J
Ellice, E. O'Connor, F.
Ellis, J. Pearson, C.
Evans, Sir De L. Perfect, R.
Ewart, W. Pilkington, J.
Fergus, J. Pinney, W.
Fortescue, hon. J. W. Power, N.
Fox, W. J. Rawdon, Col.
Gibson, rt. hon. T. M. Salwey, Col.
Grace, O. D. J. Scholefield, W.
Granger, T. C. Scrope, G. P.
Grattan, H. Scully, F.
Greene, J. Sheridan, R. B.
Grenfell, C. P. Sidney, Ald.
Hall, Sir B. Smith, J. B.
Harris, R. Smythe, hon. G.
Hastie, A. Somers, J. P.
Herbert, H. A. Stanton, W. H.
Heyworth, L. Stuart, Lord D.
Horsman, E. Sullivan, M.
Hume, J. Thicknesse, R. A.
Humphery, Ald. Thompson, Col.
Keating, R. Thornely, T.
Keogh, W. Trelawney, J. S.
Kershaw, J. Wall, C. B.
Langston, J. H. Walmsley, Sir J.
Lushington, C.
M'Cullagh, W. T. TELLERS.
M'Taggart, Sir J. Fagan, W.
Meagher, T. Power, Dr.
List of the NOES.
Abdy, T. N. Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.
Adderley, C. B. Grogan, E.
Anson, hon. Col. Guernsey, Lord
Barnard, E. G. Gwyn, H.
Bateson, T. Hallyburton, Lord J. F.
Beresford, W. Hamilton, G. A.
Bernard, Visct. Hatchell, J.
Best, J. Hawes, B.
Blair, S. Hayes, Sir E.
Blandford, Marq. of Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.
Bowles, Adm. Heald, J.
Boyle, hon. Col. Henley, J. W.
Bramston, T. W. Herbert, rt. hon. S.
Bremridge, R. Hood, Sir A.
Bruce, C. L. C. Jervis, Sir J.
Buck, L. W. Jocelyn, Visct.
Charteris, hon. F. Jones, Capt.
Chatterton, Col. Knox, Col.
Christy, S. Labouchere, rt. hon. H.
Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G. Lacy, H. C.
Cocks, T. S. Lascelles, hon. E.
Cole, hon. II. A. Lascelles, hon. W. S.
Compton, H. C. Law, hon. C. E.
Duncuft, J. Legh, G. C.
Du Pre, C. G. Lewis, G. C.
Ebrington, Visct. Lindsay, hon. Col.
Elliot, hon. J. E. Lowther, H.
Enfield, Visct. Maule, rt. hon. F.
Farrer, J. Maxwell, hon. J. P.
Forbes, W. Meux, Sir H.
Fordyce, A. D. Miles, W.
Fox, S. W. L. Morison, Sir W.
Frewen, C. H. Mullings, J. R.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Mundy, W.
Greenall, G. Naas, Lord
Napier, J. Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.
Packe, C. W. Spooner, R.
Paget, Lord A. Stafford, A.
Paget, Lord C. Stanley, E.
Paget, Lord G. Tancred, H. W.
Patten, J. W. Verner, Sir W.
Peel, rt. hon. Sir R. Verney, Sir H.
Plowden, W. H. C. Watkins, Col. L.
Plumptre, J. P. Williamson, Sir H.
Portal, M. Wilson, J.
Pusey, P. Young, Sir J.
Richards, R.
Russell, Lord J. TELLERS.
Sandars, G. Grev, R. W.
Smith, J. A. Hill, Lord M.