HC Deb 11 May 1858 vol 150 cc430-40

Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [10th play]— That Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild be one other Member of the Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to the Amendments to which this House hath disagreed.

Question again proposed,

Debated resumed.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, that the course taken by the House, in adjourning the debate on a question which, if not altogether new, had not been raised for upwards of 100 years, was, lie thought, a safe and convenient course; but, at the same time, he was hound to say that he could not conceive that any reasonable doubt could be entertained on the question before the House. The Motion that had been proposed by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) was that Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild be added to the Committee nominated, on the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for London for the purpose of settling the reasons for disagreeing from the Lords' Amendments to the Oaths Bill. In the discussion on the preceding day, be (the Solicitor General) thought two questions, which were essentially distinct, were in some degree mixed up together. One of those questions was, the right of this House to call on every individual who had been elected a Member of it to perform the duties which, as a Member, he had to discharge; and the second was, as to the obligation imposed on every Member of the House to observe the necessary formalities before he took on himself the discharge of those duties. The first and, as it appeared to him, the only question then to be determined was the right of the House to call on its Members to perform their cervices. On that he thought no doubt whatever could be entertained. He apprehended it was perfectly clear that the moment the name of any person was returned to this House as a Member to serve in Parliament the House had a right to call on that Member to do that which every Member of Parliament was bound to do in the shape of service to the House. Of that a familiar instance was afforded by a call of the House. Suppose a call of the House was made after a general election, that call was virtually an order on every Member who had been returned to the House to attend in his place; and when a Member presented himself in obedience to that summons, it was the business of the House to see that he did not take his seat without observing the necessary formalities. Then, with regard to Committees, the House had a full right to call upon any Member to serve on a Committee. The House had a right to require that; but, having done so, it left it to the Member himself to determine what steps he ought to take to place himself legally in the position of a Member performing any of the acts pertaining to a Member of Parliament. In fact, the first question was as to the right of the House to order the attendance of its Members; and he (the Solicitor General) would ask the House to consider, as a fair and legitimate test, what would be the consequence of holding a different doctrine. The consequence, he apprehended, would be this. A number of Members of the House, after their election, might neglect to take the proper oaths appointed to be taken; and, in that case, the arm of the House would be virtually powerless to compel them to perform their duties as Members of the House. The case of Sir Joseph Jekyll had been referred to, and it was an authority very much in point. It was to be found reported in the sixth volume of Chandler's Parliamentary Debates. It appeared that in 1715 the House assembled after an election in the month of March. The Speaker was chosen on the 23rd of that month, and on the 9th of April, General Stanhope moved that certain papers which related to the negotiation of a peace that had been concluded shortly before, and which papers were too numerous and voluminous to be perused by all the Members of the House, should be referred to a Select Committee of twenty Members, who should make a digest of them, and then report to the House. A discussion took place; one Member moved that the Committee should Consist of twenty-one Members, instead of twenty, which was agreed to, and the House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House, to choose the twenty-one Members by ballot. A report was made of the twenty-one Members so chosen, and among the number was Sir Joseph Jekyll. An objection being made to Sir Joseph Jekyll, on the ground that he bad not then taken the oaths, he being at that time on circuit as Chief Justice of the county palatine of Chester, the answer was that that was not a voluntary neglect on his part; and it was resolved that Sir Joseph Jekyll, being a Member of that House, was capable of being chosen a Member of the Committee of Secrecy, although he had not been sworn at the table. It did not appear whether Sir Joseph Jekyll in fact sat on that Committee without taking the oaths; but if he (the Solicitor General) might be permitted to conjecture, he apprehended that the first thing Sir Joseph Jekyll would naturally do on returning from circuit would be to present himself at the table and take the oaths. What he was anxious to show was, that the two questions were perfectly distinct from each other—the one implying the right of the House to come to a Resolution nominating any one of its Members a member of a particular Committee; the other, whether it would be proper and expedient for Baron Rothschild, if so appointed, to sit and serve on that Committee. He was perfectly ready to admit that there was nothing, so far as he could see, in the Act of Parliament to prevent the House nominating Baron Rothschild to sit on this Committee, but another question might arise which the House was not called on to entertain, and which it would be wise not to entertain,—namely, how far it would be necessary for Baron Rothschild, if he should desire to sit on that Committee, to take the oaths which were required of the Members of that House. The precedent of Sir Joseph Jekyll, to which the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) had referred, was perfectly silent on this question, and he did not pretend to say that according to the words of the Act of Parliament it would be necessary for Baron Rothschild to take the oaths. The Act was the 1st of George III., and it set forth that no person who was a Member of the House should presume to vote not having taken and subscribed the oath, and that every Member so offending should be subjected to penalties. It then went on to enact that no one who bras a Peer of the realm or a Member of the other House should have a seat in the House of Commons, and that no one Who should now or hereafter claim to be a Member of that House should be entitled to sit and vote without taking the oaths after the Speaker was chosen. He did not say there was anything in these words that could be applied to a Committee of the House, but he wished to press on the House that that was really nut the question now before them. The question was whether, if the Douse should choose to nominate Baron Rothschild to a seat in this Committee, there was anything in Parliamentary practice or precedent to prevent their doing so? He thought there was not. It would be wrong in him to express an opinion on the other point. It would be for Baron Rothschild to inform himself, and act on such advice as he might think it proper to take, as to whether the oaths should or should not be taken by him, and whether he could serve on that Committee Without taking such oaths. He might be allowed to state that his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department who spoke yesterday, and could not again address the House on this subject, entirely concurred with him in the conclusion at which he had arrived. The House was aware that he (the Solicitor General) had not voted with the noble Lord the Member for London in disagreeing from the Lords' Amendments on this Bill; but the question now before the House was one quite distinct from the main question of the admission of the Jews. This was a question Which might become a precedent hereafter, and it was the duty of both sides of the House to endeavour to arrive at a sound conclusion regarding it, not in reference to their individual opinions on the subject of the admission of the Jews, but on what might appear to them to be a sound and legitimate construction of the Act of Parliament, and by bringing to the case such Parliamentary precedents as they were in possession of.

