HC Deb 21 June 1870 vol 202 cc676-704
MR. SOMERSET BEAUMONT

, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to relieve Lords Spiritual (hereafter consecrated) from attendance in Parliament, said, that he had adopted this form of procedure rather than that of a Motion, because in 1837, when a similar proposal was made, Sir Robert Peel had objected to it not so much on account of its substance as of its form. If it were possible for him to suppose that such a reform as this would ever be proposed in the other House, he would not have come forward on the present occasion; but that man must be of a sanguine disposition indeed who could believe that the Bishops would ever bring in a Bill to relieve themselves of their Parliamentary duties. The Prime Minister had spoken of the Bishops as great public officers, and the House was justified in dealing with them in that capacity. It was unnecessary for him to enter into any long historical disquisition on that occasion. He had only to submit a plain and simple question, whether—however much the Bishops might have contributed to the wisdom of Parliament in former times—in the year 1870 it recommended itself to the; common sense of the House and the country that in times like the present, when they were the representatives of a Church that hardly—if indeed it did—own the allegiance of the majority of the nation, that they should have the exclusive right of sitting in Parliament? He would attempt to show that this Motion was both reasonable and opportune. He believed that the presence of the Bishops in the House of Lords was advantageous neither to the Church nor to the State. How could it be advantageous to the Church? Did the Bishops speak on any ecclesiastical question, or upon any question whatever, with more weight and authority than any other Member of the other House would do? He ventured to say that, if the Church were in danger, or if ecclesiastical questions of importance were under discussion, many noble Lords whom he could name, lay Peers, could speak with far greater authority, and would create far less suspicion and distrust, than these right rev. Prelates. He contended that their presence in the other House was not advantageous to the Church, because it was recognized on all sides, by the friends of the Church, that a reform more required than any other was an increase of the Episcopate; and when measures had been submitted either to this or the other House, with the object of increasing the Episcopate, they had been shipwrecked mainly for this single reason—that the Bishops did not wish to see a new order of Prelates who would not have seats in that House. He believed that on almost all sides the attempt was given up to show that the Church benefited by the presence of the Bishops in Parliament; for, in a remarkable pamphlet by Dean Stanley on the connection between Church and State, important as the writer deemed the maintenance of that union, he dwelt but lightly on the seats of the Bishops in the House of Lords, which, he said, were important not so much in giving them additional dignity, as in bringing them into free and equal intercourse with the laity, and under the direct control of public opinion and of public questioning. Now, he would appeal to any hon. Member whether the Bishops had shown that they were under the influence of public opinion and public questioning? But, if their presence was not useful to the Church, he denied that it was useful to the State. As far back as the year 1833 the ancestor of his hon. Friend who was to second his Motion that night said, in that House, that the Bishops were accustomed in the House of Lords to use all their influence against reform. That was the sentiment expressed by Lord King; and when, in 1837, a Motion of that kind was before the House of Commons, what did Mr. Charles Buller—no fanatic, but a man whose name was still mentioned with respect in that House—say on the subject? He said— Let them look through the annals of the House of Lords, and they would find that the Bishops did not possess one legislative claim on the gratitude of the people; that on the gratitude of Governments they had many claims, but none on the gratitude of the people; that, on the contrary, whenever any question was brought forward which agitated and interested all England, the Bishops were always found banded together as one man to defy the wishes of the people. The House knew how they voted last year on the University Tests Bill; and it would have an opportunity of knowing how they would vote on an Education Bill. He desired it to be understood that he spoke of the Bishops simply in their political, and not at all in their personal capacity. Had the Bishops acquired a claim on the gratitude of the people since the days of Mr. Charles Buller? There was no one in the present day who would justify the presence of the Bishops in the House of Lords on account of their support of popular measures. The only persons among whom that delusion seemed to exist were themselves; for, if his memory served him rightly, one of the right rev. Prelates justified their presence in the House of Lords on the ground of their representing the "democratic element." Either a Bishop's notion of democracy must be very curious, or else his own was very erroneous. In 1865 the present Bishop of Winchester said, in the House of Lords, "that order," meaning the Episcopate, "existed only for the benefit of the mass of the people." Ungrateful people! That reminded him of his Latin Grammar, and he was tempted to exclaim— O fortunatos nimium, sua si bona nôrint, Agricolas! He believed that there was a growing feeling in favour of this Motion among the clergy themselves; and he had received a letter from a vicar in Yorkshire, whose name he was not at liberty to state, in which the writer said— I wish you every success in your proposed Motion respecting the Bishops in the House of Lords. It may be interesting to you to know that the clergy in the North of England to a man are in favour of your measure. I have been at a ruridecanal meeting last week, in which nearly all present spoke in favour of the Motion. As the Bishops are of no use to the Church in the House of Lords, we think they had better descend to their respective dioceses, where their presence might be of incalculable use. He wrote to his correspondent to say that if such was the feeling of the clergy in that part of the country he should be glad if they forwarded a Petition on the subject. This was the answer he received— I beg to state that while the clergy's sympathies and opinions are as I state, they would hesitate publicly to declare their sentiments. The reason is manifest. The Bishops are patrons of nine out of ten of the clergy, and their only hope of preferment, therefore, is the Bishops. They dare not offend the only men they know who can be their friends. Again, some of them may hope hereafter to effect an exchange with some other clergy. The Bishop in each diocese can put his veto upon such removal, however desirable it may be to the clergy concerned. The opinion of Mr. Ryle, a clergyman who represented a large body in the Church, was that the Bishops would be much more usefully employed in their own dioceses—that it would take away their attention from politics, and would relieve the Prime Minister from the necessity of appointing them from political considerations. At an important meeting of the Church Institution, held under the auspices of hon. Gentlemen opposite, on the 25th of May last, and at which the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Viscount Sandon), the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Charley), and the hon. Member for Mid-Cheshire (Mr. W. Egerton) were present, the hon. Member for Cheshire said that to the two Archbishops and the three superior Prelates of London, Winchester, and Durham, he would give seats in Parliament, so that here was a proposal emanating from an hon. Gentleman on the other side well known for his attachment to the Church, which recommended limiting the number of Bishops in the other House. It was true that one of those at the meeting described the meeting as revolutionary and much to be deprecated; but that was always the case when anything new was brought forward. The fact was, that the presence of the Bishops in the House of Lords did not recommend itself to the common sense either of the laity or the clergy. An hon. Friend of his had sent round a circular showing the shortcomings of the Bishops for the last three centuries. He did not, however, propose to touch on the historical ground, for he held that the Bishops were not to blame for being in Parliament, but Parliament was to blame for keeping them there. In that position they had acted as any other class would have acted—neither better nor worse. In 1837, Sidney Smith, writing to Archdeacon Singleton, spoke of them in these terms— What is called taking care of the Church is taking care of the Bishops; and all Bills for the management of the clergy are referred to the concoction of men, who very naturally believe that they are improving the Church when they are increasing their own power. He maintained that the presence of the Bishops in the House of Lords was advantageous neither to the Church nor to themselves. One might say that Episcopal legislation was in a chaotic