§ (The Lord President.)
§ (NO. 80.) REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
§ Amendments reported (according to Order).
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that when a Bill came before their Lordships 1919 at this stage, the practice was that Amendments should be taken in the order in which they stood upon the Notice Paper; but if there were any new clauses or Amendments to be proposed which interfered with the principle of the measure, the usual course was to consider such new clauses first. The reason for that course was obvious. The introduction of a new clause or clauses into the Bill might affect such an alteration in its character as to require Amendments in its other provisions.
§ THE MARQUESS OF BRISTOLsaid, that in deference to what had just been stated by the Lord Chancellor, he would postpone, for the present, a Motion of which he had given Notice, to the effect that until such time as existing churchyards or consecrated burial grounds should be closed by the action of Parliament or otherwise, they should be available for the interment of those who should not, during life, have belonged to the Church of England as by law established, with such Christian and religious services conducted by authorized ministers as might be approved of by Parliament.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKproposed, after Clause 4, to insert Clauses—
(Power to convey a portion of burial ground for widening of roads.)
(Power to convey a portion of burial ground for a mortuary.)
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he saw no objection to the proposal of the most reverend Prelate.
Clauses, with verbal Amendments, agreed to, and inserted in the Bill.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKrose to propose the insertion of the clause of which he had given Notice, and which he thought no more than a reasonable concession to the consciences of the clergy.
Moved, after Clause 73, to insert the following clause:—
No incumbent or curate of the Church of England shall, after the passing of this Act, be liable to any penalty for refusing or omitting to perform the burial service of the Church at the funeral of any deceased person, if it can be shown to the satisfaction of the court that in such refusal or omission he acted under a reasonable belief that grave scandal and offence would be occasioned to the parishioners by the use of the 1920 said service: Provided that in every such case it shall be the duty of the minister declining to perform such service, if he would otherwise be required in law to perform it, to give notice of his refusal to the relatives or persons taking upon them the duty of providing for the burial of such deceased person, in such manner and within such time as to enable proper provision to be made for such burial: Provided, further, that the incumbent or curate so refusing shall at the time transmit a statement of such refusal, and of the grounds thereof, to the Bishop of the diocese."—(The Lord Archbishop of York.)
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, the most rev. Prelate who had just spoken advocated the clause he had now proposed on the ground that it was the wish of the Lower House of Convocation that the clause, or some provision of a similar nature, should be allowed to form part of the Bill. He trusted that when they came to consider another clause which was to he proposed by the noble Earl (the Earl of Harrowby), the most rev. Prelate would be found among those who regarded the wishes of the parochial clergy. On a former stage of the Bill this clause was submitted in very bad English; on this occasion its English was somewhat improved; but he thought that when its effect came to be understood out-of-doors it would not receive very general support. The clause gave power to a clergyman to decline to perform the burial service over a deceased person if he had reasonable belief that grave scandal and offence would be occasioned to the parishioners by the use of such service. If, however, the clergyman had power to decline to bury the body, some other person must have power to inter it. He asked their Lordships to consider what might be the effect of this provision in the agricultural districts. If, for example, the clergyman declined to perform the service over the relative of an agricultural labourer, it was not probable that any neighbouring clergyman would perform that service, and the labourer would have to get a lawyer to apply to a Bishop's Court. A more unhappy state of things he could not conceive, and he hoped, therefore, that their Lordships would reject the clause.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, he could not agree with the noble Duke the Lord President. He hoped their Lordships would have some regard to those 4,000 clerical petitioners who some years ago urged upon their Lordships substantially the same proposal 1921 as that which was now made by his most rev. Brother; and the Ritual Commission, after four years of labour and intense attention, suggested the adoption of a provision very similar to this. The noble Duke seemed to fear that if a clergyman declined to read the service over a person who had died in the commission of a scandalous offence, no proper provision could be made for his interment. When this Bill was last before their Lordships, it contained a provision for the silent interment of those who dissented from the Church of England; and if that was sufficient for the most religious and best-conducted Dissenters, it would surely be enough for those who died in the commission of notorious crime. The matter was not by this clause left to the discretion of the incumbent or the Bishop—the clergyman must be able to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that he was justified in refusing to read the service. The cases which this clause was meant to meet were not unfrequent. In one case a man reeled out of a public-house in a state of absolute intoxication, and died in a ditch. The clergyman was required by law, in the presence of those who knew the whole transaction, to declare that it was good that this man had been taken out of the world, and to express over him those words of hope which were contained in the Burial Service. He did not believe that any difficulties would arise; and in those cases where the clergyman used the power given by this clause, the relatives of the deceased might avail themselves of the previous clause introduced into this Bill. He hoped, therefore, that their Lordships would accept this clause.