§ Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
§ Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Earl Russell.)
§ THE EARL OF MALMESBURYMy Lords, I have given notice, even at this late period of the Session, that I shall feel it my duty to oppose the Bill of the noble Earl (Earl Russell), and to move that it be read a third time this day three months. It is now exactly three months since the noble Earl introduced it, and it is for him to explain why he has allowed it to remain so long under your Lordships' consideration; but I believe the more you have seen of it the less you have liked it. The object of the noble Earl in bringing forward this Bill is no doubt a very worthy one. It is, as I understand, to strengthen the practical powers of this House and increase its prestige, and to enable emi- 1388 nent men who do not possess a large fortune to sit in the House without transmitting to their descendants the expenses, or supposed expenses, of an hereditary peerage. Now, I venture to think that this House requires very little increase of practical power and prestige. I am aware that many persons, both in their speeches and writings, have represented that this House is not on a level with the opinions of the time, and that it cannot, therefore, march pari passsû with the House of Commons; but that does not appear to me to be the case. What, let us consider, is the composition of this House as the oldest legislative body in Europe, and as the highest in character and general respect? Some persons have said that it is a House of mere landowners—that is, men of a sort of upper-class farmers; and being so, that they are not as fitted as they might be for the consideration of the general questions which agitate the political world. But is that the fact? Of course many of us are landowners, and are not, I think, as such, incapacitated from considering general questions; but it is not true that we are only landowners. Property of every kind belongs to Members of this House. We are not only owners of land, but owners and even lessees of mines and other industrial property. Among us there are also bankers, railway directors, and men most eminent for their knowledge of commercial affairs, such as the Marquess of Salisbury and other Peers. There are others who are eminent officers of the Army and Navy, who are ready to enter upon discussions of interest to your Lordships relative to those professions. There are more than fifty Peers who have been eminent and distinguished Members of the House of Commons. There are eminent diplomatists, like Lord Stratford de Redcliffe and Lord Cowley. There are historians, among whom I may name my noble Friend behind me (Earl Stanhope), who, if ever your Lordships were mistaken on any point of history, would set you right. There are writers both of prose and poetry, including my noble Friend opposite (Lord Houghton) and another noble Lord (Lord Lytton), than whom no English writer can be more distinguished. There are twelve or fifteen Peers, who possess immense property in this metropolis, and who can assist us in discussions on property, and who are 1389 conversant with the wants of the middle and lower classes. There are eminent lawyers, and a great number of magistrates accustomed to judicial decisions, many of them being chairmen of quarter sessions. Now, if your Lordships consider this catalogue of Peers with various qualifications, is it possible to suppose that a legislative Assembly can be more complete in its construction than the House of Lords is? This Assembly, as I understand it, has existed for about three centuries, and I am not aware that at any period it has done anything to derogate from its character and dignity. It is not for a Member of the House to say much on the subject; but during the last few days or weeks your Lordships — according to the opinions of the public Press, and of public opinion everywhere expressed—have most creditably in the eyes of the country maintained your powers of debate and your general capacity in considering important subjects. Well, that being the case, I ask your Lordships whether you think there is any necessity for altering one of the fundamental rules of our Constitution—namely, that peerages should be hereditary. I venture to think there is not. When I consider the opinion of the noble Earl himself, that such a measure as he has proposed is necessary in order to popularize this Assembly, I feel compelled to differ from him altogether. We have had what may be considered the test of the opinion of the people transmitted to us recently by a Gentle-man supposed to represent the more popular opinions of the day, and one at the same time representing Her Majesty's Government. That right hon. Gentleman has publicly declared that this Bill is but a childish tinkering of legislation. It is no less a person than Mr. Bright, a distinguished Member of Her Majesty's Government, who has expressed