state. He would not refer at length to the various Bills brought into the other House with a view to increase the Episcopate. A Bill to increase the Episcopate was brought forward as lately as 1867, which, although supported by the high authority of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer), yet had, despite his advocacy, to be withdrawn. But, besides that, other measures had been adopted to supply the want of more Bishops. The first of these—the Bishops' Resignation Bill—was passed only last year, and its operation was obliged to be limited to two years. Of that measure the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) had said that it was thoroughly inefficient and incomplete, and that it could not, as a permanent scheme, be defended for a moment. The Prime Minister himself seemed to be conscious of its provisional character, and he expressed his desire that the question should be openly and broadly raised. That he had endeavoured to do on the present occasion. But the Bill passed, and hon. Members were aware of the difficulties to which it had given rise. It did not meet the wants of the increase of the Episcopacy, and the Government had accordingly felt themselves obliged to avail themselves of an Act of Parliament which had been passed some 300 years ago—the Prime Minister being driven almost to make excuses for having recourse to so old a measure. He had now endeavoured to prove that the presence of Bishops in "another place" was of advantage neither to Church nor State, and that his Motion was opportune. He did not propose by this Bill to impose penalties against Bishops for sitting in the House of Lords. He only wished to abolish a privilege which he maintained was inexpedient, unjust, and unreasonable; and he would remind hon. Members that it would always remain within the high discretion of the Grown, even if the Bill which he asked leave to introduce should become law, to call up, if it should think fit, eminent Prelates to the House of Lords, just as was now done in the case of eminent lawyers and soldiers. He did not know how the Government proposed to meet his Motion. He trusted, however, that the Prime Minister would not object to it on the ground of its vagueness, or say that in making such a Motion he was aiming at the disestablishment of Church and State. He would be frank with the House. He did not pretend to have made up his mind on all questions, and he had not made it up on the question whether the connection between Church and State was or was not desirable. But he felt certain that if the Government refused to entertain reasonable proposals for reforms in the Church, which were on all sides acknowledged to be urgent, he and many others might hereafter be driven to support Motions which might be brought forward for the disestablishment of Church and State. He would, however, appeal to the Prime Minister, who was doing so much to command the sympathies of his supporters, not to refuse to entertain the present Motion—a Motion which, he thought, commended itself to the common sense of the laity, of the clergy, and which, he ventured to predict, would recommend itself ultimately to the common sense of that House. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.

MR. LOCKE KING

said, he had great pleasure in seconding the Motion. It would, in his opinion, be scarcely creditable to a House of Commons elected as the present had been so much more in accordance with the real feelings of the people, if such a proposal as that made by his hon. Friend were not submitted to its notice. The subject was by no means a new one. It was one which had been brought before Parliament very soon after the passing of the Reform Bill of 1832, when times were very different from those in which we were living. The promoters of the Reform Bill were rather alarmed at the noise they had made, and there was a wish with some that very little fruit should be reaped early in the day from the passing of that Bill. Times had changed, and many hon. Members were lovers of change. The changes made by hon. Gentlemen opposite had led to a great deal of change, and the Prime Minister had shown a disposition to believe in change, provided it was founded on justice and reason, and could be proved to be beneficial to the country. He considered the present time most opportune for the introduction of such a measure, for these were days of great and extensive measures of Church reform. Not long since they had a very large measure of Church reform. They had only just seen a Church disestablished, and a whole Bench of Bishops removed, not receiving a lifelong interest in the House of Lords, but having only one year of grace allowed them. They were removed because they had too little to do, whereas they now sought to relieve the present Bishops of their duties and responsibilities in the House of Lords because they had a great deal too much to do. They were told they required suffragan Bishops, because their labours were too much for them. An obsolete statute had been dug up, passed in very different times and. for a very different purpose. He did not wish to dig up an obsolete statute; but to bring to light a statute passed many years ago, that was repealed in perhaps the most corrupt time of our history. The Preamble of the statute, repealed by that profligate Monarch Charles II., in the most irreligious period of our history, recited that— Whereas Bishops and other persons in Holy Orders ought not to be entangled with secular jurisdiction, the office of the minister being of such great importance that it will take up the whole man, and for that it is found by long experience that their intermeddling with secular jurisdiction has occasioned great mischief and scandal both in Church and State, His Majesty, out of his religious care of the Church and souls of his people, is graciously pleased that it be enacted, &c. That was the Act which he desired to re-establish, and although he did not admire the Monarch who passed it, yet, as compared with Charles II., he was a virtuous and pious Sovereign. Some years ago it was thought desirable to increase the Episcopate, and one Bishop in turn was always left without a seat in the House of Lords. He wished to know whether the dioceses—for all but four had been in the position of having a Bishop without a seat in the House of Lords—had ever complained on that account? Had they complained of these Bishops being too much in their dioceses. After all, the great question was, was their presence desirable in the House of Lords or not? Did they strengthen our political institutions or not? Did they strengthen the Church of England itself or not? He did not wish to detract from the great oratorical powers possessed by the Bishops, from their smartness of repartee in debate, and other eminent qualities; but he must say he always looked on a debating Bishop as a Bishop out of his place. He regarded him as a great actor, a great orator, and generally came away after hearing him in that great Assembly, with a wish that he belonged to some other profession than the Church. In Catholic countries the law did not allow them to sit by right. In Protestant countries the law did not allow them to sit at all. But in this country there was a kind of mysterious arrangement, which was made more absurd by placing the Bishops in a particular corner of the House of Lords, dressed in a particular dress, and he wished to call attention to the fact that when they attended religious meetings they went in an ordinary dress; but when they appeared in the House of Lords they might be described as resembling sacrificing priests at the altar. They appeared there in a most remarkable costume. They mingled in the strife of political life, giving and receiving in turn very hard knocks. There was a time when it was said the Press was severe on the Bishops; but the hardest blows ever inflicted had been given and taken by the Bishops themselves. He was once present in the House of Lords when a Bishop stated what he had no right to state, for it was not founded on fact. He (Mr. Locke King) was speaking moderately when he made that remark. The Bishop was followed by a very experienced debater, who had been a Cabinet Minister, who said— This had been slanderously stated: if anybody but a Prelate had said it, he should have said it was false, for false it was: whilst that which was consistent with the facts was sneered and laughed at, and that which was not only inconsistent with truth, but the very reverse of truth, if it were told as truth, was imputed against the conduct of a fellow-labourer with himself—he was entitled to say he was a slanderer who thus attacked, and that the slanderer was foul and calumnious. … … The right rev. Prelate, acting on the most approved maxims of dealers in slander—not that he imputed to his right rev. Friend any malignant feeling, for he sincerely believed that he was led away by that which caused many a spiteful thins to be said in debate without any such thing being meant—namely, the love of an epigram, combined with the love of a cheer. [Cries of "Name!"] He would rather not name the Bishop; but the speaker whose words he had quoted was Lord Brougham. He (Mr. Locke King) felt that if the Bill now submitted to the House had passed long ago that unfortunate Bishop would have been spared