HL Deb 17 October 1831 vol 8 cc822-35

The Order of the Day having been read, the House went into Committee oil the Select Vestries Bill.

Viscount Melbourne

stated, that the Bill which had received the approbation of the other House, and was now under the consideration of their Lordships, had the twofold object of correcting the evils which arose from large and tumultuous assemblages taking place under the name of open vestries, and of putting an end to the system of close vestries, by which the affairs and property of a parish were disposed of by a few persons, who re-elected each other, or added only those whom they pleased to their numbers, without the consent or control of the great bulk of the inhabitants. Complaints against both systems had been received by both Houses of Parliament, and he had, on the one hand, a petition from Mile-end complaining of the ill consequences resulting from the open vestry; while, on the other hand, the petitions against the select system were as numerous as the opponents to it could desire.

Lord Wynford

said, if that was the case the Bill must be altered from beginning to end, as there was no provision in it for any thing but a close vestry. In his opinion the Bill would give rise to litigation from one end of the kingdom to the other. He would, therefore, move an amendment to the second clause, to the effect that nothing in the Act should extend to parishes where the inhabitants assembled in open vestry at present.

Amendment negatived without a division.

The clause having been read regulating the mode by which parishes are to adopt or reject the Bill—the Bill providing that it must be done by a majority of two-thirds of rate-payers,

