§ Order of the day for the Second Reading read. [Bill 22.]
§ LORD TAUNTON
rose to move that the Bill be now read the second time, and said that he had undertaken to do so because he still retained the opinions he expressed last year, that the reasons in favour of the abolition of the tests predominated over the reasons which had been urged against it. Since the question had been so recently discussed by their Lordships, it was scarcely necessary for him to remind them what the present condition of the law was which this measure sought to amend. He was not prepared to say that the questions involved in the Bill were of very great or of very urgent political importance; nevertheless there were considerations which would make him exceedingly regret the rejection of the Bill. When the sacramental test was abolished in 1828, there was substituted for it the obligation of making a declaration tantamount to an oath, and this was made obligatory on all to whom the test formerly applied. But the parties who were affected by the new state of the law were divided into two classes, and were dealt with in a widely different manner. Thus those who accepted offices of trust under the Crown—the great political officers, and with some exceptions, officers in the army and the navy —were required to make the declaration within six months from the period of their 1600 entering, upon such office and employment. The practical effect of this was in most cases that the declaration was not taken at all, a means having been devised for securing the parties against the penalties the law imposed by passing an annual Indemnity Act. Although he could not say there was any very great practical grievance in this, he thought it was not a very seemly thing that the officers of the State and the large and important body of office-holders should neglect the law, frequently, constantly, and habitually, though he was bound to admit not universally, and depend upon an annual Indemnity Bill to protect them from the consequences; neither could he believe, that if the law was altered so as to oblige all office-holders to make the declaration in question, the Church of England would derive the slightest additional security there from. But the portion of the existing law to which he more particularly desired to draw attention was by no means a dead letter—it had a direct and practical operation. For some reason or other, the enactments of the law were far more stringent with regard to persons holding municipal offices and members of corporations, as mayors, aldermen, common councilmen, town clerks, &c., and they were obliged to make the declaration when they took office, under heavy penalties in case of non-compliance. No six months' delay was allowed in these cases, consequently they were practically affected by the state of the law. This was the point to which he wished more especially to call their Lordships' attention. The petitions which he and other noble Lords had presented that evening almost all emanated from the corporate bodies of England, and they all prayed to be relieved from this obligation, which they felt to be an unnecessary strain upon their consciences. He had presented petitions from the important municipalities of Sheffield, Northampton, and Leicester, requesting their Lordships to agree with the House of Commons in relieving them from this necessity, and he would proceed to state the grounds upon which he joined with them in that appeal. He did not deny that these petitions came principally from Protestant Dissenters, but he could assure their Lordships that the Protestant Dissenters were not alone in their desire for the removal of this test. Many conscientious Churchmen who were Members of these corporations felt it to be a painful thing to be called upon to 1601 make a solemn declaration equivalent to an oath not to do that which they believed it impossible they could do even if they were so minded. The declaration bound them in their official capacities—for it did not apply to them as private individuals —not to use any of the powers they possessed as members of municipal corporations for the injury of the Church as by law established. They did not see—and he did not see—how it was possible for a mayor, alderman, or common councilman to do, exercise, or use the powers of their office to injure the Protestant Church as in this country established. They did not see in what way it was possible they could injure it, and therefore they regarded this declaration as falling within the category of unnecessary oaths. Some scrupulous men have declined to make the declaration, and consequently are unable to take the office to which their fellow-citizens have elected them; but generally speaking it was taken, and therefore became a practical grievance. He could well imagine a necessity for some such security when the declaration was framed, because there was then a mode by which it might be conceived the holder of any corporate office might use his power to the injury of the Church. At that time corporate bodies possessed very considerable ecclesiastical patronage; that, however, had been long since taken away, and they had now nothing whatever to do with the appointment of clergymen of the Church of England. But if any proof were wanted to show the utter uselessness of requiring this declaration, it would be found in the fact that no such declaration was required to be made by the members of Irish corporations. If the declaration was effective as a protection to the Church, why was it not required from the members of municipal corporations in Ireland? The Irish portion of the Church Establishment was certainly not the strongest part of the great national institution; yet the declaration which every member of the corporations of London, of Liverpool, of Leeds, and of Sheffield must make, the members of the corporations of Dublin, of Cork, and of Belfast were exempt from. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Chelmsford) said, in the debate last year, that this test was a bulwark of the Church of England. It might be so; but he (Lord Taunton) must think it strange that the bulwark should be erected where the defenders were many and the fortifications 1602 strong, instead of at the point where the defenders were few and the defences comparatively weak. But, in truth, it was no protection to the Church at all. He could assure the right rev. Bench that there was an increasing distaste on the part of the people to take unnecessary oaths, and they could not see in any way that this one was necessary, or that it could answer any useful purpose. When the Bill was before their Lordships last year, certain noble Lords who opposed it referred to the violent language sometimes used by Dissenters against the Church. But violent language had been before now used by members of the Church of England, and surely it was not worthy of the high character of this House to be influenced in their legislation by violent language used by one party or another. It was the duty of their Lordships to do justice, and to listen to reasonable complaints, whether made by Churchmen or Dissenters. He was equally sure that they would be ever ready to resist any attempt made to affect the security of the Church, come from what quarter it might, while at the same time they would do justice to any class of Her Majesty's subjects who desired to be relieved from what they considered a conscientious burden. The Bill had been passed by the House of Commons four several times. There could be no real, substantial danger to fear from the abolition of this qualification, while, on the other hand, their Lordships would gratify the feelings of many of the Dissenters if they would concur in the passing of the Bill. He could remember the time when Parliament repealed the Test and Corporation Acts, and the fears which were then expressed as to the result; but none of them had come to pass. The question now was, whether they could or could not safely give up this declaration without any danger to the Church of England, and he believed, and had endeavoured to show, that they could most undoubtedly do so. Those who had held high political office knew practically that the Act now on the statute-books was a dead letter; and with regard to that portion of the Act which had any vitality in it, namely, the oath required to be taken by the members of corporations, there were two objections—first, the oath was unintelligible, and secondly, it was unnecessary, No oath should be required to be taken except on special occasions, and their endeavours should be to clothe oaths with 1603 the sanctity and respect which was due to a solemn asseveration. He would repeat that solemn oaths were not to be administered lightly. The circumstances of the present time were, he thought, very favourable to the adoption of the step which he advocated. The Church was in our day very strong and deservedly very popular throughout the country. She was so, he might add, not because of those declarations which he asked the House to abolish, but on account of her own internal force, the zeal of her clergy, and the activity of her bishops. In what lay the use, then, so far as she was concerned, of safeguards so ambiguous, so obscure, and so valueless as those of which he was speaking? For his own part, he could not see in what it consisted, and their Lordships might depend upon it that in assenting to the second reading of the Bill before them they would be doing to the Church not an injury, but a service. The Church was well able to protect herself, and had no need, in order to do so, to impose unnecessary burdens on any class of the community. It was but very recently that in reading the Life of Mr. Pitt, published by the noble Earl opposite, he lighted upon a passage in the correspondence of the Minister with George III., in the course of which the latter stated he would have nothing to do with the repeal of the Test Act, inasmuch as it was the palladium of the Church of England. That statement it was at the present day—seeing that the Church had for many years been deprived of the palladium in question—impossible to read without a smile. Any apprehension as to the evil results which might flow from the passing of the present measure were, he could not help thinking, equally unfounded. He trusted, therefore, their Lordships would consider it in a candid and impartial spirit, for he felt that while in giving their assent to it they would be doing an act which could possibly have no injurious effect, they would, on the other hand, be taking a course which would be highly satisfactory to many worthy and conscientious men. The noble Lord concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
§ THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH
said, it became his duty to intrude himself upon their Lordships' attention for a few moments in reference to this matter, with the view of inducing them not to concur in the proposition which had just been submitted to the House by his noble Friend 1604 opposite. His noble Friend had very justly and properly characterized the measure of which he had moved the second reading, as one of no very great importance so far as the security of the Church of England was concerned. He fully and entirely re-echoed and assented to that observation. His noble Friend argued that the Bill might be passed without any danger to the Established Church. He (the Duke of Marlborough) concurred with him in thinking that it could not in any way affect the real and substantial security of the Church of England. It was not upon any such grounds as those that he and the noble Lords with whom he acted felt it their duty to oppose the measure. The question of danger to the Established Church was not the question at issue raised by this Bill. The real question was, whether there was any practical necessity for this measure, or whether there was any real grievance to be remedied by the passing of the Bill. Now, the noble Lord in moving the second reading, as far as he understood, had not pretended that there was any real grievance to be remedied. His noble Friend stated that the Act was practically violated —that it was never enforced against certain functionaries; and that a Bill of Indemnity was passed annually by Parliament for the purpose of protecting some of their Lordships and other persons holding offices under the Crown from the penal consequences of neglecting to conform to the requirements of the Act. Now, if this indemnity could be so easily obtained, where, he asked, was the grievance of the declaration? But, while this was the case, he contended that it was a matter of considerable importance that Parliament should retain the power in its hands of passing or refusing to pass, as it might deem fit, the Act of Indemnity, and of thereby maintaining the law in efficiency. The only other objection urged against the present law was that this solemn declaration was disliked by Dissenters. The declaration which was passed in 1828, applied equally to Roman Catholics as to Dissenters. The Crown was then jealous of Dissenters, and Parliament of the Roman Catholics; and it was to meet the case of both classes that the Act in question was passed. If Dissenters had no evil designs against the Established Church, they could have no real objection to make the required declaration. He had it, however, in his power to quote to their Lordships the opinions of some of the 1605 Dissenters of this country on the subject. A short time ago a Conference of a Society called "The Society for the Liberation of Religion from State Control" was held in London. The great object of that Society, as their Lordships were aware, was to effect the separation of the Church from the State. That Society was now assuming very large proportions, and was putting forward important but somewhat exaggerated claims. At the Conference to which he was referring this very measure was brought under consideration in such a way as to show that it was one of a series of measures which were supported by and had obtained the approval of the Society. The Conference passed a resolution of thanks both to Mr. Dillwyn and Mr. Hadfield for their exertions as Members of the House of Commons, "to abolish the offensive declaration imposed for the acknowledged purpose of securing the legal recognition of the supremacy of the Church of England." He (the Duke of Marlborough) contended that those were circumstances and facts which ought to be regarded with attention by their Lordships. The Liberation of Religion Society was a body of considerable dimensions and organization. At the Conference to which he was referring 350 delegates from 150 towns in England attended, which showed a large and powerful organization. Many of those delegates were Dissenting ministers of great power and influence. Mr. White-head, of Bradford, one of the speakers on the occasion, expressed the interest he took in the question as a member of the town council, but said he differed in opinion from the previous speakers in regard to the gravity or importance of the declaration sought to be repealed; for he had no hesitation in saying that, without making the declaration, he had no intention whatever of taking any step as a common councilman that could be considered detrimental to the interests of the Church of England. Well, then, if there were no objections felt by members of corporations to making this declaration, in which all classes were equally concerned, it seemed to him to be an indication of the existence of other motives lying behind the real and ostensible objections which were put forward against this measure. He believed that the advocates of this Bill looked upon it as one of a series of measures which would gradually tend to destroy the supremacy of the Church of England established by Act of Parliament, 1606 and fully recognised at the time the Test and Corporation Acts were repealed. It should be recollected that at the time these Acts were