himself thus. Now, I want to know whether Her Majesty's Government generally agree with Mr. Bright on this point? At all events, so far as the argument of the noble Earl goes as to the necessity of such a Bill in order to make this Assembly more popular, I think the evidence of the right hon. Gentleman in question is worthy of consideration, for he is supposed to know pretty well what the popular opinion is, and it would be hardly fair to make this an exception, and to assert that he cannot answer for 1390 popular opinion on this subject. The noble Earl's second reason for introducing the Bill was that it would give an opportunity to men of eminence and ability, but without fortune, to enter this House. Now, he has not given any names to prove that any eminent men who would have done good service in this Assembly have refused peerages on account of their being hereditary. It would be hardly becoming to mention the names of living persons; but I may mention two very eminent men who declined entering this House because they had no children; and I have always thought it one of the noblest feelings of human nature, that a man should not be ambitious of a seat in your Lordships' House, from any selfish vanity, but in order that he might transmit the honour to his descendants. Your Lordships will probably recollect the very touching letter written by Mr. Burke to Mr. Pitt, when, being offered a peerage, he said that ambition and life had lost all interest in his heart since the death of his only son. On that ground, he refused a peerage; and Lord Kingsdown—whose death has been so great a loss to this House—to my knowledge, more than once refused to accept a peerage—although he was so eminent in his profession, and was so calculated to confer honour on the House—because he had no family. It is true that, ultimately, he felt it his duty to accept it. It is supposed that there are men who would accept life peerages; but I very much doubt whether any such men as your Lordships would wish to enter this House would do so. Of course, there are persons ready to accept anything that is offered them; but these are not the men whose admission the noble Earl contemplates. It appears to me that they would stand in such a false position that no men, with the usual amount of pride and self-respect would accept these peerages. They would not be your Lordships' Peers, according to the true sense of the expression, because they would not be your equals in respect of privileges. They would not transmit the title to their descendants; and they would, therefore, be on a different and lower footing from the rest of the House. They would not be nobles, because the very essence of nobility is the succession of the title to posterity. They would thus be in a false position, to say nothing of the equivocal position of their families, 1391 both sons and daughters. I do not think, therefore, the noble Earl would easily get such recruits as he wishes, and such as your Lordships would like to see added to this Assembly. If, however, such recruits could be got, observe the political power which would be given to a Prime Minister. I have seen in the public prints a suggestion that a man with such a philosophic mind as the late Member for Westminster (Mr. Mill) might very properly be made a life Peer, if such a measure as the present were passed. Now, I do not think that that was a good illustration of the advantage supposed to be derived from this measure; for supposing the noble Earl had been Prime Minister, and had created Mr. Mill a life Peer under this Bill, he would certainly not have popularized this House by admitting a man who had just failed in an attempt to get a seat in the House of Commons by popular election. Life peerages would present a temptation to a Minister, much more than is the case with hereditary peerages, to create Peers in order to gain political strength; and, if they were courted, the result would be that the Minister would every year have before him a list of candidates for that distinction. Thus, if the noble Earl's expectations be correct, there would be great objection in a political point of view. Mr. Bright has spoken of the Bill in terms of the utmost contempt; and whether or not he is right in thinking this Bill would give no satisfaction to the middle and lower classes, it is my belief that persons who accepted those peerages would find them attended with such inconveniences that they would regret having done so. At all events, I think that it has not been proved that this change in our ancient Constitution is necessary or expedient; and, in the absence of such proof, I protest against a change in our Constitution, which has been in successful operation for more than three centuries. For these reasons it is that I move that the Bill be read a third time this day three months.
§ Amendment moved to leave out ("now'') and insert ("this day three months.")— (The Earl of Malmesbury.)