The Lord Chancellor

said, that since the Bill and the amendments proposed on Saturday had been printed, he had given them his best consideration, and the more he looked at the measure, the more important he found it, as it was one which proposed a great alteration in the municipal law of the country, which would be attended with the most beneficial or the worst effect in those parishes where it was introduced, according to the manner in which it was regulated. It came home to the bosom of every family, and, therefore, it deserved the serious consideration of their Lordships. The object of the Bill, as his noble friend had explained, was to limit the confusion which arose from tumultuous meetings when the inhabitants of a parish met in what was called an open vestry, and when, however well sustained the discussion on the affairs of the parish might be, it was impossible that the business of the parish could be conducted with any thing like precision and regularity. It was ridiculous to think of every matter being left to the disposition of a crowd of perhaps 10,000 persons; and certainly it must be admitted, on all sides, that no worse species of law-making could prevail. The only principle which, therefore, could be introduced was that of delegation, a certain number of persons being appointed by the free consent of the rest to act as their representatives. This principle applied as well to the affairs of a parish as to those of a kingdom, and, therefore, it formed the basis of the present Bill. The other great mischief which the Bill sought to put an end to was fully as pernicious the other way as these tumultuous meetings; and, from his own professional experience, he could vouch that the system of self-elected vestries was one of the worst that could be acted upon for the administration of the affairs of a parish. With the view of getting rid of the violence of an open meeting on the one hand, and of the closeness of the select vestry on the other, the present Bill had been projected, and it was intended to be made available in all parishes where the bulk of the inhabitants were in favour of its adoption. The fundamental clause was that which was called the adoptive clause, and by it the benefits of the Bill might be extendable to every parish by the wish of the inhabitants. By the Bill, however, as it came from the Select Committee, the power of adopting the measure was not conferred on the rate-payers of a parish assembled at any given meeting, convened by public notice, but by an absolute majority which should constitute two-thirds of the rate-payers of the whole parish. The amendment, however, of his noble friend, proposed that the measure could only be adopted by a majority of the rate-payers present and voting at some public meeting. In the former case, though the great majority of the inhabitants might be in favour of the Bill, it would be in the power of a few persons to prevent its being adopted. It could not take place unless the majority of the whole rate-payers, whether absent or present, concurred. To show the inconvenience of that course, he had only to suppose that a case should occur where, unless the majority was double the minority, it was utterly impossible that the whole of the ratepayers of the parish could possess themselves of the advantages conferred by the Bill. Suppose a parish consisted of 300 persons, it required 200 to concur in favour of the Bill, and not even a majority of 180 or 190 would be sufficient. That was not all; for, though a meeting might be assembled with ample notices, yet the absence of a certain portion of rate-payers was sufficient to prevent that meeting adopting the Bill. It was of no consequence that the meeting had discussed the advantages and disadvantages of the Bill; it was of no consequence that the majority had made up their minds in favour of it, after exchanging opinions with each other, and being persuaded of the benefit that must accompany it, because there were so many absentee rate-payers who never heard one word of the discussion, and who were too idle to attend. Suppose, therefore, that one-third of the parish, containing 300 persons, stayed away—one-third plus one. But of 300, 101 were absent—why their staying away neutralized the votes of 199 respectable persons in the parish, which, had attended the meeting, and made up their minds in consequence of what they heard there. It was even still more absurd than the way he first put it, for the 101 who stayed away might not be against the Bill, but in favour of it; but if they would not take the trouble to attend, they outweighed the force of those who did. The absurdity of all this was self-evident, and surely their Lordships would never pass a Bill where the persons absent neutralized the acts of a meeting which they had it in their power to attend, and by which an idle minority prevailed against an active and substantial majority. The whole clause was full of objections. It proposed that the church wardens should calculate the number of the rate-payers in the parish, and decide whether the majority of them required by the Bill consented or not. Now he had never had the honour to serve the office of churchwarden—and, therefore, did not know how the duties of it were accomplished; but he could not possibly see in what manner this calculation could be made out. It seemed to him to be one of the most difficult tasks that could ever be devolved to mortal churchwardens. How was it possible for that officer to know if a majority of rate-payers consented or not? How was he to know who was abroad—who was at his country-house—who was out of the way? The churchwarden was obliged to declare if the Bill had been adopted by two-thirds of the rate-payers; but it was out of his power and ingenuity to determine the point—first, because several rate-payers might be absent whose opinion could not be taken; and secondly, because a minority not attending the meeting controlled the majority that did. The question had often been raised, whether it was fit that votes should be given by proxy in any case; and now, as they were in Committee, where proxies could not be given, he would say a few words, which must not be construed into anything disrespectful to the House. But in the House the proxy gave a positive declaration either for a measure or against it, but here the proxy was of a negative nature; and the person not present actually voted by his absence against those who were. They had all heard of silence giving consent, but it was the first time that an Act of Parliament provided that silence gave dissent, and he could not understand for what purpose such a provision was introduced, which could not have a better effect than that of crippling and impeding the natural progress of the Bill. The absurdity of it would at once be seen if the House made the case its own; and, though the clerk at the table would perform his duty carefully and correctly, and declare those who were entitled to vote and those who voted by proxy, it would not be very pleasant to find, that every solemn decision of the House was neutralized by a minority who would not attend, and who would not even take the trouble to send their proxies against any measures. His noble friend proposed to get rid of all these inconveniences by a very simple amendment, by which the adoption of the Bill was to be determined by a majority of the rate-payers present, and voting at a meeting convened by general notice to all the parties concerned. But against that it was said, that the parish might not assemble in sufficient numbers, and that the few who did assemble could have the power of acting as they pleased. Now, in his opinion, the probability was, that the bulk of the parishioners would attend the first great meeting at which the adoption of the Bill was to be determined, and there was no reason to think that the opponents of it would be absent, as he ever found that the opposers of any measure (he begged pardon of the noble Lords at the other side of the House) were always the most zealous in their attendance. In the parish of St. Pancras there were 14,000 rate-payers; before the time of Mr. Sturges Bourne's Act, there were. 10,000; and it was probable that if a Vestry Meeting was called, it would be attended by 1,000 or 2,000 persons. Now, if on any given day the adoption clause were to be then mooted, there would be at least 2,000 rate-payers collected, and if, after a discussion of the merits or demerits of the Bill, the adoption of it was carried by a majority, it was natural to suppose that that majority represented the feelings of the parish at large. But ail that the 2,000 could do would be useless while 8,000 remained at home, and did not choose to vote at all, or take any part in the proceedings. But suppose there were even 6,000 present, that would not do; and unless there were 7,000, which were the two-thirds of 10,000, and unless they were all in favour of the Bill, it could not be adopted in the parish of St. Pancras. It was fit after stating these objections to the Bill, that he should say that he had no immediate interest in it. He looked upon it as a public measure, of great importance to every city and parish in the kingdom; but he felt, after having examined it, as was his duty to do, that he could not support the clause as framed by the Select Committee, unless it was amended by the alterations of his noble friend.

The Earl of Delaware

observed, that the clause to which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had so strongly objected, had met with the general approbation of the Committee.