MR. WHITBREAD

said, he wished to give the House a brief explanation of the reasons which urged him to vote against the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury. It should be observed what the question really was, and what would probably be its result. The House was asked to nominate Baron Rothschild a member of a Committee to draw up Resolutions with a view to a conference with the Lords without his having taken the oaths. He did not find that there would be any limit to his power if he was appointed, and therefore it must be the intention of the hon. Member for Finsbury that Baron Rothschild should take the same part and have the same privileges in the Committee. as any other Member. He (Mr. Whitbread) should like to learn whether there was any real distinction between a vote in Committee and a vote in the House. He could not see ally difference. He believed that Committees were to all intents and purposes parts of the House, and he thought if anything could be more safely asserted than another on the subject, it was that Parliament had been extraordinarily careful in the appointment of Committees, and that in delegating its powers to a small number of its Members it had been extremely careful in then selection. He thought that the result of appointing Baron Rothschild on the Committee would be that the House would place itself in a position from which it might have to retreat with no great dignity. Suppose Resolutions drawn up by the Committee; there might be a conference with the other House. Who would naturally be the managers of the conference? Why the Members of the Committee. Was the House sure that in "another place" there would not be some objection to receiving reasons from a body which contained a Member of the House who had not been sworn? What was the object of the conference? Was it not to conciliate a difference of opinion that existed between the two Houses, and would that be taking the right way to conciliate? Those were grave questions, and required consideration. If Baron Rothschild was appointed on this Committee he could be appointed on an election or any other Committee. Suppose Baron Rothschild was appointed to a Committee, be might be chosen Chairman, and it would be his duty to report to the Speaker. Was the House prepared to see him come to the bar with a report? He might sit on au Election Committee, for there was no oath which he would be required to take for that purpose which he could not take on the Old Testament. The House prevented any Member sitting on an Election Committee who had any charge hanging over him which might disqualify him from sitting in the House, even after he had taken his seat and the oaths; and yet it was proposed to appoint Baron Rothschild. The case of Sir Joseph Jekyll occurred some 140 years ago: he had looked into that case, and he could see nothing in it applicable to this. Did hon. Members suppose that the House would have allowed Sir Joseph Jekyll to have been chosen on a Committee if he had been in the position of Baron Rothschild? He was chosen by ballot for the Committee, and he had not taken the oaths, merely because he happened to have been absent on business, and it might readily be assumed that being a Judge on circuit, and not having taken the oaths, be probably took them before he sat on the Committee; for soon after he was named on another Committee, and would not some Member have said on that occasion that they had allowed the excuse that was given for his not having taken the oaths, but that they would not allow it a second time. It seemed to him (Mr. Whitbread) that the present proceeding was very like trying to find a right precedent for that which was manifestly wrong. Whilst expressing an opinion adverse to the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury he might say that he thought that the conduct of Baron Rothschild throughout this long Parliamentary struggle reflected great credit upon him, for he waited at the doors of the House to be admitted as soon as the Legislature thought fit, and did not attempt to enter it himself, although he might have done so if he pleased on the meeting of the new Parliament, before the election of the Speaker. He had done nothing that was in the slightest degree undignified Or distasteful to the House, and he (Mr. Whitbread) only hoped that those who were so ardent in his cause would follow his example; and if they did so it was not improbable that before the end of the present Session they would see Baron Rothschild at the table taking the oaths. They might be anxious to admit Jews to Parliament, and to pass the Bill which had met so many galling refusals; but it was more important that the customs and laws of the House should be kept inviolate, and as they were about to take a step which might become a precedent for the future, they should be well sure that they stood on reason and justice.