§ LORD LYVEDENsaid, he could not for a moment conceive that the creation of life peerages would so completely alter the constitution of the House as seemed to be supposed. He agreed with the 1392 noble Earl that this House contained many valuable Members, men both of intelligence and wealth, nor did he think it was advisable to attempt to give it more of a representative character. This Bill would certainly have no such effect, for naval and military men were not generally conversant with the feelings of the people, nor did the legal profession induce men to acquire that knowledge, while diplomatists were accustomed to move in an altogether different sphere. He approved the Bill, however, not as being likely to add to the strength or reputation of the House, but on the ground of convenience. What was it that it was proposed to do? A seat in their Lordships' House was considered to be the greatest honour that a man could arrive at; but at present this honour could not be bestowed upon military men, who had attained to great distinction in the military profession, unless the country provided a fortune for the Peer and his two successors to maintain the dignity. This was virtually creating pensionary Peers, and was extremely objectionable, for it resulted in a pauper peerage, and the third succeeding Peer, being excluded from the profession of the Bar and from commerce, the two most honourable and easy means of making a fortune, had no fortune adequate to the dignity of the peerage, and was, therefore, reduced to a mercenary marriage, or to some other mode of achieving a fortune which was not creditable. It was very unfortunate that men should be placed in a position in which they could not sustain the honour that they had attained. He did not think that the creation of military peerages would increase the reputation of their Lordships' House; but he thought that there should be facilities for conferring that honour. The recent debates, as the noble Earl had remarked, had immensely added to the feeling in favour of the House, owing to the spirited and intelligent manner in which they had been conducted, and to the independence which their Lordships had shown, the right rev. Bench having shown that it included some of the first orators in the country. As to the legal profession, that stood, in reference to peerages, almost in the same position as the military profession. His own opinion was that the best way would be for the Legislature to make ex officio legal peerages, and confer such peerages, for instance, on the Chief Jus- 1393 tices of England, Ireland, and Scotland, the Master of the Rolls, and other men eminent in their profession. This would add to the legal strength of the House, and would be a stimulus to the Bar, while the peerages being ex officio, there could be no inferiority attached to them. For the sake of convenience only, and not from any representative view or for the reform of the House of Lords, he should vote for the Bill. Shorn as it was of its fair proportions, he did not know whether it was worth while to persevere with the Bill, and he much regretted the decision of the House in the Wensleydale case. The limitation of the life peerages to two in a year would lead to a canvass and to pressure being brought to bear on the Government whenever there was one left open. He agreed, however, with the noble Earl that there would not be much eagerness in accepting these peerages. Still, there might be men who disliked undergoing contest for a seat in the House of Commons, but who would be useful Members of the Legislature. He remembered being told by a most eminent man, the late Sir Charles Metcalfe, on coming home from India, that he had every qualification for a seat in Parliament, his political views being of the most extreme kind, as they were then—twenty years ago—considered. He was in favour of the Ballot and household suffrage, and he had introduced a free Press in India, and had done other things which everybody else shrank from, but somehow he could not face a hustings mob, and was thus disqualified for a seat in the House of Commons. No man could have been more fitted for the House of Lords, and luckily, having no children, he was able to accept an hereditary peerage, but had he had a family he could not have done so. In a few cases of this kind the Bill would prove beneficial; but the annual creations having been reduced to two, he feared it would be of very little use.
§ EARL STANHOPEsaid, that having lately addressed their Lordships upon this Bill, he would trouble them with only a few words upon the present occasion. He still retained the opinion that he expressed when the Bill was first introduced; and he thought that with the limitations that the Bill had now received, it was worthy of their Lordships' support. His noble Friend who had moved the rejection of the Bill (the Earl of Malmesbury) had laid great 1394 stress upon the fact that Mr. Bright had spoken very unfavourably of it. He, however, conceived that this was not an argument which should have weight on this side of the House. In the first place, he did not think that the fact that Mr. Bright was opposed to the measure would be a sufficient argument to induce their Lordships to persevere no further with it, for he feared it often happened that they contemned that which Mr. Bright honoured and honoured that which Mr. Bright contemned. But further still, if, as some Members of this House seemed to believe, Mr. Bright were in truth unfriendly to the hereditary branch of the Legislature, he would of course dislike and gainsay those very measures by which the stability of that branch would be best promoted. As to this being an experiment, he maintained that the Members of the right rev. Bench were, to all intents and purposes, life Peers. It