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that he was sensible of the excellence of the motives which had led the most rev. Prelates to propose and advocate this clause, and of those extreme cases in which it must be most painful to a clergyman to read the Burial Service of the Church over a deceased person. He did not say that a remedy was not well worthy of the attention of their Lordships, and hoped that at some future stage a proposal might be made to meet the difficulties of the case. But he asked their Lordships to pause before they accepted a clause which might have consequences more serious than the evils which it was intended to remedy. This 1922 clause gave power to the clergyman to refuse to read the Burial Service in cases which he reasonably believed would occasion grave scandal. There would no doubt arise more than isolated cases in which the opinion of the clergyman would be challenged, and in which some of the relatives of the deceased would call upon the clergyman to justify the step which he had taken. Clergymen were but men, and they often took an exaggerated and overstrained view with regard to the character of their own parishioners. Could their Lordships conceive anything more undesirable, more likely to occasion scandal, than that when a man was in his grave there should be opened over his body a fresh litigation—not as to whether some definite charge was proved or not, but a general, roving, vague, and undefined inquiry—not as to whether his character was bad but as to whether the clergyman acted under the reasonable belief that scandal would be occasioned to the parishioners by reading the Burial Service over him? Suppose the Court was of opinion that the clergyman was wrong, and that there was no reasonable ground for the conduct which be pursued, was the man to lie there with the stigma that he had been buried without the Burial Service, or was the service to be read over him long after he had been in his grave? There had never yet been a public investigation which could be compared to such an one as this. Again, was it contemplated that if one clergyman sought the reading the Burial Service in this particular case would occasion grave scandal, another clergyman was to be sought who would be less scrupulous? He appealed to their Lordships not to put in the power of the clergy so dangerous an authority, and not to shock the morals of the community by opening such a flood of indignation as would be occasioned by a clause of this kind.
§ EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that no doubt there was much to be said on both sides. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had admitted that there was a grievance, and suggested that they should consider whether it should be remedied at another stage of the Bill. But the noble and learned Lord did not give any intimation whether the Government had really taken into consideration how the grievance was to be 1923 remedied, or explain what was the general character of the remedy which they proposed to adopt. He hoped that some noble Lord opposite would give them some intimation upon that point.
THE BISHOP OF LICHFIELDsaid, that the only Church in this country that had no power to determine who had and who had not belonged to her communion was the Church of England. The difficulty in this case arose chiefly because the Church had not sufficient powers of discipline over her members.
THE BISHOP OF OXFORDput it to their Lordships whether it was really a spectacle which could be regarded by any body of Christian people as desirable that a minister should be compelled at the grave side to say strong Christian words while believing them to be utterly untrue in the particular case to which he was applying them? As the law at present stood, the clergyman at the grave side was compelled to utter words which he and everyone who heard him knew to be a lie. It was nothing more nor less than that. Nor was it right to treat this difficulty as a merely clerical grievance; it was full of danger to the Church. The Nonconformist literature of the last 40 or 50 years showed that no topic had been urged so much against the Church of England as that she buried indiscriminately the greatest saint and the greatest sinner, with a service not intended for the one or for the other.
§ VISCOUNT CARDWELLsaid, that the grievance had been admitted by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, and therefore it would be a waste of time to be urging it on their Lordships. The sole question was as to a remedy, and their Lordships ought to have some declaration on that head from Her Majesty's Government before they were called on to go to a division on the clause of the most rev. Prelate.
§ THE EARL OF HARROWBYapproved of the principle of the clause, but feared practical difficulties would present themselves. He hoped that the ability of the noble Duke, strengthened by the legal knowledge of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, would find a remedy that could be carried out.
§ THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELDthought their Lordships ought to dovote their attention to the clause immediately before them, and not to a question 1924 which involved considerations of the very gravest character. The noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) had imputed to his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack expressions of a much more precise nature than his noble and learned Friend had used. Certainly he thought it was not the intention of his noble and learned Friend to intimate to the House that the Government were going to deal with the question in the present Bill. Whether they would be able to deal with it at any time and under any circumstances was very doubtful. It involved the whole question of Church discipline; and he was quite certain that, when the principles involved in a system of Church discipline became the subject of discussion in their Lordships' House, noble Lords would be unanimous in at least one opinion—that the matter could not be treated by a casual clause in a Bill of this kind. With regard to the proposal of the most rev. Prelate he was entirely opposed to it. He believed it would, if adopted, lead to great dissensions and heartburnings in the country amongst laymen, and be a blew at the legitimate respect and influence of the clergy.
§ LORD SELBORNEexpressed his regret that the Government were not likely to give any assistance with regard to this part of the question. He believed the effect of the clause, coupled with that already introduced into the Bill, would be that the clergyman would know he could not safely refuse to read the Burial Service except in very gross and extreme cases, which he should be able to justify to a Court if afterwards prosecuted for his refusal. On the other hand, in such cases, the relatives and friends would be much too wise to institute proceedings. If the most rev. Prelate went to a division, he would support the clause.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, that Her Majesty's Government seemed to have greatly changed their minds with regard to silent burial. They now objected to it in cases in which to read the Burial Service of the Church was a scandal; but when the Bill was introduced they thought it sufficiently good for Dissenters, who objected to the Church service. The question of the Burial Service of the Church could not be touched without some reference to points of Church discipline. He did 1925 not apprehend that such inconvenience would be caused to the friends of the deceased as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and the noble Duke seemed to anticipate in a case in which the clergyman of the parish might decline to read the Church service, because the clergyman would have to give them timely notice, and they could make other arrangements. If a clergyman should be brought into Court and be proved to have acted unjustly in refusing to read the Burial Service, a penalty might be inflicted on him for the neglect of that duty, and the decision of the Court would re-establish the character that had been assailed. This clause applied to a particular class of cases—namely, to cases where a whole parish had been scandalized. Their Lordships had heard a good deal about the Nonconformists and about the Clergy. The Clergy in the most legitimate way—namely, by a vote, which was unanimous, of the Lower House of Convocation of Canterbury—had asked their Lordships to remedy their grievance on this subject. Would their Lordships send back to the Church this answer—"We are about to modify the law of Christian burial and change it from what it has been for centuries? The only persons to whom we will give no relief, the only persons whom we cannot trust, are the Clergy of the Church of England." This was a matter on which he felt bound to ask their Lordships to divide.
On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 89; Not-Contents 146: Majority 57.
1926
CONTENTS. Canterbury, Archp. Lichfield, E. York, Archp. Lovelace, E. Selkirk, E. Saint Albans, D. Shaftesbury, E. Westminster, D. Strafford, E. Sydney, E. Northampton, M. Verulam, E. Abingdon, E. Cardwell, V. Airlie, E. Falmouth, V. Belmore, E. Halifax, V. Clarendon, E. Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.) Dartrey, E. Ducie, E. Lifford, V. Effingham, E. Portman, V. Essex, E. Granville, E. Bangor, L. Bp. Harrowby, E. Carlisle, L. Bp. Ilchester, E. Ely, L. Bp.