MR. HEADLAM

said, he entirely agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General in his remarks, which he apprehended were quite sufficient to justify the House in agreeing to the Resolution under discussion. In his opinion, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) had pictured imaginary difficulties, to which a sufficient answer could be given. The hon. Gentleman asked what difference there was between the vote of a Member in the House, and in a Committee of the House. The answer was short and simple—that the Act of Parliament referred to a vote in the House, but was altogether silent as to a vote in Committee. In one case the letter of the bond would apply, and he for one was not prepared to go one jot beyond it. The hon. Gentleman then said, that if Baron Rothschild were appointed on one Committee, he might also be appointed upon another, and that he might possibly be chosen one of the managers at the conference with the Lords. But he (Mr. Headlam) could see no reason why Baron Rothschild should not be chosen upon another Committee, or why he should not be chosen as one of the managers at a conference. He admitted that it would be absurd to appoint him one of the managers, but the whole question of his exclusion was an absurdity, and the best course the House could adopt would be to do away with the absurdity as soon as possible.

MR. MACAULAY

said, he felt it impossible to listen to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Newcastle (Mr. Headlam) without offering a reply. He agreed in every word that had fallen from the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Whitbread); and he would add another consideration that weighed much with himself—that there was no precedent—for the only one that had been cited was not to the purpose—to show that the House had ever appointed a Member to perform a service for the House, knowing and intending that the Member should never be called in question for the manner in which he had performed his duty. He agreed with the hon. and learned Solicitor General as to the dry question of the power of the House to appoint Baron Rothschild upon a Committee; but had the House in its discretion ever exercised that power in the case of a Member who they knew was never going to qualify himself to appear in that House? The case of Sir Joseph Jekyll proved that the Member so appointed must show that it was through no fault, omission, or intention of his own that he had not taken the oaths. If it had appeared that Sir Joseph Jekyll had either conscientiously or contumaciously absented himself from taking the oaths, it was clear that his nomination to act upon the Committee would have been revoked. The question was not whether the House had power to appoint a person, who had not taken the oaths, on a Committee, but whether, in the exercise of their discretion, they would be guilty of the mockery of appointing a Member to perform a duty for the House when the Member was not going to appear in the House, and when the House did not mean to question his conduct, supposing that he refused to obey its orders. To appoint Baron Rothschild a Member of the Committee under such circumstances would be, in his opinion, highly derogatory to the dignity of the House.

