§ Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF MORLEY
, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, he desired, in the first place, to disclaim any feeling of hostility towards the Church of England on the part of its promoters, or any desire for a separation of Church and State. However strongly attached they might be themselves to the doctrines and principles of the Established Church, they felt strongly that those who did not share their religious convictions ought not to be called upon to pay for the maintenance of the fabrics of a Church to which they did not belong. He would not discuss the various substitutes for church rates which had been proposed without success at different times; but it seemed to be very generally admitted that the church rate system as it now stood was not in a satisfactory position. Three distinct schemes on this subject were brought forward last year; one to exempt from the payment of church rates all who were willing to sign a declaration that they were Nonconformists; another proposed to excuse from payment those who signed a declaration that they wished to be relieved from payment; and finally, a measure for settling this long-vexed question was brought in by Mr. Gladstone, entitled the Compulsory Church Rates Abolition Bill. It sought, in the first place, to abolish all compulsory church rates whatever; secondly to preserve the existing machinery for the purpose of collecting voluntary church rates; and thirdly, to preclude all persons who did not pay church rates from taking any part in the management of church affairs. That scheme was accepted as a compromise by the advocates of church rate abolition in the House of Commons last year, and passed through that House without a division; but, owing to the lateness of the 1081 Session, it fell through. This Session a Bill embodying the main provisions of Mr. Gladstone's measure had been introduced into the other House, had passed through all its stages, and was the Bill now before their Lordships. He could not but feel that some compromise on that subject was still possible; and, if their Lordships would give a second reading to that measure, he believed its promoters would be glad to accept any compromise which might be proposed in Committee, provided such compromise did not violate the principle on which they took their stand, and would satisfy, in a fair and equitable manner, the claims of both Churchmen and Dissenters. He thought this was a peculiarly desirable time at which to settle this question. There could hardly be any doubt that when the new Reform Bill came into operation a large number of Dissenters would get into Parliament, and he therefore thought it would be wise, before that occurred, to have this fruitful source of contention between Nonconformists and the Church Establishment removed by a fair and equitable adjustment. No doubt, he might be told that in the present state of things there was no grievance at all to complain of in this matter — that the majority of the parishioners had a right by their acts to bind the minority — that there was no good reason for altering a system which had existed from time immemorial. No doubt, there was no grievance when church rates were first instituted; for then there was but one religion in the country, and Church and State were but different appellations of the same body. But, as soon as the State acknowledged the right of dissent from the Established Church, it became unjust to compel men to contribute towards the maintenance of a Church whose doctrines and principles they disapproved. This impost, in point of fact, was a grievance which created a great deal of ill-feeling in parishes where the Dissenters were in a minority. He had himself presented a Petition from persons who had undergone much suffering on account of their conscientious scruples against paying church rates. It would, perhaps, be said that an interference with church rates was an interference with property, and that they might on the same principle take away tithes. But there was no analogy between the two things. Tithe was a charge upon the land determined and specific, and fluctuating only with the price of corn; whereas church rates were 1082 a charge upon persons and entirely dependent on the will of the majority of a parish. Moreover, the opponents of the Bill almost universally allowed that Dissenters ought, at any rate, to be exempted from that portion of church rates which went for the maintenance of the ceremonial of the Church; and, in exempting them from any part of the rate, the ground was utterly cut from under the feet of the defenders of that impost, and it became impossible to uphold church rates as property at all. He might be told that, if church rates were abolished, our churches would be allowed to go out of repair; but he could hardly believe this would be the fact; it seemed to him very improbable that the body composed of by far the great majority of the nation, and including among its adherents the most wealthy and influential classes, would, with their very strong feeling on the subject, suffer their places of worship to fall into decay. Let them look at the vast number of parishes, especially in the large towns, where church rates were no longer collected. There a great stimulus had been given to voluntary effort, while a feeling of irritation had been removed. In 9,100 parishes in which church rates were levied only £243,000 was, at present, collected; and out of that sum £135,000 was expended on the ceremonial of the Church, and the residue, £40,000, was devoted to ordinary, and £60,000 to extraordinary, repairs; and he could not think it was wise in the Church to incur so much ill-will for the sake of so small a sum. The last argument they would hear, no doubt, would be "the Church in danger." Now, he, on the contrary, believed that the abolition of this impost would strengthen the Established Church, and render her position more secure, by making it less invidious. He did not believe that the Dissenters as a body were hostile to the Church, and if this grievance were taken away he believed they would not desire to interfere in the management of the affairs of the Church, nor be animated by any feeling of enmity towards it. This Bill would take away a mere contingent right of taxation, the loss of which he was convinced would not endanger an institution which commanded the respect, the admiration, and the support, not only of those who belonged to it, but of the entire nation. He would again urge upon their Lordships the great importance of settling a question which had caused so much controversy. He would only say 1083 in conclusion that, if their Lordships should think fit to give this Bill a second reading, its promoters would be willing to accept any compromise in the clauses which would not violate the principle of the Bill — that church rates should no longer be compulsory.
§ Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Morley.)
§ LORD DELAMERE
, in moving the Amendment of which he had given notice, that the Bill be read a second time that day three months, said that the simple ground on which he asked their Lordships to reject this Bill was that it proposed to perpetrate an act of signal and manifest injustice. It had been an ancient custom, exercised from time immemorial, for the ratepayers to impose a rate upon themselves for the repairs of the parish church, and the expenses of Divine service. The rate was levied at a meeting of the parishioners who were called expressly to decide whether a rate should be levied or not. If they decided that no rate should be imposed, that decision was conclusive. There was no very great hardship in this, because the same principle lay at the foundation of every other institution of the country—government by a majority. The Bill proposed to do away with church rates absolutely, entirely, and unconditionally, and without providing any equivalent. If so, a strong case must be made out for the abolition of church rates. The arguments against church rates might be summed up in a few words. It was said that they caused great bitterness and heartburning, and that there were difficulties in their collection, and the friends of the Church were asked why they made such a fuss about a miserable sum of £270,000, and whether the existence of the Church of England depended upon the levying of this impost; and they were asked, whether it was not a libel upon Churchmen to suppose that, for want of this sum, they would allow the churches to sink into decay? But it must be remembered that there was in this country a Church established by law, and it was now proposed to sweep away the only provision that existed by law for the repair of the churches and for some other ecclesiastical purposes. It was no reason, because so much had been done voluntarily for enlarging the action of the Church, that they should sweep away the sole and very inadequate provision that existed by law for the repair of parish churches. They were told 1084 by those who used this argument that if they would only do away with compulsory payment of church rates a new Utopia and a new era of brotherly love would be inaugurated; but what did the abolition of compulsory church rates, when translated into other words, really mean? It meant that the friends of the Church might have the privilege of going round the parish with the begging-box, to extort such alms as they could from those who were willing to give, and that the benefit of the funds should then be equally shared both by those who paid and those who refused to pay. Was that fair? There were two classes of Dissenters—the religious and conscientious Dissenters, whom he respected, and the political Dissenters, for whom he did not feel an equal degree of respect. The question of relieving the Dissenters from their liability had been raised more than once. Lord Althorp proposed to make the maintenance of the fabric of the parish churches a charge upon the Consolidated Fund; but the Dissenters declared that to be an insult, and said they should then pay church rates in the tax they paid on every pound of tea. They proposed, in fact, to use everything and pay for nothing. Was it fair that a man should say, "I will have my seat in my parish church" and yet pay nothing for the maintenance of Divine service? The Church of England was a national institution, and it belonged to every human being in the country; but, if so, why should not every one contribute towards its maintenance? Every other institution of the country was supported by taxation imposed by the Government of the majority. A country gentleman in Cornwall might never come to London; yet he had to contribute towards the cost of the National Gallery, the British Museum, "the Brompton Boilers," and the Parks of London. A Quaker, although he disputed the lawfulness of war, was bound to pay his share of the expense of the army and navy, the repair of ships, and the manufacture of Armstrong guns and shells. He could not conceive, therefore, on what principle Dissenters should be relieved from contributing towards the expense of the Church. In the event of the Bill passing some awkward questions must arise both in Ireland and Scotland. The support of the Established Church in Scotland was charged upon the land. He was not prepared to show from the statistics the amount of land in Scotland held by noblemen and gentlemen who were not members 1085 of the Established Church of that country; but if this measure were extended to Scotland, the Presbyterian Church, which was the Established Church of Scotland, would find itself in a very different position from that which it now occupied. They might depend upon it that if the total and unconditional abolition of all measures for the support of the Church once passed the two Houses of Parliament it would be nonsense to suppose that they would