was true that a noble Earl (the Earl of Derby), in his speech on going into Committee, while approving generally the principle of the Bill, contended that Bishops were not life Peers, because their peerages depended upon nominal baronies, but this was merely a technical distinction. The question was not by what tenure a Member of the House sat, but whether on his death his dignity and. seat descended to his heir, and if this was not the case it was, for all practical purposes, a life peerage. The example, therefore, of the right rev. Bench furnished a precedent for this proposal, and its very narrowness ought to commend it to their Lordships, since they would run no danger of being led on further than they wished. It would open the doors of the House to eminent men of the legal profession, and others who were highly qualified in every respect, but were not possessed of a sufficient fortune to enable them to accept hereditary peerages. Their Lordships were acquainted with the case of a most eminent and distinguished ornament of the House — he meant the first Lord Denman—who, for a long time, refused a peerage because his fortune was not, in his judgment, adequate at that time to the support of hereditary rank, and there were other cases in which life peerages might be useful. There had recently been a discussion whether the Bishops of the Irish Church should retain their seats in this House after the passing of the Disestablishment Bill, 1395 Now, had the principle of life peerages been in operation, the Crown might have conferred that honour on the two Archbishops of the Irish Church, whereas, under present circumstances, it seemed to him that for Prelates of a disestablished Church to retain their seats was repugnant to the principle of disestablishment as admitted by the second reading. He said this with regret, in the presence of one of those most rev. Prelates, and with the sincerest wish that by such a system as that of life Peers, he might continue to be a Member of the House; but, that a Prelate of a Free Church should have a seat in this House, could not be defended on any principle known to the present Constitution. This question was determined the other night without any division being taken; but, if a division had been called, he should have been compelled, with whatever regret, to vote against the continuance of the Irish Prelates in Parliament, after the passing of the Irish Church. Bill. He knew, too, that several Peers on his (the Opposition) side of the House took the same view. The Wensleydale case was the first question to which his attention was directed on becoming a Member of this House, and he thought then, as now, that an unlimited power of creating life Peers would be fatal to the independence of the House; but when the annual creations were restricted to two, and when the Government would be by the terms of the Preamble held responsible for the selection of qualified persons, he could see no ground for apprehension, and he should, therefore, vote in favour of the Bill.
§ EARL GRANVILLEAfter the speech of the noble Earl (Earl Stanhope) in so much of which I agree, I should not have risen if I had thought there was much question at this stage of the Bill of discussing its merits and demerits, for it appears to me we are beyond that. I shall certainly support the noble Earl (Earl Russell), not merely on account of personal and political ties, but because I think he has been treated on this subject in a manner which he had no reason to expect. There was a debate on the first reading of the Bill, which is not usual, and there was another debate on the second reading. On the latter of these occasions the noble Earl (Earl Malmesbury) was consistent, for he objected to the Bill, but otherwise there was a general concurrence of opinion in its favour. [Lord 1396 DENMAN: No!] It was shown by the vote in its favour. With regard to the speeches made, the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) said he regarded the Bill as sound in principle [the Marquess of SALISBURY: Hear, hear!]; and though the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) gave a much less cordial support to it, he said it depended entirely on its details. What happened when we got into Committee? Formidable Amendments were proposed on different sides, but after a long discussion we came to a unanimous compromise. Since then nothing has occurred that I know of which should induce your Lordships to form a different opinion respecting the Bill, and I cannot therefore understand why we are now asked to reject it altogether. Allusion has been made to what Mr. Bright said in a letter which, I think, has received quite sufficient consideration in this House. I have great regard for the opinion of Mr. Bright, both as a Colleague and as a friend; but I earnestly protest against that sort of omnipotence being given to Mr. Bright that if he chooses to make a joke, whether your Lordships think it good or bad, on any of your proceedings, you are immediately to be diverted from a course which you originally thought it wise and expedient to take. Then it has been said —"But Mr. Bright is a Member of the Government," and all I can say is that if this Bill should go down to the other House, Mr. Bright would certainly vote for it. I stated from the first that this was not a Government measure, my noble Friend having introduced it as an independent Peer, in order to divest it of any party bearing. The Government have given it here the same support which it will receive from them if it goes down to the House of Commons, and I am at a loss to know what are the grounds on which your Lordships are asked to come to a decision exactly contrary to that at which you arrived on the last stage of the Bill, when you unanimously agreed to a compromise.