The Earl of Haddington

thought, that the suggestion which he was about to offer very briefly to the House would reconcile the differences which existed in the opinions of their Lordships upon the subject. He would let the decision of the point be left to two-thirds of the rate-payers present, if they formed a majority of the whole. It was desirable that the Bill should not be imposed upon a parish but by a majority of all the rate-payers. What he meant was this— suppose there were 399 rate-payers in a parish, and that 300 of them should vote, then what he meant was, that 200 or two-thirds of the voters should settle the question. He hoped that he had made himself clearly understood.

The Lord Chancellor

observed, that the Bill did not contemplate any public meeting, but there could be no doubt, that the question would substantially be decided by such meetings. He thought that there was a great deal in the suggestion of the noble Earl (Haddington), and that its adoption would be an improvement, to the Bill.

The Earl of Falmouth

thought, that property, to a certain extent, should be the rule of voting. The majority, under the present Bill, was left at two-thirds of the rate-payers. That numerical majority might, in many parishes in the country, not comprise the one-twentieth of the property in the parish. The noble and learned Lord opposite had drawn an analogy between their Lordships' voting, and parishes voting under the provisions of this Bill. Now, it did not appear to him, that that analogy was at all a correct one, nor did he perceive the least similarity between the legislative proceedings of that House, and the, proceedings of parishes under this Bill.

The Lord Chancellor

did not think that, in one respect, there was the slightest difference between them; and, in the instance to which he alluded, he would maintain, that parishes would exercise an act of legislation precisely similar to that which was exercised by their Lordships. When the present Bill was passed, its adoption would be left optional with the various parishes in the kingdom. Now, the voting this Act to be the law in any parish would be an act of legislation in the strictest sense of the word. If such an act was not, a legislative one, he did not know the distinction.

Lord Wynford

was of opinion, that the Churchwardens should calculate the number of those that actually voted, and that, two-thirds of them, under the regulation proposed by the noble Earl (Haddington), should carry the question. He also thought, that there should be a scale of votes, graduated according to the amount of property assessed, and that, for every 25l. for which an individual was rated, beyond the original assessment from which he derived his first vote, he should be entitled to an additional vote, limiting the number of votes to which any individual could thus become entitled, to six.

Viscount Melbourne

said, that as he was about to address the Committee on the Bill, he would include the proposition made by a noble Lord on Saturday, by which he proposed the rate-payers of each parish should possess votes according to the sums they were respectively rated at in the parish books. For instance, the person who was assessed at 50l. a-year had one vote; at 75l. he had two; and so on for each 25l. until it amounted to six votes, to more than which no one person was to be entitled. Now, he would at once fairly state, that he could not approve of those new devices in elections, and he considered that the plan of voting according to property was liable to every objection which had been raised against the principles of Representation lately introduced by his colleagues. The principle of voting according to property, and not on population, was altogether new. He would not open the Reform question, but he thought the principle of voting in parishes might be regulated on the same basis as that introduced in the Bill to which he alluded. According to the original basis of Representation, property was not the standard; for instance, Rutlandshire sent as many Members as the largest county. In the county, freeholders had the right to vote: in boroughs, the payer of scot and lot; and the idea of a graduated scale of voting at elections was as new and unprecedented as any alteration proposed by the Reform Bill. He thought that it was founded on an erroneous principle, and that it would prove to be most prejudicial in practice. It attacked the principle on which the whole functions of Government stood. That the majority should bind the minority was a wise and just rule. If there be any thing in the foundation of Government which gave stability to human affairs, it was this principle. But the proposition now advanced set forth a different order of things, and it would establish the power of the minority over the majority; and ten persons possessed of six votes each would outnumber fifty-nine who had only one qualification each. Was there ever such a receipt for discontent drawn up as tins? Was there ever a proposition more pregnant with quarrels and confusion? But, in fact, the principle was not fully sustained, for there might be persons among the fifty-nine of greater property than the ten who had outvoted them. A tradesman might have very large and showy premises, and be highly assessed, but still his circumstances might not be flourishing, and he might be actually working at a loss; while another tradesman, who had retired after realizing a considerable fortune, might live near him in a small tenement, which would be rated considerably less than the other, yet, according to the principle now suggested, the poor man would outvote the rich man. The principle had never come under his consideration before, but the objections to it were palpable and decided. In his opinion, it would produce discontent, and prevent what, was much to be desired in human affairs—stability and certainty. He was perfectly convinced, that their Lordships would counteract the object they had in view, if the principle contended for by the noble Lords opposite were introduced into the Bill now before the Committee.