retain for Scotland what had been abolished for England. He would treat the conscientious Dissenter as he would treat his opposite extreme, the conscientious Ritualist, with the largest possible measure of Christian charity and toleration. Real conscientious difference in religious opinion cannot be too tenderly treated—What's amissLet it be gently touched, when we debateOur trivial difference loud, we do commitMurder in healing wounds.He was quite alive to the inconveniences and disadvantages attendant upon church rates, and he thought that those who conscientiously dissented from the Church should receive the largest measure of Christian toleration. He should cordially support, therefore, any Bill which met the objections of the conscientious Dissenter without committing a manifest injustice on Churchmen; but the present Bill was not one of that character. As was urged last year by a right hon. Friend of his (Mr. Gladstone), whom all would admit to be one of the most distinguished men of the age—That persons who did not think fit to take part in this process of supporting the Church services and the churchyard by a voluntary rate, should likewise be excluded from taking part in any proceedings relating to the voluntary rate.—[3 Hansard, clxxxiii. 622.]These were good words and wise words. I trust your Lordships will give them the weigght they deserve. I will not mar their effect by adding any more words of my own. It behoved their Lordships to hesitate before they swept away a time-honoured custom, without providing any substitute or equivalent, and before they imposed upon one portion of our countrymen the burden of supporting an institution in the benefits of which all shared.
§ An Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and insert ("this Day Three Months.")—(The Lord Delamere)
§ LORD ST. LEONARDS
said, it was his intention to support the Amendment, for 1086 he objected to the removal of the legal obligation which now rested on all parishioners to maintain the fabric and services of the church. They should bear in mind that church rates were originally a charge on the land. He could not understand why there should be such a desire to get rid of the charge of church rates, and was at a loss to perceive where the great hardship could be, when it was in the power of the majority of the parishioners to impose or reject them. Was it desirable that they should get rid of the present legal obligation, and should trust to the voluntary system, which was necessarily opposed to the principle of an Established Church? At present the rich were bound to contribute to the necessities of the poor in providing church accommodation? but if this Bill were passed an entire change would be introduced, and a benevolence or dole would be exchanged for that which was now a legal obligation. A poor man now had a right to use the church, and was entitled to accommodation there without paying a shilling towards the expenses; but under the new system the poor man's worship would depend upon the benevolence of the rich. The principle of benevolences might operate for a while, but probably not very long. Before long the poor worshipper might be called upon to pay towards the repairs of the fabric in which he worshipped. The effect of the plan would be, in effect, to relieve the rich man at the expense of the poor. It seemed to him extraordinary that while Parliament were giving to the poorer classes the highest rights of citizenship they should at the same moment take from them the right of public worship without cost which they had enjoyed from time immemorial. Why should a legal regulation be turned into a mere voluntary obligation? At present, after a church rate had been proposed, the question came before the vestry, who had an estimate placed before them as to the money necessary to be applied, and who had the right of fixing on the amount. If church rates should be abolished what security had they that the funds necessary for maintaining the fabric of the church would be provided by voluntary subscriptions? It might perhaps be said that there would still be a moral obligation on the rich to contribute to the expenses of the church, and that in many parishes compulsory rates had been abandoned; but it must be remembered that the legal obligation acted as a spur and an inducement for persons to subscribe, and 1087 he doubted whether there would be equal liberality if it were removed. At no former period of our history, moreover, had the people been so well housed, and this was clearly not a time when the maintenance of the House of God should be neglected. In regard to Dissenters, he was prepared to relieve them, as far as practicable, from church rates; but when they come forward and demanded, not only to be relieved themselves, but require Churchmen to be discharged from the obligation to which they desire to remain liable, he could not too strongly express his surprise at so bold a step, or his determination to oppose it.