§ LORD CAIRNSThe remarks of the noble Earl (Earl Granville) call for a few observations from me. This Bill was introduced into the House a very long time ago—I think before Easter—having regard to the length of the Parliamentary Session; and at that time the attendance in your Lordships' House was by no means so large as it has since 1397 become. The subject of it was very novel, for since the decision in the Wensleydale case this question had entirely slumbered, and in that case the point was whether the Prerogative of the Crown had been rightly exercised or not, and not whether an alteration of the law should be made enlarging the power of the Crown for the creation of life Peers. Under these circumstances, it is not to be wondered at that on the introduction of the Bill the opinions of your Lordships were very much unformed on the subject, and that very little debate arose. On the second reading, which, I think, was immediately after Easter, I remarked that the Bill might, under certain circumstances, have some advantages, that it depended very much on the details, and, although I should think it my duty to propose some Amendments, I reserved to those around me—who, I believe, were very few at the time—perfect liberty to take such a course as they might think fit on the third reading. I have never concealed my sentiments on this Bill; but I am not going into the matter over again. It appeared to me, in the first place, that the Bill had this about it—that you would by it be creating an inequality that is at present unknown in this House; for I do not admit that the position of the right rev. Bench is at all analogous to the present proposition. They hold their seats by virtue of their offices, and their successors in office are their successors in the Peerage. Then the next objection is this—that it being admitted on all sides that we must limit the Bill in some way, it was agreed that there should be provided an annual limit to the number of Peers created, and the question became one of degree. In the case of hereditary Peers, we all understand that there are at all times a certain number of applications to the Minister for the favour of the Crown. The Minister may, however, say—"I am not going to recommend the creation of any Peers at present," and that is a sufficient answer to the application; but when you say that the Minister shall have power to recommend the creation of two life Peers in any year, they become much more like offices than anything else. The inevitable consequence is that pressure would be put on the Minister every year to go up to the maximum, and if towards the end of the 1398 year two Peers had not been made there would be applications to which he would be obliged to accede, for he would otherwise have to tell them the reason why he did not recommend them. If some faithful adherent requests the favour of the Crown, a Minister cannot say—"I have great respect for you, but I must tell you that you are not the sort of person these life peerages were intended for. They were intended for men like Dr. Jenner, or Sir Joshua Reynolds, or Watt, and you therefore cannot have this life peerage." The consequence will be that, there being two vacancies to be filled up, filled up they will be, whether the persons promoted are those who rise to the standard of the noble Earl or not. My third objection was, that though, in some possible cases, there might be benefit from the Bill, it is extremely small, and for the purpose of obtaining that small benefit you are opening up the constitution of this House, and sending it down for discussion in the other House. I should not shrink from that danger if there were any great benefit to be obtained; but it is by no means desirable to run that great risk for the smallest possible amount of benefit. The only benefit suggested is that there might be some persons—for it has never been proved that there would be—who would be very desirable Members of this House, but who might be unwilling to accept an hereditary peerage. These are the views I have always entertained; but even with these views, unfavourable to the Bill, I should not, on the third reading, especially after what was done in Committee, have thought of voting against the Bill but for what has happened since. I do not say that the noble Earl has not pressed the Bill in every way in his power; but the third reading is not fixed till very nearly the middle of July, the House of Commons is very much occupied, and will probably be still more occupied for the remainder of the Session. If it goes down it cannot be considered there until just the close of the Session, and if alterations are made, those alterations, it is not unlikely, will be questions of great interest to your Lordships, but they will come back for re-consideration at a time when the attendance here cannot possibly represent the feelings or sentiments of the House. That is very undesirable. If our busi- 1399 ness were so arranged that the Bill could go down to the House of Commons for consideration at the beginning of next Session, and could come back to us early in the Session, it would be a different thing. Another circumstance which has changed the position of the question is this—It was understood at an early stage of the Bill that the Government, though it was not their Bill, thought great advantage would result from it and would be prepared to recommend it elsewhere with, the whole united force of the Government. Upon the Report, however, the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Argyll) pointed out the great dangers and difficulties of legislation of this kind in a very able way, and though he did not announce his intention of opposing it, he took care to say everything which a very powerful speaker could say against it. He impugned the reasons on which many Members of the House had supported it, and argued that if it was to be supported at all it must be on the very narrowest grounds—grounds which hardly warranted supporting it in any degree. With regard to Mr. Bright's opinion, I do not wish to say anything invidious; it is sufficient to know that a Member of the Government has described it as a childish piece of tinkering. These two circumstances show that it is utterly impossible that it can be commended to the other House by the united support and approbation of the Government, for it will be in the power of Members of the other House to contrast the provisions of the Bill with the opinions expressed by two Members of the Government. Under these circumstances, we should be doing a dangerous and unwise thing, at this period of the Session, to send it down to the House of Commons; and for these reasons, and these alone, I shall vote for the Amendment.