the dressing which he received on that occasion. The Bishops, for many years, had been inimical to whatever was considered calculated to promote the happiness and prosperity of the people. In 1831 the Reform Bill was rejected by the House of Lords, and 21 Bishops gained the majority against it. The Archbishop said it was dangerous and mischievous, and he would cheerfully bear his share of any calamity that might arise from the state of the popular feeling. If wiser counsels had not prevailed he would probably have been one of the first sufferers. Then there was a Bill introduced several times by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) to repeal the statutes with regard to tests, declared by the late Lord Derby to be not worth the paper on which it was printed, and 21 Bishops were found voting against it. There was something mysterious in this number of 21, for when the Irish Church Suspensory Bill 1868 was sent up to the House of Lords the same number of 21 also voted against it. He thought he had shown sufficient reason why Bishops were not of much use as politicians. He would now ask whether they were of any use as a support of the Church of Eng- land. In these times of danger to her he did not find that the Bishops brought in any measure to protect or assist that Church. There were doctrines and forms and ceremonies, and processions and genuflexions, which had of late been introduced into that Church, and which were distressing to the feelings of the people, and which created amusement even among Roman Catholics, and yet no Bill had been introduced into the House of Lords to protect the Protestant interest from the attacks they allowed to be made upon it. By their silence the Bishops seemed rather to have encouraged these doctrines, and had been toying and flirting with these practices, while they did nothing whatever to put them down. There was no other profession of any kind that was represented in the House of Lords, and why should the Church alone be represented there? By far the greater number of the Peers were members of the Church of England, and they were well able to look after the interests of that Church. The Church of Scotland was not represented there, nor would the disestablished Church of Ireland be, nor were the Nonconformists, and yet the Bishops were entitled to vote on matters relating to all these denominations. Another objection to the Bishops being in the House of Lords was that, being like other men, they had their temptations and might be led astray by their desire for promotion—though it was not now to be obtained so easily as in former times—to vote against their consciences. What John Locke said of the clergy was equally applicable to the Bishops. He said— In the reigns of Henry VIII., Edward VI., Mary, and Elizabeth, how easily and smoothly the clergy changed their decrees, their Articles of Faith, their forms of worship, everything according to the inclination of those Kings and Queens. Yet were those Kings and Queens of such different minds in points of religion, and enjoined thereupon such different things, that no man in his wits—I had almost said none but an Atheist—will presume to say that any sincere and upright worshipper of God could, with a safe conscience, obey their several decrees. They had seen something of this kind in their own days, in the case of one Prelate in particular. There was a great question introduced some time ago, and the right rev. Prelate to whom he referred declared his opinion in a particular direction. Soon after there was a change of Ministry, and the right rev. Prelate, after having emphatically advocated one set of opinions, changed them with the change of Ministers. He was afterwards promoted, or, in ecclesiastical language, "translated," and he afterwards declared that he never desired promotion, but that he was under the guidance of a higher power. He begged to second the Motion of his hon. Friend, which he believed would conduce to the interests of religion and the true interests of the Church of England.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to relieve Lords Spiritual (hereafter consecrated) from attendance in Parliament."—(Mr. Somerset Beaumont.)

SIR WILFRID LAWSON

said, he did not thoroughly approve the Bill, because, in his opinion, it ought to go further, and apply to the present Bench of Bishops. The supporters of this Motion stood in a peculiar position towards the Government on this question, for less than two years ago they went to the country with a cry of religious equality; and if it could have been foreseen then that within so short a period the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government would have opposed the bringing in of a Bill which was based on that principle, the ardour of his supporters would have been somewhat damped. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that, in future, every institution would have to show cause why it existed, and the hon. Member for Wakefield by this Motion was calling on the Bishops to show cause why they should retain their seats in the House of Lords. He submitted it did not follow that because a man was a good theologian he should also be a good legislator, and one of the organs of the Bishops, The Churchman, had described them thus— They have a sensitive, almost nervous dread of the power of the Press, especially of The Times newspaper. They have the caution, not to say the timidity of old age. They have the ideas and prejudices, in many cases, of a state of things now obsolete, or of a party which has had its day. Their policy is always Fabian. They shrink from taking the lead. They are often ignorant of the law, and most especially of the law of the Church. There was, he admitted, more reason why eminent theologians, who were selected by the Premier, should be legislators than other men who had merely an hereditary title, for in support of them there was no argument based on common sense. ["Question!"] It was hardly possible for Bishops, while engaged in their spiritual duties in their dioceses, to do their duty in the House of Lords, and Mr. C. Buller summed up; the matter very well when he said that the system made them both bad Bishops and bad Peers, for they could not fulfil both functions. He regarded it as a hardship for the dioceses to be deprived of their Bishops for half the year, for everybody knew that the people who formed country society felt safer when a Bishop was among them. It was hard, too, upon Bishops to remove them from their dioceses, and put them in a gorgeous chamber, where, clad in purple and fine linen, they were called upon to attend to "the pomps and vanities of this wicked world." The demand for suffragans was another reason why Bishops should be relieved of their present duties in the House of Lords, where they (the Bishops) almost universally opposed every wise, just, and humane measure. ["No, no!"] He did not know what line the Government would take in opposing this measure; but he remembered that last time when it was before the House, both the front Benches opposed the proposition. Lord Russell had opposed this measure on the ground that it involved an essential change in the British Constitution. Lord Russell was the only man who cared two straws for the British Constitution who remained in this country. The question they ought to consider was not whether the proposal was constitutional; but whether it was right and just, and would be of benefit to the nation. Another argument of Earl Russell was; that the proposal was the thin end of the wedge of disestablishment. Now, he was not sure that to remove the Bishops from the House of Lords would not impart strength to the Established Church; but even should it lead to the disestablishment of that Church, there were some hon. Gentleman who would not object to it on that ground. On a recent occasion the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government said that if he attempted to disestablish the Welsh Church he would find himself without artillery. He believed if the right hon. Gentleman wished to disestablish the Church he might possibly be supplied with artillery after another General Election, and he thought he (Mr. Gladstone) was the man to use the guns when he got them. Sir Robert Peel had also opposed, in strong terms, a proposition for depriving the Bishops of their seats in the House of Lords, saying "That he did not wish to deprive the Church of its fair share of political influence." On a recent occasion it was argued that politics were too degrading an occupation for women. If so, why should the most rev. and right rev. Prelates be asked to have anything to do with them? Last year one of the Bishops said that if the House of Lords passed the Irish Church Bill it would be only pretending to guide the destinies of the nation, it would be only playing with legislation, and it would make itself utterly contemptible. Well, as the House of Lords had passed that Bill he did not wish to humiliate the Bishops by leaving them in such a place. He desired to relieve them from an anomalous and painful position, to relieve their flocks from the loss of their services, and to relieve the nation from the grievous burden inflicted upon it by their well-intended, but mischievous legislation. That being his desire, he cordially supported the Motion.