repealed, Dissenters occupied a very different position in the kingdom to what they did now. The noble Earl opposite (Earl Russell), who took so active a part in the passing of these measures, took considerable pains to show that the fears then entertained by a large class of persons, that the Acts would prove dangerous to the stability of the Church of England were groundless. The Dissenters of that day, the noble Earl contended, were a loyal and constitutional body, and deeply attached to the institutions of the country. He (the Duke of Marlborough) asked their Lordships whether those arguments could be use now with equal force, in the face of an organized system going on for the avowed object of causing a separation of the Church from the State. This question seemed to him to he a very important one, viewing it in that aspect; for it showed that the persons who were ventilating this question did not view it as a social, civil, or political question, but rather as a religious question. On the grounds of doing a service to God in this matter, they were endeavouring to overthrow that which was one of the great bulwarks of the liberties of this country. He thought it was incumbent upon their Lordships, if they were anxious to defend an institution to which they were all deeply attached, to prevent any attempt of this nature to undermine one of the outworks of the Establishment. It might, indeed, if it were now proposed to establish this declaration for the first time, be a question for their Lordships whether it was necessary; but it was a very different question when they were asked to abolish a declaration already existing. Viewing, then, this as one of a series of measures avowed and acknowledged to be intended to separate the Church from the State, and seeing that no practical grievance existed which this Bill could remedy, he called upon their Lordships to oppose a measure which was hailed by the Dissenters as one unfavourable to the Church of England, and hostile to the interests and supremacy of that Church as established by law. He would therefore move, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
§ Amendment moved, to leave out "now" for the purpose of inserting "this day six months."
said, he thought 1607 he latter part of the noble Duke's speech somewhat inconsistent with the previous portions. The noble Duke, in the first instance, argued that the Bill could not affect in any way the security and stability of the Established Church, but wound up his speech by urging their Lordships to reject the measure on the ground that it was one of a series of attempts to undermine that Church, and to separate it from all State control. Now, if he (Lord Wodehouse) thought the present measure to be one step in the direction of destroying what was called one of the outworks of the Established Church, he, as a sincere member of that Church, would be the last person to give it the slightest support; but he could not regard the Bill in such a light when he recollected the language of the declaration now proposed to be abolished. It was a declaration neither more nor less than this—that no persons would use their power, as mayor or common councilmen, to destroy the. Established Church. To rely upon the security afforded by such a declaration appeared to him absolutely chimerical. The noble Duke aid that there was no practical grievance in the matter. It was true, the grievance might not be a great one, but, as far as it went, it was a practical one. Again, when the noble Duke argued that the annual passing of the Indemnity Act did to some extent diminish the grievance, the noble Duke forgot to add that the Indemnity Act did not apply to municipal officers, and therefore did not relieve the persons whom this Bill was intended to benefit from the hardship of which they complained. Although, then, he thought it impossible to say that this was a matter of very great importance, it appeared to him very objectionable to retain solemn oaths—[The Duke of MARLBOROUGH: Solemn declarations.] Well, solemn declarations, which had the force of oaths, for purposes for which they were not required. He thought it clear that those who wished to retain this declaration looked upon it as a sort of pledge of the supremacy and predominance of the Established Church. But he was of opinion, that if, with all the power which the Established Church possessed, with the great revenues which it enjoyed, with its improved position in the hearts and consciences of a very large portion of the people of this country, it was thought necessary by a declaration of this kind to prove the predominance of the Established Church, that 1608 was nothing better than raising up an obstacle in the minds of Dissenters to union with the Church. He thought that the matter had been so frequently debated as to be perfectly familiar to their Lordships, and he should not, therefore, be justified in detaining them longer. He did hope that the House would not be led away by statements as to the designs of persons out of doors, but would look to the subject as it was actually before them; and that they would not think that by voting for this Bill they were voting against the supremacy of the Established Church, any more than that by voting against it they were adding one title to the security of the Church in this country.