§ EARL RUSSELLI have, at previous stages of the Bill, explained my objects in bringing it forward, and answered the objections which were taken to it. It is, therefore, unnecessary for me to travel over that ground. With regard to raising the reputation of this House, I never pretended that this House required anything of the kind, and after the debates which we have lately heard this would be about the worst moment for questioning its capacity or character in carrying on legislative business. There 1400 are, however, persons who from time to time would be very considerable ornaments to this House, and not only so, but would be very useful in the discussion of certain questions, some of whom might not happen to have sufficient means to enable them to accept the burden of an hereditary peerage. The noble Earl (the Earl of Malmesbury) says such persons would refuse life peerages; but I do not see why this should be the case. The noble Earl mentioned the late Lord Kingsdown, who was a great ornament to this House and whose presence there was very useful, but who for some time refused a peerage, and if he had had any family would probably have persisted in that refusal. I do not see why the peerage should be confined to those who have large means, and to those who have neither large means nor large families. A man of great merit and great ability may happen to have a small fortune and a large family of children. I do not pretend that there would be any considerable advantage in making this change in the constitution of this House; but there are obviously cases in which it would prove very useful, and some of those who object to this Bill do so because they wish for a much larger change. The Wensleydale case has been alluded to, and I must say that the resolution which the House then adopted was a most extraordinary one. It appears to me entirely arbitrary, and to have been dictated by the spirit of party. A similar attack on the Prerogative of the Crown was made shortly after the Union with Scotland, for it was contended that no Scotch Peer could be created an English Peer. That Resolution, however, was ultimately reversed. I hope that, after the full consideration the Bill has received, your Lordships will not reject it at this last stage.
LORD DENMANsaid, the noble Earl who introduced the Bill (Earl Russell) had been compelled to produce the Abyssinian Papers by a majority of only 1; and if there had been one soldier life Peer in the House the Motion would have been defeated. It had been stated that it would be an advantage to the House if certain Judges were to sit ex officio. He knew no learned Judge who would wish to sit in that way. There was a great dearth of Law Lords in 1401 the House, in 1856, when the question of life peerages was brought forward, but now there were a great number of Law Lords. The noble Earl (Earl Russell) had spoken of Hallam and other eminent persons, most of whom were bachelors, and who probably would have declined the honour of a life peerage; and as for Mr. Watt, he was so interested in the researches which he followed that he would not be likely to give up his time to political discussions. It was said by Mr. Drummond that if he were for any reform, it would have been for reforming that House, and he referred to the authority of Sir William Temple. He had looked into Sir William Temple's works, and he seemed to have wished to diminish the number of their Lordships' House, instead of increasing it. Sir William Temple appeared to think that no Duke should have less than £8,000, no Marquess less than £7,000, no Earl less than £5,000, no Baron less than £4,000, entailed on his family. In 1818, the subject of diminishing the Peerage was brought forward with the assent of the Sovereign; but an ancestor of the noble Lord who had now spoken in favour of life peerages said that it was so distasteful that it was put off for a year. Perhaps the best course, under present circumstances, would be if this Bill were postponed for twelve months.
§ On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion?—Their Lordships divided: — Contents 76; Not-Contents 106: Majority 30.