The Earl of Falmouth

said, the noble Viscount was wrong if he imagined this was a new principle which it was desirable to have introduced into the Bill. The principle, in his opinion, ought to be adopted: it would prevent great mischief, which he was confident would arise should the Bill pass into a law as it now stood. He begged to remind the noble Viscount and the Committee, that on an important measure, which had recently passed their Lordships House (he meant the Tithe-composition Act), it was made necessary that not only two-thirds of the persons concerned should concur before it could be adopted, but also two-thirds of the value.

Lord Wynford

suggested, that there were three-fifths required, both as to number and value.

The Earl of Falmouth

was obliged to the noble and learned Lord. It was highly necessary that there should be a considerable majority of parishioners to make any considerable change in parish proceedings. Persons connected with parish affairs knew well, that there was a great deal of trickery and jobbing; and he thought that, before such a measure as this was received, a large majority, as respected both the property and numbers in the parish, ought to be required.

Viscount, Melbourne,

in explanation, said that what he meant with respect, to the adoption of the principle was, that it was comparatively of modern origin.

Lord Wynford

said, that the principle had been known and recognized for a long time. It was applied to the case of the Bank of England, and to the East-India Company. The right of voting had simply in those instances a reference to property. There ought, in his opinion, to be a graduated scale by which the parishioners should have votes according to their property. If the noble Viscount meant to reject the proposal for a graduated scale, he would divide the Committee on the clause.

The Earl of Shaftesbury

suggested, that the best way, he thought, would be, to defer the division until the report was to be received.

Lord wynford

had no objection whatever to take that course. He thought, that a person who was rated at 10l. a-year, and who might be a payer one week and a receiver another, ought not to have as much influence in parish matters as a person who was rated at 1,000l. a-year.

The Duke of Wellington

said, that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had spoken of parish meetings discussing whether they would adopt the Bill or not. It was impossible for meetings consisting of 2,000 or 3,000 persons to discuss any such matters. As he understood, the Bill had been originated in consequence of certain parishes in the metropolis being dissatisfied with the Select Vestry system which now prevailed.

Viscount Melbourne

said, that the dissatisfaction was not confined to parishes in London, but extended to several large towns, such as Bristol and Birmingham.

The Duke of Wellington

said, that the complaint, he believed, chiefly rested with the metropolis. He should be glad to know, why their Lordships should be called upon to repeal Mr. Sturges Bourne's Act, which had worked well, and, taking the country generally, was much approved of. That Act had given great satisfaction to the country; but, if it were necessary to alter the law at all, why not confine the alteration to the metropolis where the dissatisfaction was felt? He agreed with the noble and learned Lord near him (Lord Wynford), that the vote for parish vestries was very different from that for electing Members of Parliament, as far as the principle of both was concerned. By the law, as it now stood, every man had a right to attend a Vestry and vote; but, owing to the large size of parishes, it was convenient, and indeed necessary, to have another mode introduced to carry on the affairs of the parish—that was to say, a Select Vestry, for the purpose of regulating, distributing, and accounting for, the rates. To regulate that matter, Mr. Sturges Bourne's Act was passed, but it related solely to the country, and let that be applied to the metropolis. What objection was there to that? Why it was said, there must be a meeting of the ratepayers to decide whether the Bill should be adopted or not. The optional clause of the Bill was, in his opinion, most objectionable. It would be cause for excitement and agitation; and he repeated, that it would be far better to extend Mr. Sturges Bourne's Act at once to the metropolis than pass this Bill.

The Earl of Haddington

said, his suggestion having given rise to this discussion, he begged to add a few words. If he understood rightly the operation of Mr. Sturges Bourne's Act, it had no application to any parish regulated by a local Act, unless expressly applied to it. If the law were defective, it would have been infinitely better to introduce a Bill for the metropolis only, in preference to making the alteration general throughout the country. He felt a difficulty in the matter, because, if the Bill were rejected, the metropolis would be left in a state of excite- ment and discontent with regard to the Vestry system. He did not oppose the Bill, but the object of his motion was, to prevent a small number of parishioners from forcing the Bill upon an unwilling parish. His amendment was this—to leave out the words, "of two-thirds of all the rate-payers of this parish have been given in favour of the adoption of the said Act," for the purpose of adding the words, "Provided always, that the majority of two-thirds of the votes given in favour of the adoption of the said Act of Parliament, shall constitute a clear majority of the rate-payers of the parish."