Exeter, L. Bp. Grinstead, L. (E. Ennis Killen.) Gloucester and Bristol, L. Bp. Gwydir, L. Hereford, L. Bp. Hawke, L. Llandaff, L. Bp. Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.) London, L. Bp. Oxford, L. Bp. St. Asaph, L. Bp. Lawrence, L. Winchester, L. Bp. Leigh, L. Lyveden, L. Annaly, L. Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.) Barrogill, L. (E. Caithness.) Monson, L. Beaumont, L. Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.) Blantyre, L. Mostyn, L. Boyle, L. (E. Cork & Orrery.) Penzance, L. Romilly, L. Brougham and Vaux, L. Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.) Calthorpe, L. Camoys, L. Sandhurst, L. Carew, L. Sandys, L. Carysfort, L. (E. Cart's-fort.) Seaton, L. Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.) Castlemaine, L. Selbornc, L. Churchill, L. Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.) Clifford of Chudleigh, L. Clonbrock, L. Truro, L. Colchester, L. Vaux of Harrowden, L. Coleridge, L. [Teller.] Vernon, L. Congleton, L. Willoughby do Broke, L. Crewe, L. Crofton, L. Wolverton, L. [Teller.] Dacre, L. Worlingham, L. (E. Gasford.) Delamere, L. Fitzhardinge, L. Wrottesley, L. 1927
NOT-CONTENTS. Cairns, L. (L. Chancaller.) Haddington, E. Hardwicke, E. Harewood, E. Beaufort, D. Jersey, E. Bedford, D. Kimberley, E. Grafton, D. Lanesborough, E. Leeds, D. Lindsey, E. Manchester, D. Lucan, E. Marlborough, D. Macclesfield, E. Northumberland, D. Malmesbury, E. Richmond, D. Manvers, E. Somerset, D. Mar and Kellie, E. Minto, E. Abergavenny, M. Morley, E. Bristol, M. Morton, E. Hertford, M. Nelson, E. Lansdowne, M. Northbrook, E. Salisbury, M. Onslow, E. Portarlington, E. Amherst, E. Portsmouth, E. Beaconsfield, E. Powis, E. Beauchamp, E. Radnor, E. Bradford, E. Redesdale, E. Cadogan, E. Romney, E. Camperdown, E. Stanhope, E. Carnarvon, E. Stradbroke, E. Cathcart, E. Suffolk and Berkshire, E. Clonmell, E. Coventry, E. Tankerville, E. De La Warr, E. Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) Derby, E. Durham, E. Waldegrave, E. Eldon, E. Westmorland, E. Feversham, E. Wharncliffe, E. Resolved in the Negative.
Wicklow, E. Grey de Radcliffe, L. (V. Grey de Wilton.) Wilton, E. Hammond, L. Bangor, V. Hampton, L. Bridport, V. Hanmer, L. Clancarty, V. (E. Clantarty.) Harlech, L. Hardinge, V. Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.) Hawarden, V. [Teller.] Heytesbury, L. Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) Houghton, L. Inchiquin, L. Powerscourt, V. Kenlis, L. (M.Headfort.) Sidmouth, V. Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.) Templetown, V. Manners, L. Chichester, L. Bp. Moncreiff, L. Lichfield, L. Bp. Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.) St. Albans, L. Bp. Penrhyn, L. Abercromby, L. Raglan, L. Airey, L. Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.) Ashford, L. (V. Bury.) Aveland, L. Rivers, L. Bagot, L. Robartes, L. Blackburn, L. Sackville, L, Bolton, L. Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.) Braybrooke, L. Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.) Scarsdale, L. Sherborne, L. Carlingford, L. Silchester, L. (E. Long-ford) Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.) Sinclair, L. Clermont, L. Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.] Clinton, L. Cloncurry, L. Sondes, L. Colville of Culross, L. Stanley of Alderley, L. Cottesloe, L. Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.) de Ros, L. De Saumarez, L. Strathspey, L. (E. Sea-field.) Digby, L. Dinevor, L. Talbot de Malahide, L. Dorchester, L. Templemore, L. Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.) Tredegar, L. Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.) Dunsandle and Clanconal, L. Ventry, L. Eliot, L. Vivian, L Ellenborough, L. Walsingham, L. Elphinstone, L. Waveney, L. Forbes, L. Winmarleigh, L. Gage, L. (V. Gage.) Wynford, L. Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.) Zouche of Haryngworth, L.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONproposed the insertion of a new clause after Clause 74 to obviate certain legal difficulties which might arise in cases where persons seized or entitled in fee, in tail, or for life, or having the beneficial interest in any land or manor, wished to give lands for the making of burial grounds. The clause enabled such persons by way of gift to grant and convey in fee-simple any quantity not exceeding one acre for , such purpose, without the consent of the 1928 person next in remainder where the grantor had a limited interest.