§ EARL RUSSELL
, who was indistinctly heard, said, that this was a question upon which it might fairly be expected that the Government should express their opinion. It appeared to him that in anything in which the State had a paramount interest, anything which was necessary for the safety and welfare of the community, then it was fit that any objections, whether of a religious or temporal character, should give way to that necessity. Such a reply as that would be a proper one to make to any member of the Society of Friends who objected to contribute to the support of the army and navy; but when it came to a question whether he should be compelled to pay for the repairs of the fabrics of the Church, the matter was very different. Nobody could say that it was necessary to collect church rates in the same sense that it was necessary to collect taxes for the maintenance of the army and navy. But, more than that—there was on the part of the Dissenters, in his opinion, a grievance of a very practical kind. They said that they were allowed by the law to have their own chapels, that they maintained all the buildings which were necessary for the purposes of their religious worship, and paid their own ministers, and therefore it could not be right that a Church which was much more wealthy should impose rates upon them in order to maintain its fabrics. That appeared to him a fair objection, and it was a question whether it was not a matter of large and liberal expediency—he did not say of right—to relieve Dissenters from the burden. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Delamere) had quoted what was said by Mr. Gladstone last year upon this subject. He (Earl Russell) entirely agreed with that sentiment of Mr. Gladstone, which was to this effect—that it would not be fair or just, 1088 when Churchmen were ready to repair their own churches, and raise the funds necessary for public worship, for Dissenters to interfere with them in any way in the application of those funds. It would not be fair, in the application of money raised by a voluntary rate, that any person should vote with regard to its application unless he was a subscriber and paid his money. He remembered what a Member of the present Government, Lord John Manners, described as having taken place in a parish with which he was acquainted, where all the parishioners paid their money, and the Dissenters afterwards came down, appointed churchwardens of their own, and overruled the Churchmen. It appeared to him that if the Government were to give any countenance to it, such a compromise as that which had indicated might be adopted, and the effect would be to relieve Dissenters and put an end to a great deal of ill-feeling. Nothing was, in his opinion, more disagreeable than to hear of persons being put into prison for nonpayment of church rates. He remembered a case in which he was so much moved by the attendant circumstances, that he himself paid the whole amount of the rate, and the cost of the law proceedings, in order to get a man out of prison. They had been told very lately that a Member of the Government had complained very much of the Opposition, on the ground that they had endeavoured to keep in their own hands a monopoly of Liberalism. He must say that they (the Opposition) had no monopoly of the kind, and, in fact, they had been lately surpassed in the direction of Liberalism by the measure which Her Majesty's Ministers had introduced. But he knew no question upon which the Liberal party were so unanimous as on the propriety of abolishing church rates; but they certainly could not expect to get rid of the mischief which was now complained of unless the party opposite showed their liberality not only by word, but by deed. If this Bill were rejected, he hoped that some such compromise as Mr. Gladstone had indicated would be adopted in a future Session.
§ THE EARL OF HARROWBY
said, he could not accept the compromise of which the noble Earl (Earl Russell) approved, because its effect might be to put the entire management of parochial affairs into the hands of persons of extreme opinions, and to oust those who differed from them. 1089 He urged the Government not hastily to pledge themselves to any particular mode of dealing with the question, though he joined also with those who expressed a hope that the Government would take this subject into their serious consideration with a view to a settlement. He should oppose the second reading of this Bill.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY
said, he would not go into the various arguments against the abolition of church rates, because they had been worn threadbare. Since, however, the question of compromise had been raised, he wished to state, on behalf of the Church, that Churchmen were willing to entertain a settlement of this question by compromise; but they had never been offered terms which they could possibly accept. There was a point upon which the noble and learned Lord (Lord St. Leonards) had touched—namely, the rights of the poor. He (the Archbishop of Canterbury) unequivocally asserted that the right of the poor man to a seat in church would cease with the abolition of church rates, for his privilege of free-sitting would be thereby destroyed. He hoped that that consideration alone would induce their Lordships to hesitate in passing this Bill. It was sometimes said that Churchmen were afraid that the Church would be in danger if church rates were abolished. New he did not think that in that case the Church was in any danger. The Church of Christ was founded upon a rock and nothing could overthrow it; but the Establishment would be in considerable danger. The opponents of church rates would follow up that question immediately by depriving the possessors of their tithes, and by separating Church and Stale; therefore those who believed the union of Church and State to be for the benefit of the country should be very shy of abolishing church rates.
§ THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH
said, the noble Earl (the Earl of Morley) who moved the second reading of the Bill in a very conciliatory and becoming manner, intimated that during the progress of the Bill through Committee it might be so amended as simply to do away with the compulsory character of church rates, leaving the machinery of collection in force. But the noble Earl must, indeed, be sanguine to suppose that at this period of the Session it would be possible so to alter a Bill that had come up from the other House for the sole purpose of abolishing 1090 church rates unconditionally. Their Lordships would remember that when the Bill was in the other House of Parliament it was intimated that Amendments would be introduced calculated to promote a compromise; nevertheless, the Bill had passed through that House, and had been sent up to their Lordships a bare and simple proposition for the abolition of church rates. It was not to be denied that certain evils arose out of the existing system. There were instances — usually narrated in as offensive a manner as possible — in which poor men were sued for small sums, and sometimes imprisoned for the nonpayment of the large expenses attending the legal proceedings. These were cases which every one regretted and which ought not to occur. But it was not right to argue the general merits of a great question like this upon exceptional facts. He should welcome any remedy for cases of oppression; but their Lordships must consider the real object of the promoters of this measure. The noble Earl opposite (Earl Russell), who had made a speech in support of the abolition of church rates, was not always of his present opinion; for he (the Duke of Marlborough) remembered the noble Earl making a speech in favour of church rates, in which he said that it was not the part of a wise general, if he intended to defend a citadel, to surrender one of its outworks. It was precisely for that reason that their Lordships should hesitate to pass this Bill. In the inquiries of 1859 and 1860 some leading Nonconformists did not conceal that their object was not confined to church rates; that church rates afforded a convenient battle-ground; but that the question was really one of Establishment or no Establishment. This had been perfectly illustrated by the history of the question, for up to 1862 no fewer than twenty-six measures had been proposed for the settlement of this vexata questio, and the subject had been debated in Parliament about 100 times. During this time the Church had offered the hand of reconciliation, and the ingenuity of legislators had been taxed to devise a compromise. Why had all these compromises failed? Because the abolition of church rates was only one of a series of measures which were to culminate in the abolition of the Establishment. It was useless to talk of compromise—the object of these gentlemen was not compromise—it was complete victory they desired—as a first step to the abolition of the Establishment. 1091 Mr. Gilpin, on one occasion, said in the other House that the difference between the Dissenters and the Church was, that the latter would only accept supremacy, but the Dissenters wanted equality. Now, he denied that Churchmen claimed supremacy—they only wanted to maintain the Church in her present constitutional position towards the State, and none of their attempts at a compromise had been met in a fair and liberal spirit. Under these circumstances it was impossible to say what would be the action of the Government. Seeing that measure after measure had been brought forward without any practical result having been arrived at, the encouragement to the Government to introduce another was, it must be admitted, very slight. The subject was, one, however, with respect to which, as vitally affecting the interests of the Church, the Government must feel anxious, and he was sure that if any means of coming to an amicable settlement could be devised—if each party would surrender something of their extreme claims—they would deem it not only a duty but a privilege to be the agents accomplishing so desirable an object. They were opposed to the present Bill on the ground that it proposed an absolute and unconditional abolition of church rates, and not only did away with the compulsory power of levying them, but with that ancient machinery which was the special right of the Established Church. The Government, under those circumstances, had no alternative open to them but to support the Amendment of his noble Friend behind him.
THE BISHOP OF OXFORD
said, he believed it was the earnest desire of every one who occupied a seat on the right reverend Bench to see such a compromise as that which the noble Duke had just described effected. If a measure of that nature should be introduced, the Bishops would give to it the fairest and fullest consideration. The idea of accepting the present Bill, however, as a compromise was one which could hardly be suggested without exciting a smile. It was, in fact, the simplest proposition in the world to preclude anything like a compromise from being carried out. It was like hanging a man, cutting down his dead body, and then setting about discovering the best way of making a compromise for his life. If a compromise were really desired by persons who took opposite views on the question, then their Lordships must begin 1092 by refusing to assent to the second reading of the measure before them. It was all very well to say that the sum involved in the issue was a small one; it no doubt was so in one sense. It was small as compared with the whole wealth of the Church of England; but it could not be regarded in that light as connected with the case of many of the rural parishes throughout the country which were able to borrow money on the security of the rates, to be repaid during a period of thirty years, and by that means restore church after church, in districts where there was no resident landed proprietor, and where, if those borrowing powers did not exist, there would be no chance of the churches being restored at all. The sum raised annually by church rates was about £300,000, and if capitalized, it would amount to £9,000,000. Now, in point of fact, the result of this proposition would be to surrender the large sum to the owners of land. He, for one, objected to seeing that money swept way in the summary manner proposed by the Bill; while, at the same time, he and his right rev. Brethren around him were anxious to see every ground of ill-will between the members of the Establishment and those who unhappily differed from them removed. If the same hearty desire existed on the other side of the question, it would not, he believed, be difficult to effect a compromise.