§ On Question, That "now" stand part of the Motion, their Lordships divided:—Contents 55; Not-Contents 87: Majority 32. Resolved in the Negative; and Bill to be read 2a on this Day Six Months.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE
rose to call their Lordships' attention to a point of order. It appeared that by mistake a right rev. Prelate had passed from the House with the "Contents," and his name was taken down by the clerks; but he had remained in the lobby. He (the Marquess of Clanricarde) had not seen any right rev. Prelate pass through that door (the door by which the "Contents," returned to the House). He apprehended it would not be right that the name of the right rev. Prelate should be printed in the Journals as among the "Contents," although his name had been so taken down by the clerks. The matter was of some importance, because he was not aware that there was any case of this kind, and it would form a precedent. His own opinion was that the right rev. Prelate's vote should be counted with the "Contents," or else that a Motion should be made that his name should not appear on the Journals among the "Contents." As the right rev. Prelate did not pass the Tellers, he was not, he believed, counted in the minority; but as the right rev. Prelate passed the clerks, his name would be in the list of "Contents."
THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER
My Lords, it is quite true, as has been stated by the noble Marquess, that I inadvertently passed into the wrong lobby. I was not aware that those who differed from the "Contents" might not pass that way, and might not state that they were "Not Content" at that bar. I therefore stand in the position of having been in the lobby 1609 on the right when I ought to have been in the lobby on the left. I am now in the hands of the House. Your Lordships must decide whether, under the circumstances, my name may be erased from the "Contents" and transferred to the "Non-Contents," or whether I may not be named as not having voted at all.
§ LORD REDESDALE
said, he was not aware that any precedent exactly similar to the present instance existed, or that anything would happen from the trans action, except that the right rev. Prelate would lose his vote. The numbers would be entered in the Journals from the numbers reported by the Tellers, and not from the names given in by the clerks. When a discrepancy occurred between the numbers ascertained by the Tellers, and the names written down by the clerks, it was usual for the latter to correct their list by expunging any name which had been incorrectly entered. The clerks were not, he thought, bound to return the name of a Peer who passed them, if they knew, as in the present case, that He did not pass the Tellers. Their Lordships might therefore, he thought, leave the matter as it stood, the only effect being that the right rev. Prelate would lose his vote.
§ EARL GRANVILLE
said, he had not the slightest wish to claim the vote of the right rev. Prelate, which, moreover, could not exercise any practical effect on the division. It appeared to him, however, that there was some irregularity in the right rev. Prelate's being in the House at all at that moment. There was only one exit from the lobby; and if the right rev. Prelate had left it by that door, he would have been counted by the Tellers. The right rev. Prelate, he therefore suspected, must have escaped by some back door, or by some other irregular method.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE
said, that for the purposes of a division the lobby was a part of the House itself. The question therefore arose whether a Peer could remain in the House without voting. [Earl GREY: He can go behind the Woolsack near the throne, as the Bishop of Worcester did just now, and so escape voting.] No doubt that was so. He had himself done what others had done, and had gone to the steps of the Throne —which was not considered within the House—when he wished not to vote. But the present was not a parallel case, because the lobby was a part of the House during a division.
§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY
said, that in the other House of Parliament, when a Member was in the House when the Question was put, and wished to shirk a division, it was the duty of the Tellers to seek him out, and bring him to the table, when he was asked by the Speaker how he intended to vote? The irregularity in the present case was, as had been stated by his noble Friend, that there was no exit from the lobby except by passing the Tellers. It appeared to him that the clerks ought not to have allowed the right rev. Prelate to re-pass them. It was the duty of the Tellers to have searched for the right rev. Prelate, and to have counted him among the "Contents." It would then have been for their Lordships to take such action upon the matter as they might see fit.