1403| CONTENTS | |
| Canterbury, Archp. | Kimberley, E. |
| Hatherley, L. (L. Chancellor.) | Lichfield, E. |
| Minto, E. | |
| Morley, E. | |
| Devonshire, D. | Powis, E. |
| Somerset, D. | Russell, E. [Teller.] |
| Saint Germans, E. | |
| Lansdowne, M. | Stanhope, E. [Teller.] |
| Normanby, M. | Stradbroke, E. |
| Salisbury, M. | Winchilsea and Nottingham, E. |
| Abingdon, E. | Zetland, E. |
| Airlie, E. | |
| Camperdown, E. | Eversley, V. |
| Carnarvon, E. | Halifax, V. |
| Chichester, E. | Hood, V. |
| Cottenham, E. | Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.) |
| Dartrey, E. | |
| De Grey, E. | Lifford, V. |
| De La Warr, E. | Powerscourt, V. |
| Fortescue, E. | Sydney, V. |
| Granville, E. | |
| Grey, E. | Chester, Bp. |
| Belper, L. | Methuen, L. |
| Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) | Monck, L. (V. Monck.) |
| Mostyn, L. | |
| Calthorpe, L. | Northbrook, L. |
| Camoys, L. | Poltimore, L. |
| Charlemont, L. (E. Charlemont.) | Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) |
| Clermont, L. | Romilly, L. |
| Clifford of Chudleigh, L. | Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.) |
| De Tabley, L. | |
| Dunning, L. (L. Rollo.) | Rossie, L.(L. Kinnaird.) |
| Ebury, L. | Sandys, L. |
| Fingall, L. (E. Fingall) | Saye and Sele, L. |
| Foley, L. | Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.) |
| Hastings, L. | Seymour, L. (E. St. Maur.) |
| Hatherton, L. | |
| Keane, L. | Stratheden, L. |
| Lawrence, L. | Sudeley, L. |
| Leigh, L. | Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.) |
| Lurgan, L. | |
| Lyveden, L. | Taunton, L. |
| Meredyth, L. (L. Athlumney.) | Vernon, L. |
| NOT-CONTENTS. | |
| Beaufort, D. | Selkirk, E. |
| Buckingham and Chandos, D. | Shrewsbury, E. |
| Sommers, E. | |
| Manchester, D. | Tankerville, E. |
| Northumberland, D. | |
| Richmond, D. | Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.) |
| Rutland, D. | |
| Wellington, D. | De Vesci, V. |
| Gough, V. | |
| Ailsa, M. | Hardinge, V. |
| Bath, M. | Hawarden, V. |
| Bristol, M. | Melville, V. |
| Exeter, M. | Sidmouth, V. |
| Tweeddale, M. | Stratford de Redcliffe, V. |
| Winchester, M. | Templetown, V. |
| Abergavenny, E. | Gloucester and Bristol, Bp. |
| Amherst, E. | |
| Bandon, E. | |
| Beauchamp, E. | Abinger, L. |
| Bradford, E. | Cairns, L. |
| Brooke and Warwick, E. | Carew, L. |
| Brownlow, E. | Chelmsford, L. |
| Dartmouth, E. | Churston, L. |
| Derby, E. | Clarina, L. |
| Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) [Teller.] | Clements, L. (E. Leitrim. |
| Colchester, L. | |
| Ellenborough, E. | Colonsay, L. |
| Feversham, E. | Colville of Culross, L. |
| Graham, E. (D. Montrose. | Congleton, L. |
| Denman, L. | |
| Harewood, E. | De Ros, L. |
| Hillsborough, E. (M. Downshire.) | De Saumarez, L. |
| Dunboyne, L. | |
| Home, E. | Egerton, L. |
| Kellie, E. | Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.) |
| Lauderdale, E. | |
| Leven and Melville, E. | Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.) |
| Malmesbury, E. [Teller.] | |
| Manvers, E. | Granard, L. (E. Granard.) |
| Morton, E. | |
| Nelson, E. | Grinstead, L. (E. Enniskillen.) |
| Portarlington, E. | |
| Radnor, E. | Hartismere, L.(L. Henniker.) |
| Romney, E. | |
| Rosse, E. | Headley, L. |
| Houghton, L. | Sheffield, L. (E. Sheffield.) |
| Hylton, L. | Sherborne, L. |
| Kesteven, L. | Silchester, L. (E. Longford.) |
| Kilmaine, L. | |
| Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.) | Sinclair, L. |
| Southampton, L. | |
| Monson, L. | Stanley of Alderley, L. |
| O'Neill, L. | Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.) |
| Penrhyn, L. | |
| Raglan, L. | Saint Leonards, L. |
| Rayleigh, L. | Strathnairn, L. |
| Redesdale, L. | Templemore, L. |
| Rivers, L. | Thurlow, L. |
| Ross, L. (E. Glasgow.) | Tredegar, L. |
| Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.) | Truro, L. |
| Walsingham, L. | |
| Saltoun, L. | Wynford, L. |
§ Resolved in the Negative; and Bill to be read 3a on this day three months.