§ LORD TAUNTON
expressed his intention to vote for the second reading of the Bill, unless some more distinct pledge were given on the part of the Government that it was their intention to deal with the subject at an early period. But then he thought that in Committee their Lordships should propose clauses which should open up the way to a compromise. The matter appeared to him to be a very urgent and serious one; for the time would come when the great institutions of this country would be passed under review, and when those which did not recommend themselves to the reason of the public would be liable to attack. The Established Church, with her large revenues, could not expect to escape criticism, and it was, therefore, of the utmost importance that her defenders should place her on the best possible footing, in order that they might the more effectually resist the efforts of those by whom they might be assailed. Speaking for himself, he hoped to see the time when the Protestant Church of England would be strengthened by the addition of the 1093 various classes of Dissenters who were now without her pale.
§ THE EARL OF ROMNEY
said, he could not conceive it possible that their Lordships should be called upon on the 8th of August to give this Bill a second reading, and to frame clauses of compromise in Committee, when it was expected that Parliament would be prorogued in a week or ten days. His own experience was that the conscientious Dissenter paid his church rates. Nine-tenths of those who objected to the payment of the charge on conscientious grounds, he might add, were tenants, and a deduction was always made from the rent which they paid. He did not see why in England the law should not be assimilated to that which prevailed in Scotland, and the rate made a charge on the land in the same way. If that were done, many of the religious scruples to the payment of the charge which now existed would be obviated.
§ On Question, That ("now") stand Part of the Motion? their Lordships divided:—Contents 24; Not-Contents 82: Majority 58.1094
|Townshend, M.||Churchill, L.|
|Abingdon, E.||Dunfermline, L.|
|Camperdown, E.||Foley, L. [Teller.]|
|Cowper, E.||Houghton, L.|
|Granville, E.||Londesborough, L.|
|Morley, E. [Teller.]||Lyveden, L.|
|Russell, E.||Mostyn, L.|
|Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)||Romilly, L.|
|Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)|
|Camoys, L.||Stratheden, L.|
|Charlemont, L. (E. Charlemont.)||Taunton, L.|
|Canterbury, Archbp.||Bradford, E.|
|Chelmsford, L. (L. Chancellor.)||Brooke and Warwick, E.|
|Beaufort, D.||Derby, K.|
|Buckingham and Chandos, D.||Devon, K.|
|Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)|
|Richmond, D.||Grey, E.|
|Abercorn, M.||Harrow by, E.|
|Bath, M.||Leven and Melville, E.|
|Bristol, M.||Lucan, E.|
|Exeter, M.||Malmesbury, E.|
|Salisbury, M.||Mansfield, E.|
|Westmeath, M.||Nelson, E. [Teller.}|
|Abergavenny, E.||Romney, E.|
|Amherst, E.||Selkirk, E.|
|Bathurst, E.||Shaftesbury, E.|
|Beauchamp, E.||Shrewsbury, E.|
|Tankerville, E.||De Ros, L.|
|Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.||Dunsandle and Clanconal, L.|
|De Vesci, V.||Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)|
|Hawarden, V.||Gage, L. (V. Gage.)|
|Melville, V.||Grantley, L.|
|Stratford de Redcliffe, V.||Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)|
|Chester, Bp.||Heytesbury, L.|
|Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.||Hylton, L.|
|Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)|
|Ossory, &c., Bp.|
|Oxford, Bp.||Lyttelton, L.|
|Peterborough, Bp.||Northwick, L.|
|Salisbury, Bp.||Penrhyn, L.|
|Bagot, L.||Redesdale, L.|
|Boston, L.||Sherborne, L.|
|Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)||Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)|
|Churston, L.||Skelmersdale, L.|
|Clinton, L.||Sondes, L.|
|Colonsay, L.||Templemore, L.|
|Colville of Culross, L.||Tenterden, L.|
|Crofton, L.||Thurlow, L.|
|Delamere, L. [Teller.]||Vernon, L.|
|Denman, L.||Wynford, L.|
§ Resolved in the Negative; and Bill to be read 2a this Day Three Months.