MR. GLADSTONE

My hon. Friend who has just sat down, has in a very good-humoured manner, impeached the consistency of the Government. He said, that if the Government opposed this Motion, he must think we were not faithful to the pledges on which we went to the country. Now, I do not myself remember that we went to the country. I think we were sent to the country. But my hon. Friend also said that, if the constituencies had understood that we would resist a Motion of this kind, the result might have been very disastrous or very inconvenient to us at the elections. Let each man speak in accordance with his experience. This I must say, that when I was engaged in an active though unsuccessful canvass in South-west Lancashire, and when in that canvass I had occasion to speak about the Irish Church, my friends said—"Take care you make it quite clear that you don't intend to attack the Church of England." Well, Sir, my hon. Friend is apprehensive that this Bill may, on the present occasion, be defeated by the union of the two front Benches. [Laughter.] The last few minutes have so largely increased the population of the opposite front Bench, by raising it from one to three that my hon Friend may now entertain fears of a formidable proposition for that union; but when the hon. Member spoke there was only one respected Gentleman opposite, one who is well known for his constant attendance in this House (Mr. Noel), and he alone dignified that particular portion of the House, and then it did not appear to me that the coalition apprehended by my hon. Friend could be very considerable. But with respect to the Bill which my hon. Friend proposes to introduce, he is perfectly right if he supposes that it is the intention of the Government to oppose it. And that, in fact, requires no formal declaration from me, because it is perfectly plain that if the Government were prepared to vote for such a Bill they ought not to leave it to any independent Member, however able and competent—and those who have undertaken the advocacy of the measure to-night have shown themselves to be both able and competent—they ought not, I say, to leave it to any independent Member to undertake the responsibility. They ought to bring in such a Bill on their own responsibility. But though the anticipation of my hon. Friends are perfectly correct, it is not the less my duty to state to the House the reasons why we consider that we are justified in resisting, and, in fact, are called on to resist, the Motion they have made. My hon. Friend (Mr. S. Beaumont) submitted that Motion in a peculiar form. In his speech, and that of my hon. Friend the Seconder, no notice whatever was taken of that peculiar form; but as it is not an unimportant feature of the case, perhaps I may be permitted to call attention to it. The Motion is— That leave be given to bring in a Bill to relieve Lords Spiritual (hereafter consecrated) from attendance in Parliament. My hon. Friend wishes to condemn as Peers the order of Bishops; but, while the severity of his public principles thus compels him to pass sentence on them as an order, the tenderness of his own heart and disposition leads him, on the other hand, to extend mercy to the individuals who at present, as Bishops, occupy seats in the other House of Parliament. Now let us consider the effect of this tenderness of my hon. Friend. It is creditable in the highest degree to his feelings as a man; but I am not quite so satisfied that it is consistent with his forethought as a legislator. He entirely departs from the precedent of last year. At that time Parliament had the question fully before it. We were then engaged in disestablishing a Church. My hon. Friend said that we were engaged in disestablishing a Church and State. As regards a State, we hardly contemplated anything of that kind. We were engaged in disestablishing a Church, and that naturally raised the question whether the Prelates, who, in consequence of their position in that Church, occupied seats in the House of Lords, should continue to hold those seats after that Church was disestablished. I am not ashamed to say that I should have been very glad if those Prelates could have continued to occupy those seats; but an intelligent judgment completely warranted the conclusion of Parliament, and we came to the conclusion that if the Church were to be disestablished it was not expedient to create a vested interest in its Prelates, though they had hitherto occupied seats in Parliament. Now my hon. Friends propose to create a vested interest in the 25 or 26 Bishops of the Church of England who at present hold seats in the House of Lords. It so happens that a very considerable number of those Prelates have been appointed within the last two years, and it is in the probability of life that it will take 30 or 40 years to extinguish that race. The Bill of my hon. Friend would, in distinct terms, give a new title to all those Prelates to sit in the House of Lords. If he calls upon Parliament to reconsider this question, and to pronounce that no future Bishop shall take his seat in the House of Lords, he does by that reconsider and stamp afresh the title of the present Bishops to their seats. Is he prepared to give a lease of equal length to the Established Church of England? Does he intend that for so long the Church of England shall continue to be an Established Church? It is perfectly possible that it may continue for that, and for a much longer time; but is my hon. Friend so very liberal that he would give to the Church of England, as established, a lease at any rate considerably longer than that lease which was the subject of some discussion in this House on a recent measure in reference to land? My hon. Friend's Motion, we may truly say, ought to be considered in its substance as well as in its particulars, only I think that even those who are disposed to support him will feel that this is not a convenient method of dealing with the question. I agree with my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) in thinking that if you are prepared to deal with the Bishops as Peers it is unwise to give to the present Bishops a new vested interest totally unknown to the law up to this time, and which hereafter will leave some of them in the position of the last man in Campbell's ballad, partly exciting pity, and partly inspiring fear. I am bound not to limit myself to the form of the Motion, however legitimate, and I must ask what ought we to say on the general principle on which my hon. Friend proposes to proceed? He desires that we shall condemn the order of Bishops in the House of Lords. Now, that is a matter which must be considered in two points of view—with respect to the Church and also with respect to the State. My hon. Friend says there is no longer anyone who cares for the British Constitution except Lord Russell. Many of those who are members of the present Cabinet have served in the Government with Lord Russell; and I do believe, and I am ready to confess the weaknesss, that a large portion of them, to a considerable extent, are infected with that weakness which possessed that noble Lord, and that they do think it is a point material to consider, when they discuss the merits of a question, how far they are called upon to alter any material or important part of the British Constitution. Well, this venerable Constitution, as I have said, is a Constitution in Church and State; and, without in the slightest degree saying that my hon. Friend has made a proposition which he is not entitled to bring under our consideration, let me, in a strictly practical point of view, descend from the high ground I recently described of reference to the British Constitution, to the wisdom of our ancestors, and to all those elevating and ennobling considerations connected therewith—let me endeavour to take a view of the question which may, perhaps, be called by some utilitarian, but by which