Clause agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF HARROWBYbegged to assure their Lordships that he would not have troubled them with the repetition of a discussion upon an Amendment, which he would not say the they had rejected, but that they had not accepted in a former stage of the Bill, which was before them, if he had not received expressions of their regret that they had not been able to attend on a former occasion, and were very desirous of having an opportunity of recording their opinions. For himself, he could only say that reflection had only confirmed him in the conviction that it was desirable, in the interest of the Church itself, to close this controversy as soon as possible, and that in the manner which he had ventured to suggest. He did not rest and he never had rested, this opinion on the admission of a right on the part Nonconformists to burial within the precincts of the parish churchyard, with other rites than those of the Church of England. He could never see the trace of such a right in law or history. To interment they, in common with other in the like predicament, had a right, but with no other rites than those of the National Church. He rested his plea, in the first place, upon the desirableness of welcoming to our parochial burying-ground the remains of our Non-conforming brethren with the religious rites, which would have been most agreeable to their own feelings when living, unless it could be proved that such licence would be dangerous to the religious character of the place; and in this, he believed, a great number of those who objected to the proposed change would concur. But they imagined to themselves dangers of disorder and irreligion, which he could not but conceive arose from not having read the proposed clause, which made greater provision for the character of the proceedings at the grave than any which now existed; provision which he had borrowed, with the permission of the noble Lord opposite, from his proposed Amendment. If any stronger could be found, he was ready to adopt them; but he was satisfied of their efficiency for their purpose. But further, he would press upon his Church the expediency of making this concession 1929 at once, and at the present moment. The Church of England was never politically stronger than at present—both Houses of Parliament being strongly devoted to her interests. But it might not be always so. If advantage were not taken of the opportunity now presented, what would be the result? The grievances of the Dissenters were now fully admitted by the proposal of the Government. The remedy had been withdrawn. What must ensue? Agitation continued, and bitter on one side; resistance, equally bitter and exasperated, on the other side; but would any noble Lord have the courage to come forward and say that concession must not be the ultimate result? No longer, however, concession, in character with all its healing influences, but the result of defeat, when concession could no longer be withheld. He recollected an expression of the late Dr. Chalmers, in regard to the abolition of the Corn Laws. After enumerating the economical effect of abolition, he said that he expected something from it still more valuable—that it would sweeten the breath of civil society—and so it had. Grant this concession for the feelings of Nonconformists, and he (the Earl of Harrow by) was satisfied that it would sweeten the breath of ecclesiastical society and breathe peace, when it ought never to be disturbed. He would now move the Amendment of which he had given Notice:
Moved, to insert, after Clause 75, the following clause:—
When the relative or friend, having charge of the funeral of a person dying in any parish, or having had a right of interment in any parish, shall signify in writing to the incumbent of such parish, or to the curate in charge of the same, that it is his desire that the burial of the said person shall take place without the burial service of the Church of England, the said relative or person shall thereupon be at liberty to inter the deceased with such Christian and orderly religious services at the grave as he may think fit, or without any religious service; provided, that all regulations as to the position and making of the grave which would be in force in the case of a person interred with the service of the Church of England shall be in force as to such interment: Provided further, that notice of the time when it is the wish of the relatives or other persons as aforesaid to conduct the said interment shall be given to the incumbent or curate in charge at latest some time the day before: Provided further, that the said interment shall not take place at the time of or within half au hour before or after any service 1930 in the church, or of any funeral already appointed in the churchyard:If any person shall in any churchyard use any observance or ceremony or deliver any address not permitted by this Act or otherwise by any lawful authority, or be guilty of any disorderly conduct, or conduct calculated to provoke a breach of the peace, or shall under colour of any religious observance or otherwise in any churchyard wilfully endeavour to bring into contempt or obloquy the Christian religion, or the belief or worship of any church or denomination of Christians, or the ministers or any minister of any such church or denomination, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.—(The Earl of Harrowby.)