Viscount Melbourne

had no objection to adopt the amendment of the noble Earl, but he could not consent to the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, or to adopt the suggestion of the noble Duke. He begged to inform the Committee, that the dissatisfaction to the Vestry system was not confined to the metropolis, but was experienced at Bristol, Birmingham, and other large towns. He was anxious to remedy the evils which had given rise to the discontent which now pervaded so many parishes. Abuses to a considerable extent were complained of, and rates, in many parishes, had been increased; but he wished it to be understood, that increase of rates did not imply misconduct on the part of the Select Vestries. Considering the length of time which this Bill had been before Parliament, without imputing obstinacy to those who opposed its provisions (for he wished not to be considered as casting censure upon any one) he really thought ample time had been given to consider its merits, and he would venture to express a hope, that their Lordships would allow it to pass.

The Earl of Falmouth

said, he saw no reason why the operation of this Bill should not be confined to Bristol and Birmingham, and the large towns, where objections to the present law were entertained, without making its provisions general. He begged to ask the noble Viscount, whether complaints had reached him from many parishes? In parishes in which he (Lord Falmouth) possessed property, he would assure their Lordships, hat the system, as it now stood, worked well, and was not complained of, but, on the contrary, persons in general were satisfied with it.

The Earl of Harrowby

confessed that he had not paid much attention to the subject now under consideration; and the information which he possessed was chiefly derived from the conversation he had joined in. But the Bill appeared to him open to many objections. The great measure which had engrossed their Lordships' minds during the last, six mouths would, he hoped, be taken partly as an excuse for his not having paid that attention to the present Bill which the subject warranted. What he would venture to suggest was, that Mr. Sturges Bourne's Act should be made applicable to the parishes in the metropolis, and to the great towns throughout the Kingdom, repealing the local enactments by which parishes in these towns are governed, by one single short enactment. He thought this would lead gradually to a change, and all changes of this nature ought to be progressive. In the interim between the present and the next Parliament, the Bill might be examined and considered. He was anxious to see property duly represented in parishes. In the Reform Bill the principle of property, as well as population, was regarded; and he thought that properly ought to be also attended to in any measure proposed to alter the law respecting the regulation of Select Vestries.

Viscount Melbourne

was not prepared to adopt the suggestion of the noble Earl, not having considered what would be the effect of repealing the local Acts alluded to. He was quite sure, however, that the effect of the noble Earl's recommendation would be, to create great dissatisfaction if their Lordships were to attempt to carry it into execution by compulsory means, and he was convinced My. Sturges Bourne's Act would never be voluntarily adopted. He felt all the inconvenience of discussing this question at the end of the Session, and he concurred in what the noble Earl had stated as to the all-engrossing subject which had necessarily occupied their Lordships' minds, to the exclusion of other important topics—so that the attention which they required had not been given to them. He begged to add, that he felt the necessity of passing the Bill, in order to prevent embarrassment, which he apprehended might arise; and, at all events, it would put an end to that dissatisfaction which was felt, as he had already stated, and which he assured their Lordships was felt to a great extent.

The Earl of Falmouth

said, he must repeat his objections to adopting the Bill in other places than in those towns which had been enumerated, or where complaints against the present plan of Select Vestries existed. He begged again to inquire whether the noble Viscount had heard any objections from rural parishes, as well as large towns? If the Bill were to be adopted, why not confine it solely to the towns where complaints had been made?

Viscount Melbourne

begged to apologize for not answering the noble Earl's question when he spoke before. He must say that he had not received any complaints from country parishes against the system as it now existed. Having admitted this, however, he should be excused adding that the noble Earl must be aware, that in the country a great deal of dissatisfaction and discontent prevailed. And with respect to the noble Earl's suggestion, as to adopting the Bill only for those towns from whence complaints had sprung, he really saw no means of doing that, except by naming the towns in the Bill—a course to which he would not give his assent. It was not compulsory on any parish to adopt the Bill; on the contrary it was expressly provided, that a majority of rate payers must agree to it before it could be adopted.

The Earl of Falmouth

considered it would be quite easy to apply the Bill to the large towns and cities where the evils complained of were said to prevail. This would be limiting the remedy to the disease. But he must persist in objecting to extending the Bill to rural parishes.