I might have the greatest amount of hope of access to the minds of the Mover and Seconder of this Motion, and those who are disposed to sup- port them. Now, as respects the Church, my hon. Friend says that the Bishops are so busy in their dioceses that it is a monstrous thing to detain them in London, and also that it has been found necessary to relieve them by means of the appointment of suffragan Bishops. Well, there are 27 Bishops altogether in England and Wales, and of that number two only have obtained suffragans, so that there are 25, at any rate, who do not strengthen the argument of my hon. Friend by the allegation he has made about the appointment of suffragans. With regard to the interference of their political with their spiritual duties, it is but fair to say—although it may be open to attack from another point of view—that all those who are conversant, whether with the habits of the Bishops or with the proceedings of the House of Lords, well know that now for many years past the Prelates of the Church have ceased to reside habitually in London during the Session, and that whatever may be said of their seats in that House, it cannot be said that those seats, or the duties attaching to them, are allowed sensibly to interfere with the performance of their duties in their dioceses. They are, as a body, very rarely present in London—of course excepting the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of London, the Bishop of Winchester, and those who may in one sense be called the metropolitan Bishops, and not only so, but their occasional presence in London for purposes of union and communication is absolutely necessary for the general advantage of their dioceses. There is, therefore, no case in regard to interference with their spiritual duties. What shall I say, then? If we remove the Bishops from the House of Lords we detract, undoubtedly, in some sense, from their dignity; but far be it from me to say that is a loss such as they would be unable to endure, because not only does the influence, but the dignity also of a Bishop in these times, and more and more in the times that are to come, depend not so much on the title which may by usage be attached to his office, as on the diligence and efficiency with which he performs the high duties of his trust; and if he makes himself strong in the hearts and affections of his people, he will be able, I may say, almost to laugh at the Legislature as to any measure it may pass affecting his temporal dignity. I should not, therefore, dwell on any injury or supposed injury to be inflicted on those learned and venerable persons by the Bill of my hon. Friend. But there is another point of view in which I think he ought to consider, and in which I am quite certain many Members of this House will consider, the operations of such a Bill. Dismissing the Bishops from the House of Lords, you very greatly weaken the influence of the State over the Church. A passage was quoted, I think, by my hon. Friend, speaking of the manner in which the possession of seats in the House of Lords brings the influence of opinion to bear on Episcopal administration. If it were necessary it would not be difficult to cite cases in which Bishops have been directly called on to account for the administration of their dioceses before the House of Lords. Any aggrieved clergyman, any aggrieved layman, directly, if that layman be a Peer—indirectly and through any Member of the House of Lords if not a Peer—has always the means of calling to account for acts of injustice, acts of oppression, acts of bigotry, acts of misconduct or misjudgment, or whatever they may be, of the Bishops of this country. Do not let my hon. Friend withhold from his own view what I take to be an undeniable fact, that however he may seek in other respects to vindicate the operation of this Motion, it must be regarded as a Motion which will greatly diminish, not the influence of the State only, but the influence of the external world, the influence of society, the influence of opinion, the influence of that which is called modern civilization outside of the Episcopal sphere over the Episcopal body; and my impression is that there is no inconsiderable portion of this House, as well on this as on that side of the House, who would but very reluctantly bring about such a consummation. My hon. Friend is, of course, entitled to admit or deny, just as he pleases, that this is a Motion for the disestablishment of the Church. If it were a Motion for the disestablishment of the Church, and were avowedly such, I should argue against it on that ground. But I do not think my hon. Friend has presented it to us in that view, because he desires to reserve his judgment on that subject; and if he is desirous to establish a state of things in which we shall have a Church, national by law, but in which the Prelates of that Church are to be removed from the House of Lords, I must say there appears to me to be a great harmony between the arrangements by which they have a place as Peers in the House of Lords and the Establishment of the Church; and I greatly doubt whether Parliament will seriously and practically entertain the question presented to us by my hon. Friend until it is on the very eve of entertaining the much larger question which he does not at present think fit to present to us. But there is another question of more importance than this with reference to the immediate issue, because I admit that, as respects religious interests, this proposal, though an important one, cannot be said vitally to determine those interests one way or the other. You may weaken the Church in one way, you may strengthen it in another, by removing the Bishops from, the House of Lords. A great authority, whom we speak of very freely to-night, and who is respected by everyone who knows him, though most of us may differ much from his opinion—Archdeacon Denison, one of the stoutest Tories in the country—once published a pamphlet, recommending that the Bishops should not have seats in the House of Lords; and if my hon. Friend has not read that pamphlet, I would advise him to procure it, for it is a repertory of arguments that he would find useful on this question. But weaken the Church or strengthen it as it may be, no one would suppose that the existence of the Church of England, as a religious institution, is essentially bound up with that question; while, as a national institution, I cannot too strongly or too candidly state my conviction that the influence to be exercised upon the Church—that moral control over the Church which has been ever regarded as an essential element of a national Establishment, would be seriously weakened by the adoption of the proposal of my hon. Friend. But now, as respects the State. My hon. Friend strongly urges that the State—by that mainly I mean the House of Lords—will be all the better for the removal of the Bishops from that Assembly. And certainly, the career of the Bishops, if I may so speak, has been subjected to a criticism so unsparing that I think, in his good-humoured enthusiasm, my hon. Friend who seconded the Motion almost advanced against the Bishops contradictory charges; because we were told, on the one hand, that the Bishops had been a subservient body, devoid of a spirit of independence; and, on the other hand, that they had been an obstinate, reactionary body, ever arrayed against the privileges of the people. I am not here to defend, at any rate in any sweeping manner, the Episcopal body. I have often had occasion, in the measures in which I have taken an interest—and so have all my Friends near me in the measures in which they have taken an interest—to regret that we were not so fortunate as to obtain Episcopal favour as we could have wished, and, so far, we may be said to be performing a disinterested office and function when we resist the Motion of my hon. Friend. But this I must say. It is a little