MR. COLLIER

said, he was surprised to hear his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Macaulay) deny that the case of Sir Joseph Jekyll was one in point, when it was so treated by the Solicitor General and by all the authorities. In Hatsell's Precedents the House would find the following passage:— Notwithstanding all these laws which are introductory to a Member's taking his seat in the house, a person when returned, is, though he should not have taken his seat, to all intents a Member, except as to the right of voting, and is entitled to the same privileges as every other Member of the House. The absence of Sir Joseph Jekyll then, could not have been the only ground on which the House proceeded. His hon. and learned Friend had spoken as if the House was about to visit Baron Rothschild with penalties for contumacy. But the case really stood on this footing—Baron Rothschild being duly elected a Member of that House, and being anxious to perform his Parliamentary duties, had been prevented from taking his seat by a statute which was never intended to apply to his case. But, because by sheer accident he was prevented from performing a portion of his duties and debarred from a portion of his privileges, was that a reason for depriving him of the rest? If there were any duty which Baron Rothschild was interested in performing, it was in conferring with the other House upon a matter which so nearly concerned himself and the members of the same faith, and the letter of the Act ought not to be allowed to stand in his way. The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) thought that the other House might object to the nomination of Baron Rothschild upon the Committee. But the House of Commons and not the House of Lords were the judges of those whom they elected to serve upon their Committees, and the other House would not be so ill-advised as to raise an objection to his appointment. He trusted, therefore, that the House would by a large and over- whelming majority elect Baron Rothschild to serve upon the Committee.

MR. DRUMMOND

said, he thought that the argument of the hon. Member for Bedford bad been misstated. He had supposed that the House wanted to conciliate the other House, and he had thereupon asked whether it was wise to employ a person who was known not to be a conciliator? But did Gentlemen opposite want to employ conciliation? Did they want to bully and overbear, or did they wish to use the mollia fandi? Hon. Members opposite argued that a person might be a part of a thing when he was not a member of the whole. There was so much profound law in such an assertion that he could not understand it.

MR. MALINS

said, he quite agreed with the Solicitor General that the present question had nothing to do with that of the admission of the Jews to Parliament; it was a distinct question affecting the regularity of the proceedings of the House. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Headlam) had stated, as a reason why it was competent to the House to appoint Baron Rothschild on this Committee that the Act of Parliament applicable to his case mentioned voting in the House, but did not mention voting in Committee. He (Mr. Malins) thought that the observations of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down disposed of that view of the case. It was certainly new to him (Mr. Malins), to hear that a Committee was not a part of the House. Certain business was so minute in its details that it could not be done by the House, and the House deputed it to Select Committees, and the votes of Select Committees became the votes of the House. ["No!"] He would prove it. What he was going to say was, that there was a particular Act of Parliament. [Mr. ROEBUCK: Hear, hear!] He would take it with or without the Act. The question whether a Member was duly selected to serve in Parliament was referred to a Select Committee appointed under an Act of Parliament, the vote of which Committee was conclusive; and if it reported to the House that such Member was not duly returned he was no longer a Member of the House. It was not attempted by those who sought to appoint Baron Rothschild to this Committee to draw a distinction between one Committee and another; but could any one say that Baron Rothschild could sit on a Select Committee, of which he might be appoint- ed Chairman, and have to appear at the bar to report whether a Member had been duly returned or not? They were told that that was a case which arose under a particular Act of Parliament; but there might be other cases referred to a Select Committee in which the report of the Committee would be conclusive, and could there be a greater absurdity than to appoint Baron Rothschild to sit on such Committees, for his case was not like that of Sir Joseph Jekyll, who had not taken his seat in the House merely because he was absent on his circuit, who did not contumaciously refuse to take, and had no reason for not taking the oaths, and who must be inferred to have taken them. The present case was one involving a question of the highest importance—namely, whether a Jew returned to that House, who did not comply with the law by taking the oaths, was competent to take part in the proceedings of that House? The proposition was—and it was an insult to common sense—that a man who could not take any part in the proceedings of the House, or sit in the House, could sit and take part in the proceedings of a portion of the House; for he would assert that a Committee was the House—that Members sitting in a Committee—room were sitting in the House, and giving a vote in Committee was giving a vote in the House. Independently, therefore, of the main question—of the admission of Jews to Parliament—it was necessary to decide the important question whether the House was to have any part of its proceedings conducted by those who, for all practical purposes, were not Members.