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he had no objection to make to the course which the noble Earl had adopted;—he thought that, from what had taken place on a former occasion, the noble Earl was fully justified in asking their Lordships to give their opinion again on this question. He did not think it necessary to repeat the arguments which he had used before, further than to say that the grievance was a very small one, and only applied to a very limited section of the community, and that it was constantly diminishing. he desired, however, to point out that if this Amendment was carried the Church of England would be the only body in the country which could not set apart a portion of ground for exclusive interment of persons of their communion. Were the Nonconformists the only body of men who were to have liberty of conscience? Was the Church of England not entitled to the same freedom of conscience? The proposal of the noble Earl entirely ignored the conscience of the Church of England, and the religious equality which ought to prevail as regarded that body. The Amendment of the noble Earl, taken by itself, could not possibly work. In the first place, since the abolition of the church rates, the Nonconformists, not having equal rights in the churchyards so far as the burial of their dead was concerned, had not been called upon to contribute to the maintenance and upholding of the churchyards; yet the noble Earl proposed to give them an equal right with the members of the Church of England for the interment of the dead in the churchyards. One of the defects in the proposed clause was that no provision was made in the event of a Nonconformist minister refusing to read the burial service over one of his congrega- 1931 tion. Was it proposed that in such case the clergyman attached to the church should be compelled to perform the Church Service? These were difficulties which the noble Earl should have provided against, if he wished his clause to pass.
§ EARL GRANVILLEreminded the noble Duke that the maintenance of the churchyards by Dissenters was entirely voluntary. If, however, the clause were adopted, and if the noble Duke proposed an additional rate for the imposition of a common rate upon all for the maintenance of the churchyard, such a clause should have his support. With regard to the other objection of the noble Duke, it should be remembered that a clergyman was now under an obligation to bury a Dissenter if called upon by his relatives to do so.
EARL NELSONobserved that the opinion of the Clergy on the subject of the clause had been taken, and it appeared that no fewer than 11,500 had signed a declaration against it. There was, it was true, a proviso at the end of the clause to prevent scandals; but as there was no prosecutor, he feared the proviso would have very little effect. For his part, he believed that if the Bill passed the landed proprietors of England, being enabled to do so, would by making grants of land remove whatever grievance now existed.
§ THE MARQUESS OF BRISTOLwas understood to support the clause.
LORD DINEVOR, in supporting the clause, said, he had received a letter from a clergyman of the Church, in which he said that but for Dissenters Wales would be a heathen country. He had himself had much intercourse with the Nonconformists of Wales, and had learned to regard them as brethren; and he held that they had a just right to have a funeral service performed by their own ministers over their relatives and friends in the parish churchyards. He hoped their Lordships would agree to the clause.
On Question? Their Lordships divided:.—Contents 127; Not-Contents 111: Majority 16.
1932
CONTENTS. Canterbury, L. Archp. Cleveland, D. Devonshire, D. Bedford, D. Grafton, D. 1933
Saint Albans, D. Camoys, L. Somerset, D. Carlingford, L. Westminster, D. Carrington, L. Castlemaine, L. Ailesbury, M. Churchill, L. Lansdowne, M. Clermont, L. Northampton, M. Clifford of Chudleigh, L. Ripon, M. Clonbrock, L. Coleridge, L. Abingdon, E. Congleton, L. Airlie, E. Cottesloe, L. Camperdown, E. Crewe, L. Cathcart, E. Crofton, L. Chichester, E. Delamere, L. Clarendon, E. D'L'Isleand Dudley, L. Cowper, E. De Mauley, L. Daltrey, E. Dinevor, L. Ducie, E. Dorchester, L. Durham, E. Dormer, L. Effingham, E. Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.) Essex, E. Granville, E. Emly, L. Harrowby, E. Fitzhardinge, L. Ilchester, E. Grinstead, L. (E.Ennis-killen.) Jersey, E. Kimberley, E. Gwydir, L. Lichfield, E. Hammond, L. Lucan, E. Hanmer, L. Minto, E. Hare, L. (E. Listowel.) Morley, E. Hatherley, L. Northbrook, E. Houghton, L. Portsmouth, E. Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.) Selkirk, E. Shaftesbury, E. Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.) Stradbroke, E. Strafford, E. Lawrence, L. Suffolk and Berkshire, E. Leigh, L. Lyttelton, L. Sydney, E. Lyveden, L. Verulam, E. Moncreiff, L. Monson, L. [Teller.] Bangor, V. Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.) Cardwell, V. Eversley, V. Mostyn, L. Falmouth, V. O'Hagan, L. Halifax, V. Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.) Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.) Penzance, L. Ribblesdale, L. Lifford, V. Robartes, L. Powerscourt, V. Romilly, L. Rosebery, L. (E. Boseberg.) Exeter, L. Bp. Oxford, L. Bp. Sandhurst, L. St. Asaph, L. Bp. Seaton, L. Selborne, L. Abercromby, L. Sherborne, L. Aberdare, L. Somerton, L. (E. Nor-manton.) Balfour of Burley, L. Barrogill, L (E. Caith-ness.) Stafford, L. Strafford, L. (V. En-field.) Bateman, L. Beaumont, L. Strathspey, L. (E. Sea-field.) Blackburn, L. Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.] Suffield, L. Talbot de Malahide, L. Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.) Vaux of Harrowden, L. Ventry, L. Brodrick, L. (V. Midle-ton.) Vernon, L. Waveney, L. Brougham and Vaux, L. Wolverton, L. Wrottesley, L. Calthorpe, L. Amendment agreed to.