hard, with historical facts in our face, to charge the Bishops historically with a want of independence. We have had reference to the 16th century. Far be it from me to defend all the Bishops of that or any other century; but as my hon. Friend says the opinions of the Bishops have varied with the opinions of the Sovereigns, I would ask—Did not the people vary with the opinions of the Sovereigns? "What were the people under Henry VIII., what were they under Edward VI., what under Mary, and what, again, under Elizabeth? Why, a few Bishops or a few clergymen were almost the only persons who resisted. And what happened at the accession of Elizabeth? Every Bishop but one—Bishop Kitchen, of Llandaff—retired from his position, and even he would not take part in the coronation of the Queen. I think they were extremely wrong; but do not let us, in our eagerness to support this Motion, bring charges against the Episcopal body which are contradictory and not in keeping with the facts of history. Take, again, the time of Charles I. You may lament, and so do I, that the Bishops were so much mixed up with the politics of the day. But the whole tendency of the Reformation in the Church of England was to make the Bishops political, by the close connection which it had established between the Bishops and the Crown. Well, in Charles's time did they conform to the ruling powers? When those who made the rebellion gained the upper hand, Archbishop Laud went gallantly to the scaffold, and no man, I believe, ever behaved better upon it; and every other Bishop, without exception, took contentedly "the spoiling of his goods," and in that respect, at all events, proved himself entitled to be accounted a successor of the Apostles. What happened in the reign of James II., when the Bishops made themselves leaders of the people on behalf of liberty and law? And what happened, again, in the reign of William III., when a large number of the Bishops—perfectly wrong, I grant you, but in a spirit of independence and disinterestedness which cannot be too highly appreciated, because of the scruple they entertained as to the title of the King to the Crown—abandoned their temporal advantages and descended into obscurity if not beggary? Let us do justice in this matter. The Bishops of the Church of England may have their faults—no doubt they have, like every other body of men—but they have been eminently a body distinguished by independence and regard for character. Not only was this so in former times, but even in the latest chapter of our history it was so. It is said, they are a subservient body. How does that apply to the history of the last 40 years? For 40 years, with short intervals, we have had Liberal Governments, and yet the complaint of my hon. Friend is—and I am sorry to say the complaint was too largely justified by the facts—that the Bishops appointed by those Liberal Governments have been always opposed to them. Let us give everybody their due. Now, in my opinion—and I think in the opinion of my Colleagues—the main and governing reason which, without eclipsing every other, leads us to resist this Motion is the character which in our view it bears with respect to the position of the House of Lords. It has been said that the removal of the Bishops would not weaken or injure the House of Lords. That is the issue upon which we are perfectly willing that this question should be tried. It may be that my hon. Friend—I know it not, and I do not allege it—with or without other Gentlemen in this House, aware that the House of Commons is the Chamber I in which, in the main, the great work of national legislation must be conducted and the business of the country done, thinks that by means of a single instead of a double Chamber we should simplify the work of our Constitution, and more speedily and satisfactorily settle great public questions. Sir, that would be a very grave conclusion to adopt. I do not think it is the belief of the majority of this House on the one side or the other; and I am perfectly convinced it is not the belief of the country. All that has been said—and said with some truth—by my hon. Friends of the legislative tendencies of the Bishops—that they are behind the views of this House, that they more or less counteract the intentions and decisions of this House by the exercise of their co-ordinate jurisdiction—is likewise true of the House of Lords as a body. Not of all Members of the House of Lords. I am happy to think how large a portion of that Assembly, especially if from it we separate the elective Peers, stand in near correspondence with the tendencies of the people as usually represented in this House. But, speaking of the House of Lords as a body, I think my hon. Friend will not challenge my proposition when I say that the House of Lords is in general in harmony with the political leanings of the Episcopal Bench; and, consequently, it is a very grave and serious matter for us to consider whether, in the subject proposed to us by my hon. Friend, we do not discern the features of a larger question. I will not attempt to overrule, by urging my own opinion, the opinion of any other man in this House, who may consider that there ought to be but a single Legislative Chamber; but this I will say with confidence—and for the acceptance of this proposition I will appeal to my hon. Friend himself—if there is to be a House of Lords in this country, as there ever has been, it is well that that House of Lords should be as strong as possible. Now, will my hon. Friend say—because I confess the Government, at any rate, do not think so—that the removal of the Bishops from that House would tend to strengthen that body? Let us endeavour to try that question for a few moments. What is the strength, and what the weakness of the House of Lords? The House of Lords is strong in its traditions; but it has lived into times when it must depend not upon traditions alone, but mainly on the essential elements of character, ability, intelligence, weight, moral influence which it possesses, if it is to take any efficient share in conducting the legislation of this country. The House of Lords, as a hereditary Assembly, has this disadvantage, that it must necessarily, at all times, have to bear the burden and the shame of the misconduct of its unworthy Members; and those numerous Members of that Assembly, who set a pattern to society and to every class by the faithful discharge of their duty, in addition to their other responsibilities have to make up for the defects or vices of those who, belonging to that body, are unworthy of their station. Well, it is desirable that in that Assembly we should see collected all the elements of strength; and, among those elements, I know none so important as diversity. The greatest weakness of the House of Lords is the difficulty of supplying it with sufficient diversity. No man can look at the House of Lords, as the twin sister of the House of Commons in conducting the business of the country, without seeing that, if it has a special fault, it is the fault of too much tending to represent one particular class—not only the particular class connected with property, because this is a class so large and diversified that the application of the word is scarcely legitimate; but one of its dangers is this—that from its nature it tends too exclusively to represent the interests, and even possibly the prejudices, connected with the possession of land. It is to be hoped that it will use—as I trust and believe it will—a great opportunity which is presented to it of showing that it has emancipated itself from these prejudices. But that tendency I affirm to be one of the main difficulties of constituting and maintaining an efficient House of Lords. Now, in that view, I ask, is it not most important that those other elements which belong to the composition of the House of Lords—those elements which represent the professions, which bring