MR. PULLER

said, he would accept fully the arguments of the two hon. Gentlemen, that a man could not be part of a whole, without belonging to the whole also. They drew from it the inference that Baron Rothschild could not be a Member of a Committee of the House, because the Committee was a part of the House. He drew an opposite inference, and, as it was admitted by the Solicitor General and almost every lawyer in the House, that Baron Rothschild could be a Member of a Committee, why, it followed that he might be a Member of the House. When the hon. Member for Finsbury made his Motion on the previous evening he (Mr. Puller) asked himself the question, "Cui bono?"—what good could come of it? But the speeches of the hon. Members for Bedford and Wallingford bad shown that the hon. Member for Finsbury was right in making his Motion; for, by showing that Baron Rothschild could be a Member of a Committee, it would show the House of Lords that he was not only in name, but, in substance, a Member of the House, and that would dispose of a favourite argument against the admission of Jews to Parliament—namely, that if the House was not exclusively composed of Christians, it would lose its Christian character. If Baron Rothschild could sit on a Committee and become the Chairman of an Election Committee, it was impossible to say that he was not, bonâ fide and substantially, and not merely in name, a Member of the House; and, that being so, what became of the Christian character of the House?

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 251; Noes 196: Majority 55.

List of the AYES.
Agnew, Sir A. Clive, G.
Akroyd, E. Codrington, Gen.
Alcock, T. Collier, R. P.
Anderson, Sir J. Colvile, C. R.
Antrobus, E. Coningham, W.
Ashley, Lord Coote, Sir C. H.
Atherton, W. Cowan, C.
Ayrton, A. S. Cox, W.
Bagshaw, J. Craufurd, E. H. J.
Bagshaw, R. J. Crawford, R. W.
Bagwell, J. Crossley, F.
Bailey, Sir J. Cubitt, Mr. Alderman
Bailey, C. Dalglish, R.
Baines, rt. hon. M. T. Davey, R.
Ball, E. Davie, Sir H. R. F.
Barnard, T. Deasy, R.
Bass, M. T. Dent, J. D.
Baxter, W. E. Dillwyn, L. L.
Beale, S. Disraeli, right hon. B.
Beaumont. W. B. Duff, M. E. G.
Beecroft, G. S. Duff, Major L. D. G.
Bethell, Sir R. Duke, Sir J.
Black, A. Dunbar, Sir W.
Bland, L. H. Duncan, Visct.
Botfield, B. Dundas, F.
Bouverie, Rt. Hn. E. P. Dunkellin, Lord
Bouverie, hon. P. P. Ebrington, Viscount
Bowyer, G. Ellice, rt. hon. E.
Brady, J. Ellice, E.
Brand, hon. H. Elliot, hon. J. E.
Briscoe, J. I. Ennis, J.
Brocklehurst, J. Esmonde, J.
Brown, W. Evans, Sir De L.
Browne, Lord J. T. Evans, T. W.
Buckley, Gen. Ewart, J. C.
Bulkeley, Sir R. Ewing, H. E. C.
Buller, J. W. Fenwick, H.
Bury, Viscount Finlay, A. S.
Butler, C. S. FitzGerald, rt.hon. J. D.
Buxton, C. FitzRoy, rt. hon. H.
Byng, hon. G. Foley, J. H.
Caird, J. Foley, H. W.
Campbell, R. J. R. Forster, C.