THE MARQUESS OF BATH
said, that their Lordships had their own Rules and Orders, and were not bound by those of the other House of Parliament. If any new rules were required, the matter might be referred to their Lordships' own Standing Orders Committee. He could not agree with the noble Marquess that the lobbies were within the House, because to reach them it was necessary to pass the point at which by a fiction the "House" ceased. In the House of Commons all Members who were in the House were compelled to vote; but in their Lordships' House, if a Peer chose to step behind the Woolsack, he was held to be not within the House. Their Lordships would not wish to to debar a Peer from the privilege he now possessed of evading the necessity of voting by walking to the steps of the Throne.
§ EARL STANHOPE
agreed that there was no precedent to guide their Lordships in the point at issue. He concurred with the noble Baron (Lord Stanley of Alderley) in thinking, that if a Peer by inadvertence went into the wrong lobby, that inadvertence could be repaired in the same manner as it was in the House of Commons—namely, by his being brought up by the Tellers and questioned by the Lord Chancellor. The question might be put to him on which side he intended to vote, and according to his answer his vote should be recorded.
§ LORD REDESDALE
thought it would I be very desirable that their Lordships; should have an Order on this subject, and that the matter should be ruled very much in accordance with the practice which prevailed in the House of Commons. On the 1611 present occasion it would, perhaps, be better not to take any step, as it was very well known on which side the right rev. Prelate had intended to vote.
§ EARL GREY
suggested that the more regular course to pursue was that referred to by the noble Marquess, and that the House should make an Order, that notice having been taken that the right rev. Prelate, though he had passed into the lobby, had not voted, the noble Lord on the Woolsack should ask on which side the right rev. Prelate intended to vote, and that his vote should be recorded according to his answer. He would submit a Motion to their Lordships embodying what he had stated.
§ LORD REDESDALE
wished to point out, as a matter of order, that the numbers had been already taken up and the division declared to the House, and that therefore it was too late to make any alteration in it.
THE MARQUESS OF BATH
hoped the noble Earl would not press his Motion. As there were many points of Order involved, it would be better to appoint a Select Committee to consider the matter. Technically, the noble Lord on the Woolsack had to come into the "House" before he took part in their proceedings, and therefore it was the preferable course that the right rev. Prelate should come to the table and declare himself, without being asked, which way he intended to vote.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR
then put the Question that he should ask the right rev. Prelate, whether he intended to vote with the Contents or the Not-Contents, and that his Vote be recorded accordingly.
§ Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lord Bishop, I am directed by the House to ask your Lordship, whether you heard the Question put from the Chair?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR
On which side was it your Lordship's intention to vote—with the Contents, or with the Not-Contents?
THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER
With the Not-Contents.
Then it was Ordered, That the Vote be recorded with the Not-Contents.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH
My Lords, since first I had the honour of a seat in your Lordships' House, I have never known so extraordinary a proceeding as that which has just taken place. The noble Earl (Earl Grey) moved that a particular question should be put by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, on which the noble Lord put the right rev. Prelate through a course of examination and cross-examination. I object to any noble and learned Lord sitting on the Woolsack doing more on such occasions than what absolutely he has been directed by the House to do. If we allow any noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, under the pretence of putting a simple question, to conduct an examination and a cross-examination, great irregularity and inconvenience may arise.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I ask your Lordships to accept my apology if, unwittingly, I have added one more to the numerous irregularities of this evening. Very possibly I took a licence or overstepped the limit of the directions given by your Lordships; but as I understood it to be your Lordships' intention to adopt the practice which in such cases prevails in the House of Commons, I thought it only regular to put the questions which are asked by the Speaker of the House of Commons. I know it to be the practice for the Speaker to ask the hon. Member whether he had heard the Question put before asking him on what side he intended to vole. I hope your Lordships will accept my apology, and my assurance that I had no other intention in putting the question which has drawn down upon me the dreadful censure of the noble Duke.