within the walls of that Chamber other elements of power than that of inherited traditional power, should be maintained in vigour? It is well that from time to time distinguished commanders, it is well that habitually the chiefs of the law and the men who have most attained to eminence in that profession, should be found upon the Benches of the House of Lords. But you cannot very well, in a heredi- tary House of Lords, afford to part with the elements of weight and power which, I am not ashamed to say, that Chamber derives from the presence of the Bishops. Is it nothing to this country, and this age, that there should be an abundance of men qualified to keep the discussions of the House of Lords fully upon a level with the debates in this House; and what candid men sitting on these Benches will doubt, or hesitate for a moment to admit, that during many years—during all the years that the present age remembers—the Bench of Bishops has contributed to the intellectual force of discussions in the House of Lords in a proportion infinitely transcending the numbers by which that body is represented there? To say that the Bishops represent the democratic element in the House of Lords is something to which I am not prepared to assent; at the same time, it is true that, to some extent, they represent the popular element in that Assembly. Survey the Bench of Bishops, and you will hardly find a man upon it who has not been put there on account of his merits; and you will find but a moderate proportion of those men who have not raised themselves from stations comparatively humble. Granting fully to my hon. Friend the independence of the Bishops as an order—which in one sense I think highly inconvenient to us—and admitting that we do not get from them as much support and sympathy as I should like, yet I must say that the very fact of such a number of men being there by means so unexceptional—by their merits, by their character, by their services, not by subserviency, not by base compliance—does constitute in no ignoble sense the presence of a popular element in the House of Lords. It is an element which, at any rate, comes from the deep and broad strata of the community, and which contributes vigour to that Assembly, as everything contributes vigour which tends to keep it occasionally in contact with its mother earth. It is a great change that my hon. Friend proposes in the Constitution. I do not think the House of Lords is too strong at the present moment, though I might wish—and I frankly own that I do wish—that upon certain occasions it used its strength in a manner somewhat different. But if we sometimes have occasion to lament the direction of that strength, I do not think that its quantity is too great. I doubt whether even my hon. Friend will say it is too great if the functions of a Second Chamber are to be well and adequately performed. If that strength be not at the present moment excessive, I am satisfied it is the conviction of the great mass of the House that we cannot afford to weaken it, and also that it would be weakened if the plan of my hon. Friend were adopted Now, Sir, I hope that in dealing with my hon. Friend's Motion I have not offensively ascribed to him anything of which, as a legislator, a patriot, or a Member of Parliament, he has any occasion to be ashamed. This, as has been already said, is not a new question. For years after the first Reform Bill this question was accustomed to be brought up and formed a standing subject of discussion, and many is the vote I have given upon it. But it is fair to observe that after a considerable period all such discussion, often animated enough and often with minorities not inconsiderable, formed to support proposals for removing the Bishops from the House of Lords, yet has the movement, as by a spontaneous process, died away. I will not presume to say that that will again take place. We have now passed again through another critical period in the history of the Constitution; another great impulse has been given to popular feeling and opinion by a profound change in the constitution of this House, and the elements from which it is derived. It may be that my hon. Friend is now the harbinger of a movement which may grow and grow until it reaches the consummation he desires. I cannot penetrate the veil of the future sufficiently to say whether it will be so or not. But if the wishes of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) are to determine it then we know what that consummation is. [Mr. HADFIELD: Hear, hear!] But it may also be that this agitation, as in the years that followed the Reform Act of 1832, in which there was a desire for the removal of the Bishops from the House of Lords vividly expressed, will decline from year to year. I so far agree with my hon. Friend that I think that which would most contribute to check the movement would be—and I do not abandon the hope of seeing it—that more and more, from year to year, without any forfeiture of its independence, we may see the Episcopal body coming into closer harmony with the general sentiments of the country. I will not abandon the hope—I will not say that I look forward to a great change; but to what is much better than a violent change—a steady, quiet, constant progress, always in the right direction. And if my hon. Friend shall be finally disappointed in his views, and shall find that in spite of his energies there is not wind enough to fill his sails after the attempt of to-night, or after attempts that may follow during the next few years, I am sure it will be a consolation to him if he finds that his supporters are becoming less anxious for his measure, because they see a constant growing sympathy between the persons who fill the Episcopal office and the general convictions of the people of England.

MR. SOMERSET BEAUMONT

, in reply, said, that the Prime Minister told them that if the Government had had any intention of supporting this Motion they would not have left it to an independent Member; but, even in his experience, he could remember many questions brought forward by independent Members which were used—to adopt the phrase of the Prime Minister—to fill the sails of the Treasury Bench, and which it had been found expedient to adopt. The right hon. Gentleman said the Motion, if adopted, would stamp with fresh authority the present Bishops. He admired, as much as anybody, the impulsive and eager spirit of his right hon. Friend, and if it was his wish to bring in a Bill which would apply to the present Bishops, he (Mr. Somerset Beaumont) would have no objection. They had been told that the Bishops were valuable in the House of Lords, because it brought public opinion to bear on them. But it seemed to him that the Bishops did not take warning by the pressure. He had said nothing about the part the Bishops played in the 16th century—the only question he put was, whether it was in harmony with the altered circumstances of the country that the Church of England should remain thus privileged? When he was returned to that House to support the Prime Minister he did not promise him his support, nor could he now, without also remembering the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), and he would like to remind the Prime Minister of language, which he hesitated to repeat in the House, in which Mr. Bright condemned the presence of Bishops in the House of Lords "that creature of a monstrous and adultrous birth." He, in common with many Members of the House, had had frequent reasons to regret the absence of this distinguished Leader. He regretted it as much this week as at any other time, and he would now content himself with leaving the matter to the judgment of the House.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 102; Noes 158: Majority 56.

AYES.
Allen, W. S. Lea, T.
Anderson, G. Leatham, E. A.
Armitstead, G. Lush, Dr.
Aytoun, R. S. M'Clean, J. R.
Backhouse, E. M'Clure, T.