Cardwell, rt. hon. E. Foster, W. O.
Clay, J. Fortescue, hon. F. D.
Clifford, C. C. Fox, W. J.
Clifford, Col. Freestun, Col.
French, Colonel. Norris, J. T.
Glyn, O. C. North, F.
Glyn, G. G. O'Brien, P.
Goderich, Visct, O'Donaghoe, The
Greene, J. Ogilvy, Sir J.
Greer, S. M'C. Osborne, R.
Grenfell, C. W. Paget, C.
Greville, Col. F. Paget, Lord C.
Grey, R. W. Pakington, rt. he. Sir J.
Griffith, C. D. Palmerston, Visct.
Gurdon, B. Paxton, Sir J.
Gurney, S. Pease, H.
Hadfield, G. Pechell, Sir G. B.
Hamilton, Lord C. Perry, Sir T. E.
Hamilton, Captain Pigott, F.
Hanbury, R. Pilkington, J.
Hawkey, T. Potter, Sir J.
Hardcastle, J. A. Power, N.
Harris, J. D Price, W. P.
Hartington, Marq. Proby, bon. G. L.
Hatchell, J. Puller, C. W.
Hay, L. J. Ramsay, Sir A.
Hayter, rt. hon. Sir W. G. Rawlinson, Sir H. C.
Heneage, G. F. Rebow, J. G.
Herbert, rt. hon. H. A. Ricardo, J. L.
Horsman rt. hon. E. Ricardo, O.
Howard, hon. C. W. G. Rich, H.
Howard, Lord E. Ridley, G.
Hutt, W. Roebuck, J. A.
Ingham, R. Roupell, W.
Ingram, E. Russell, Lord J.
Jervoise, Sir J. C. Russell, H.
Kelly, Sir F. Russell, A.
Kershaw, J. Scrope, G. P.
King, hon. P. J. L. Seymour, H. D.
Kinglake, A. W. Shelley, Sir J. V.
Kinglake, J. A. Sheridan, R. B.
Kingscote, R. N. F. Sheridan, H. B.
Kinnaird, hon. A. F. Smith, J. A.
Kirk, W. Smith, M. T.
Knatchbull-Hugessen,E. Smith, rt. hon. R. V.
Labouchere, rt. hon. H. Smith, A.
Langton, H. G. Smith, Sir F.
Lennox, Lord H. G. Smyth, Col.
Lewis, rt. ha. Sir G. C. Somerville, rt.hn.Sir W.
Lindsay, W. S. Stanley, Lord
Locke, John Stapleton, J.
Lowe, rt. hon. R. Steel, J.
Luce, T. Stuart, Lord J.
Macarthy, A. Sullivan, M.
M'Cann, J. Sykes, Col. W. H.
Mackinnon, W. A. Tancred, H. W.
Mackinnon, W. A. Thompson, Gen,
Maguire, J. F. Thornely, T.
Mangles, C. E. Thornhill, W. P.
Marjoribanks, D. C. Tite, W.
Marsh, M. H. Traill, G.
Martin, C. W. Trelawny, Sir J. S.
Martin, P. W. Tynte, Col. K.
Martin, J. Vane, Lord H.
Massey, W. N. Verney, Sir H.
Matheson, A. Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.
Matheson, Sir J. Vivian, H. H.
Melgund, Visct. Waldron, L.
Mellor, J. Watkins, Col. L.
Mills, T. Weguelin, T. M.
Milnes, R. M. Western, S.
Moffatt, G. Westhead, J. P. B.
Monsell, rt. hon. W. Whatman, J.
Morris, D. White, J.
Napier, Sir C. White, H.
Nicoll, D. Willcox, B. M'Ghie.
Norreys, Sir D. J. Williams, W.
Williams, Sir W. F. Woods, H.
Willyams, E. W. B. Wyld, J.
Wilson, J. Wyvill, M.
Wingfield, R. B. Young, A. W.
Winnington, Sir T. E. TELLERS.
Wood, rt. hon. Sir C. Duncombe, T. S.
Wood, W. Headlam, T. E.
List of the NOES.
Adderley, rt. hn. C. B. Farquhar, Sir M.
Annesley, hon. H. Ferguson, Sir R.
Archdall, Capt. M. Forde, Col.
Baillie, H. J. Forester, rt. hon. Col.
Baring, H. B. Forster, Sir G.
Baring, T. Franklyn, G. W.
Bernard, T. T. Fraser, Sir W. A.
Barrow, W. H. Gallwey, Sir W. P.
Bathurst, A. A. Gard, R. S.