NOT-CONTENTS. Cairns, L. (L. Chancellor.) Ashford, L. (V. Bury.) Bagot, L. Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.) Manchester, D. Marlborough, D. Braybrooke, L. Northumberland, D. Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.) Richmond, D. Clinton, L. Abergavenny, M. Cloncurry, L. Bath, M. Colchester, L. Bristol M. Colville of Culross, L. Hertford, M. do Ros, L. Salisbury, M. Do Saumarez, L. Dunmore, L. (E. Dun-more.) Amherst, E. Beaconsfield, E. Dunsandle and Clanconal, L. Beauchamp, E. Bradford, E. Ellenborough, L. Cadogan, E. Elphinstone, L. Carnarvon, E. Forbes, L. Clonmell, E. Forester, L. Coventry, E. Gage, L. (V. Gage.) De La Warr, E. Grey de Radcliffe, L. Derby, E. (V. Grey de Wilton.) Feversham, E. Hampton, L. Graham, E. (D. Mont-rose.) Harlech, L. Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.) Haddington, E. Hardwicke, E. Hawke, L. Harewood, E. Heytesbury, L. Harrington, E. Howard de Walden, L. Lanesborough, E. Kenlis, L. (M. Head-fort.) Lindsey, E. Manvers, E. Ker, L. (M. Lothian.) Mar and Kellie, E Level and Holland, L. (E. Agmont.) Morton, E. Nelson, E. Manners, L. Onslow, E. Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.) Portarlington, E. Powis, E. O'Neill, L. Redesdale, E. Oriel, L. (V. Masse-reene.) Romney, E. Stanhope, E. Ormonde, L. (M. Or-monde.) Tankerville, E. Vane, E. (M. London-decry.) Penrhyn, L. Raglan, L. Waldegrave, E. Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.) Wicklow, E. Bridport, V. Sackville, L. Clancarty , (E. V. Clan-carty.) Saltorsford, L. (E. Cour-town.) Doneraile, V. Scarsdale, L. Silchester, L. (E. Long-ford.) Hardinge, V. Hawarden, V. [Teller.] Sinclair, L. Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.] Sidmouth, V. Stanley of Alderley, L. Strathallan, V. Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.) Templetown, V. Bangor, L. Bp. Tredegar, L. Carlisle, L. Bp. Tyrone, L. (M. Water-ford.) Chichester, L. Bp. Ely, L. Bp. Walsingham, L. Hereford, L. Bp. Willoughby de Broke, L. Lichfield, L. Bp. Llandaff, L. Bp. Winmarleigh, L. St. Albans, L. Bp. Wynford, L. Airey, L. Zouche of Haryng-worth, L.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONAfter the division which has now been taken upon the clause moved by the noble Earl, I shall ask your Lordships to adjourn the further consideration of this Bill until this day week, in order that I may consult my Colleagues as to the course we shall take.
Further consideration of the Report put off to Monday next.
§ House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, 'till To-morrow, Eleven o'clock.