Bass, M. T. Macfie, R. A.
Beaumont, Capt. F. M'Laren, D.
Beaumont, H. F. Melly, G.
Bright, J. (Manchester) Miall, E.
Brinckman, Captain Miller, J.
Brogden, A. Morgan, G. O.
Brown, A. H. Morley, S.
Callan, P. Mundella, A. J.
Campbell, H. Muntz, P. H.
Candlish, J. Nicol, J. D.
Carter, Mr. Alderman Norwood, C. M.
Chadwick, D. Parry, L. Jones-
Cholmeley, Captain Pease, J. W.
Clay, J. Philips, R. N.
Cowen, J. Platt, J.
Dalglish, R. Plimsoll, S.
Davies, R. Potter, E.
Davison, J. R. Rathbone, W.
Dent, J. D. Reed, C.
Dilke, Sir C. W. Richard, H.
Dillwyn, L. L. Richards, E. M.
Dixon, G. Roden, W. S.
Dodds, J. Russell, H.
Edwardes, hon. Col. W, Rylands, P.
Edwards, H. Samuelson, H. B.
Ellice, E. Seely, C. (Lincoln)
Erskine, Admiral J. E. Seely, C. (Nottingham)
Ewing, H. E. C. Shaw, R.
Fawcett, H. Sherriff, A. C.
Finnie, W. Smith, E.
Fletcher, I. Stevenson, J. C.
Fordyce, W. D. Taylor, P. A.
Fothergill, R. Tollemache, hon. F. J.
Fowler, W. Vivian, H. W.
Gilpin, C. Wedderburn, Sir D.
Graham, W. West, H. W.
Grieve, J. J. Whalley, G. H.
Herbert, hon. A. E. W. White, J.
Holland, S. Williams, W.
Holms, J. Williamson, Sir H.
Horsman, right hon. E. Willyams, E. W. B.
Howard, hon. C. W. G. Wingfield, Sir C.
Hurst, R. H. Winterbotham, H. S. P.
Illingworth, A. Young, A. W.
Jardine, R.
King, hon. P. J. L. TELLERS.
Kinnaird, hon. A. F. Beaumont, S. A.
Lawson, Sir W. Hadfield, G.
NOES.
Adderley,rt.hn. Sir C.B. Guest, A. E.
Allen, Major Gurney, right hon. R.
Amphlett, R. P. Hambro, C.
Annesley, hon. Col. H. Hamilton, I. T.
Anson, hon. A. H. A. Hardy, J.
Antrobus, Sir E. Hartington, Marquess of
Arkwright, A. P. Headlam, rt. hon. T. E.
Bagge, Sir W. Hermon, E.
Baker, R. B. W. Hervey, Lord A. H. C.
Baring, T. Hesketh, Sir T. G.
Barnett, H. Heygate, W. U.
Beach, W. W. B. Hildyard, T. B. T.
Birley, H. Hodgson, W. N.
Bouverie, rt. hon. E. P. Hutton, J.
Brewer, Dr. Jackson, R. W.
Brise, Colonel R. Johnston, W.
Bristowe, S. B. Kavanagh, A. Mac M.
Broadley, W. H. H. Kay-Shuttleworth, U.J.
Brodrick, hon. W. Kennaway, J. H.
Bruce, Lord C. Keown, W.
Bruce, rt. hon. H. A. Kingscote, Colonel
Buckley, Sir E. Kirk, W.
Buxton, C. Knatchbull-Hugessen, E. H.
Cadogan, hon. F. W.
Cameron, D. Lacon, Sir E. H. K.
Cardwell, right hon. E. Lambert, N. G.
Cartwright, F. Lancaster, J.
Cavendish, Lord F. C. Laslett, W.
Chambers, M. Lefevre, G. J. S.
Clive, Colonel E. Legh, W. J.
Collins, T. Lindsay, hon. Colonel C.
Colthurst, Sir G. C. Lindsay, Colonel R. L.
Corbett, Colonel Lopes, Sir M.
Cross, R. A. Lowther, J.
Cubitt, G. Lowther, W.
Dalrymple, C. Lubbock, Sir J.
Dalway, M. R. Mackintosh, E. W.
Damer, Capt. Dawson- Magniac, C.
Dickinson, S. S. Mahon, Viscount
Dimsdale, R. Maitland,Sir A.C. R.G.
Dowse, R. Martin, P. W.
Duff, M. E. G. Matthews, H.
Dyke, W. H. Maxwell, W. H.
Eaton, H. W. Milles, hon. G. W.
Enfield, Viscount Milton, Viscount
Ewing, A. O. Monk, C. J.
Feilden, H. M. Monsell, rt. hon. W.
Fellowes, E. Montgomery, Sir G. G.
Figgins, J. Newdegate, C. N.
Finch, G. H. Newport, Viscount
Floyer, J. Nicholson, W.
Forster, rt. hon. W. E. Noel, hon. G. J.
Fowler, R. N. North, Colonel
Galway, Viscount Otway, A. J.
Gladstone, rt.hn.W.E. Parker, C. S.
Gladstone, W. H. Parker, Lt.-Colonel W.
Goldney, G. Peek, H. W.
Gordon, E. S. Peel, A. W.
Gore, J. R. O. Pemberton, E. L.
Goschen, rt. hon. G. J. Phipps, C. P.
Grant, Colonel hon. J. Pollard-Urquhart, W.
Graves, S. R. Powell, W.
Gray, Lieut.-Colonel Robertson, D.
Greene, E. Samuda, J. D'A.
Gregory, G. B. Sandon, Viscount
Greville - Nugent, hon. G. F. Scott, Lord H. J. M. D.
Selwin-Ibbetson, Sir H. J.
Grey, right hon. Sir G.
Grosvenor, hon. N. Smith, A.
Grosvenor, Lord R. Smith, F. C.
Smith, R. Walpole, hon. F.
Smith, W. H. Walsh, hon. A.
Stapleton, J. Wethered, T. O.
Starkie, J. P. C. Wheelhouse, W. S. J.
Stronge, Sir J. M. Wilmot, H.
Talbot, J. G. Winn, R.
Thynne, Lord H. F. Wynn, C. W. W.
Tracy, hon. C. R. D Hanbury- Young, G.
Turner, C. TELLERS.
Verner, E. W. Glyn, hon. G. G.
Vivian,Capt. hn. J.C.W. Greville, Captain
Walker, Major G. G.