Beard, W. W. B. Garnett, W. J.
Beetive, Earl of Gladstone, rt. Hon. W.
Bennet, P. Goddard, A. L.
Bentinck, G. W. P. Catboat, rt. hon. Sir J.
Blackburn, P. Greaves, E.
Boldero, Col. Greenwood, J.
Booth, Sit R. G. Gray, Captain
Bovill, W. Grogan, E.
Boyd, J. Grosvenor, Earl
Bramley-Moore, J. Gurney, J. H.
Bramston, T. W. Haddo, Lord
Bridges, Sir B. W. Hamilton, J. H
Bruce, Major C. Hanmer, Sir J.
Bruce, H. A. Hassard, M.
Bruen, H. Hayes, Sir E.
Buchanan, W. Heard, J. I.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Heathcote, Sir W.
Bunbury, W. B. M'C. Henley, rt. hon. J. W.
Burghley, Lord Henniker, Lord
Burrell, Sir C. M. Hodgson, W. N.
Cairns, Sir H. M'C. Holford, R. S.
Carden, Sir R. W. Hope, A. J. B. B.
Cartwright, Col. Hornby, W. H.
Cavendish, hon. G. Hotham, Lord
Cecil, Lord R. Hudson, G.
Child, S. Hume, W. W.
Christy, S. Hunt, G. W.
Clark, J. J. Ingestre, Visct.
Close, M. C. Inglis, J.
Cobbett, J. M. Jermyn, Earl
Cole, hon. H. A. Johnstone, hon. H. B.
Conolly, T. Jolliffe, H. H.
Cooper, E. J. Kendall, N.
Corry, rt. hon. H. L. King, J. K.
Crass, R. A. Knox, Col.
Dalkeith, Earl of Langton, W. G.
Davison, R. Laurie, J.
Deedes, W. Lefroy, A.
Dobbs, W. C. Lennox, Lord A. F.
Drummond, H. Liddell, hon. H. G.
Du Cane, C. Lisburne, Earl of
Buncombe, hon. A. Lockhart, A. E.
Buncombe, hon. Col. Lovaine, Lord
Dundas, G. Lowther, hon. Col.
Dunlop, A. M. Lowther, Captain
Du Pre, C. G. Lyall, G.
Dutton, hon. R. H. Lygon, hon. F.
East, Sir J. B. Macartney, G.
Edwards, H. Mackie, J.
Egerton, Sir P. G. M'Clintock, T.
Egerton, W. T. Mainwaring, T.
Egerton, E. C. Malins, R.
Elcho, Lord Manners, Lord J.
Elphinstone, Sir J. March, Earl of
Maxwell, hon. Col. Spooner, R.
Miles, W. Stanhope, J. B.
Miller, T. J. Stanley, hon. W. O.
Miller, S. B. Stirling, W.
Mills, A. Steuart, A.
Montgomery Sir G. Stewart, Sir M. R. S.
Moody, C. A. Sturt, N.
Morgan, O. Taylor, Col.
Mowbray, rt. hon. J. R. Tollemache, J.
Neeld, J. Trefusis, hon. C. H. R.
Newdegate C. N. Trollope, rt. hon. Sir J.
Nisbet, R. P. Vance, J.
Noel, hon. G. J. Vansittart, G. H.
North, Col. Vansittart, W.
Ossulston, Lord Verner, Sir W.
Packe, C. W. Walcott, Adm.
Pakenham, Col. Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.
Palmer, R. Walsh, Sir J.
Patten, Col. W. Warre, J. A.
Paull, H. Warren, S.
Peel, rt. hon. Gen. Whiteside, rt. hon. J.
Pennant, hon. Col. Whitmore, H.
Philipps, J. H. Wickham, H. W.
Portman, hon. W. H. B. Williams, Col.
Powell, F. S. Willoughby, Sir H.
Pugh, D. Willoughby, J. P.
Pugh, D. Wortley, Major S.
Richardson, J. Wrightson, W. B.
Rushout, G. Wyndham, Gen.
Rust, J. Wynn, Colonel
Salisbury, E. G. Wynne, rt. hon. J. A.
Sandon, Visct. Wynne, W. W. E.
Sclater-Booth, G. York, hon. E. T.
Scott, hon. F.
Shirley, E. P. TELLERS.
Sibthorp, Major Whitbread, S.
Smollett, A. Macaulay, K.

Committee to withdraw immediately; three to be the quorum.