The Amendment of the Earl of Haddington agreed to.

On the qualification clause being read,

The Earl of Delawarr

said, he rose to propose an amendment by adopting which there would be introduced a graduated scale of voting agreeably to property, varying from one vote to six, which he was prepared to contend was necessary, in order to give a due and proper influence to property. He knew that in the parish of St. George, Hanover-square, the system of the Select Vestry worked well, and to the satisfaction of the inhabitants. He thought that property was not sufficiently regarded in the Bill, and that great mischief would ensue were it adopted in its present shape. He should move, that the amendment made in the Select Committee as follows be part of the Bill; "And, be it further enacted, that in the election of all such vestrymen and auditors, every inhabitant who shall, by the last rate which shall have been made for the relief of the poor, have been assessed and charged upon or in respect of any annual rent, profit, or value not amounting to 50l. shall have and be entitled to give one vote, and no more; and every inhabitant who shall in such last rate have been assessed or charged upon, or in respect of any annual rent or rents, profit or value, amounting to 50l. or upwards (whether in one, or in more than one sum or charge) shall have, and be entitled to give, one vote for every 25l. of actual rent, profit, and value, upon or in respect of which he shall have been assessed or charged in such last rate; so, nevertheless, that no inhabitant shall be entitled to give more than six votes; and in cases where two or more of the inhabitants shall be jointly rated, each of them shall be entitled to vote according to the proportion and amount which shall be borne by him of the joint charge."

The Earl of Mulgrave

felt called upon to oppose the amendment now submitted for the approbation of the Committee. He was quite sure, from the present state of feeling in the metropolis, if the amendment received the sanction of the Legislature, that it would increase the discontent and dissatisfaction which pervaded so many parishes and so large a population. He, however trusted that the Committee would reject the amendment of the noble Lord, which was neither more nor less than calling upon the majority to be guided by the minority. Every person paying a rate had a right to have a voice in the parish.

The Earl of Falmouth

thought it was not an equitable mode of proceeding to allow a man who only contributed 2s. 6d. to the parish rates as great an influence as one who paid 100l.

Viscount Melbourne

said, according to the law of the land, every man paying a rate had a right of a vote, and the Act which had limited that right was a usurpation. He certainly must object to the amendment now submitted.

The Committee divided on the Amendment. Contents 38; Not-contents 54—Majority 16,

Original clause agreed to—the remainder of the clauses also agreed to and House resumed.

List of the Not-CONTENTS.
DUKES. Norfolk
H. R. H. the Duke of Sussex Richmond
St. Albans
Brandon (Hamilton) Erskine
MARQUISES. Dunally
Lansdown Boyle (Cork)
Cleveland Panmure
Queensberry Howden
EARLS. Sefton
Cawdor Sundridge (Argyll)
Carlisle De Clifford
Cowper Suffield
Essex Belhaven
Grey Fingall
Charlemont Melbourne
Albemarle Stafford
Gosford Chaworth (Meath)
Ilchester De Saumarez
Denbigh Wellesley
VISCOUNTS. Howard of Effingham
Hood Auckland
Leinster Templemore
Goderich Mendip (Clifton)
LORDS. Clements (Leitrim)
Brougham Wharncliffe
Wenlock Donnay (Downe)
Napler TELLER.
Dunmore Earl of Mulgrave
Fife PAIRED OFF.
Dinorben Earl Morley
Teynham Earl Camperdown
Dover Lord Clifford
Lyttleton
List of the CONTENTS.
DUKES. Gordon (Aberdeen)
H. R. H. the Duke of Cumberland LORDS.
Forester
Buckingham Wynford
Wellington Redesdale
MARQUISES. Arundel
Bristol Skelmersdale
Cholmondeley Montagu
EARLS. Douglas
Dartmouth Colville
Delaware Farnham
Carnarvon Saltoun
Doncaster (Duke of Buccleuch) Stuart, of Rothesay
Sheffield
Westmorland Ellenborough
Harrowby Maryborough
Abingdon Clanwilliam
Mounteashel Melross (Haddington)
Dudley Ravensworth
Manvers TELLER.
Bradford Earl of Rosslyn
Bathurst PAIRED OFF.
VISCOUNTS. Marquis of Thomond
Lorton Earl of Hardwicke
Arbuthnot Lord Penshurst (Viscount Strangford).
Beresford