§ [The following is the entry on the MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS:—
§ "The House having been informed that the Bishop of Winchester went into the Lobby to the right of the Throne by mistake, and that although his Name was taken down by the Clerks in the Lobby, he did not pass the Tellers for the Contents: It was moved, That the Lord Chancellor be directed to ask the Right Reverend Prelate whether he intended to vote with the Contents or Not-Contents, and that his Vote be recorded accordingly; agreed to; and the Lord Chancellor having put the Question to the Right Reverend Prelate, his Lordship declared that he intended to vote with the Not-Contents: Ordered, That the Vote be recorded with the Not-Contents."]1613
|Ordered, That the name of The Lord Bishop of Winchester be added to the List of Not-Content||1|
|Westbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)||Carew, L.|
|Devonshire, D.||Cranworth, L.|
|Newcastle, D.||Crewe, L.|
|Abingdon, E.||Dartrey, L. (L, Cremorne.)|
|Camperdown, E.||Ebury, L.|
|Cawdor, E.||Foley, L. [Teller.]|
|Cowper, E.||Hamilton, L. (L. Belhaven and Stenton.)|
|De Grey, E.|
|Ducie, E.||Leigh, L.|
|Effingham, E.||Lismore, L. (V. Lismore.)|
|Granville, E.||Llanover, L.|
|Grey, E||Lyveden, L.|
|Minto, E.||Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)|
|Saint Germans, E.||Overstone, L.|
|Sommers, E.||Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)|
|Wicklow, E.||Portman, L.|
|Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)|
|Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)||Sandys, L.|
|Saye and Sele, L.|
|Stratford de Redcliffe, V.||Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)|
|Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)|
|Durham, Bp.||Stanley of Alderley, L|
|Belper, L.||Taunton, L. [Teller.]|
|Blantyre, L||Wodehouse, L.|
|Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)||Worlingham, L.(E. Gosford.)|
|York, Archbp,||Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)|
|Manchester, D.||Harrington, E.|
|Marlborough, D.||Home, E.|
|Richmond, D.||Lucan, E.|
|Rutland, D.||Manvers, E.|
|Bath, M. [Teller.]||Orkney, E.|
|Normanby, M.||Pomfret, E.|
|Salisbury, M.||Powis, E.|
|Amherst, E.||Rosslyn, E.|
|Bantry, E.||Stanhope, E.|
|Beauchamp, E.||Verulam, E|
|Cathcart, E.||Doneraile, V.|
|Dartmouth, E.||Dungannon, V.|
|De La Warr, E.||Exmouth, V.|
|Derby, E.||Hardinge, V.|
|Desart, E.||Hood, V.|
|Doncaster, E. (D. of Buccleuch and Queens berry.)||Bath and Wells, Bp.|
|Ellenborough, E.||Exeter, Bp.|
|Ellesmere, E.||Kilmore, &c. Bp.|
|Erne, E.||Lichfield, Bp.|
|Llandaff, Bp.||Heytesbury, L.|
|London, Bp.||Kenyon, L.|
|Oxford, Bp.||Kingsdown, L.|
|Rochester, Bp.||Leconfleld, L|
|St Asaph, Bp.||Lovel and Holland, L, (E. Egmont.)|
|Blayney, L.||Rayleigh, L.|
|Boston, L.||Redesdale, L.|
|Broderick, L. (V Midleton.)||Sheffield, L. (E. Sheffield.)|
|Castlemaine, L.||Silcester, L. (E. Long ford.)|
|Churston, I.||Sondes, L.|
|Clarina, L.||Southampton, L.|
|Clifton, L. (E. Darnley.)||Stewart of Stewart's Court, L. (M. Londonderry.)|
|Colville of Culrosse, L. [Teller.]|
|Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)|
|Egerton, L.||Saint Leonards, L.|
|Farnham, L.||Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)|
|Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)||Templemore, L.|
|Grantley, L.||Walsingham, L.|
|Grinstead, L. (E. Enniskillen.)||Willoughby de Broke, L|
§ House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till Thursday next half-past-Ten o'clock.