HL Deb 20 June 1879 vol 247 cc291-305

, in rising to move— That, in the opinion of this House, the Sittings of Public Business should commence at 4 P.M. instead of 5 P.M.

said, that the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Midleton), in moving a similar Resolution last Session—the debate on which was still fresh in their Lordships' memory—had explained the subject in detail, and it would not be necessary for him (the Earl of Dunraven), therefore, to speak at any length upon it now. The noble Viscount commenced by saying that the Sittings of this House divided themselves into three heads; an arrangement which, though it sounded somewhat peculiar, was so convenient that he would follow the same plan. The Sittings of their Lordships' House naturally fell into three classes. It not unfrequently happened that the House, having little Business before it, passed through that little quickly, and rose about half-past 5 or 6 o'clock. He saw nothing to be ashamed of in that respect. Provided the House got through its work well, there could be no reason why it should not get through it quickly. It would greatly conduce to the convenience of the House, on those occasions, if the House met at 4 o'clock and rose at half-past 4 or at 5, rather than meet at 5 and rise at half-past 5 or 6 o'clock. The former hour would be more suitable to Members serving on Select Committees, because those Committees adjourned at 4 o'clock, and noble Lords could hardly be expected to wait about for an hour on the chance that some interesting discussion might arise in the House. It would be more convenient, also, to the House in general, and would induce a larger attendance of Peers. It was not always possible to tell, by looking at the Notice Paper, whether anything of interest would come before the House, because discussions of considerable importance sometimes arose spontaneously, on the moment, and without any public Notice; and he felt sure many noble Lords would come down on the chance of any important debate arising, provided they felt that by doing so they would not, if disappointed, lose the entire afternoon. By meeting at 4 o'clock, there would be plenty of time, during the summer season, for their Lordships to ride or take exercise of any kind, to take advantage of trains leaving town at a convenient hour, or to go to outdoor places of amusement, when nothing of interest took place in the House; and in winter or spring, which was the same thing, only worse, they could console themselves, for lack of work, by the society of their friends at the most sociable hour of the day—5 o'clock. The present system was a direct premium on absenteeism. If it had been deemed advisable to weed out of the House all those Peers who were not resolutely determined to devote themselves to political life, no better plan could have been devised than to fix the hour of meeting for Business as it was at present fixed. Then there were the intermediate days on which unpremeditated debates arose which lasted till dinner-time, or discussions arising on important matters after due Notice, which never lasted beyond the same mystic hour. In fact, " the tocsin of the soul, the dinner-bell," tolled the knell of all debates in that House unless an important Division was expected, or some matter of vital interest to the Empire was under discussion. The extra hour before dinner-time which would be gained would be of the greatest use in these cases. It would allow of a reasonable amount of discussion on important topics, and the House would be able to pay more deliberate attention to the details of Bills in Committee. An hour did not represent a great lapse of time, but, practically speaking, it doubled the time at the disposal of the House. It would be a great advantage to all Members, and more especially to those who had the misfortune to have committed the " atrocious crime of being young men." He did not mean specially young in years, but young in the House. Many of them had to get all their experience in the House. They were in the lamentable position of being recruits delegated to the Reserves not only after short and inadequate service, but without any active service whatever. On occasions of great debates there was no difficulty in keeping a House to a late hour. But these occasions were rare; like angels' visits, they were " few and far between." The House sat till a late hour perhaps three or four times in a Session. On those occasions, no doubt, the more inexperienced Members were better employed in admiring the eloquence and listening to the opinions of certain noble Lords than in endeavouring to give utterance to their own thoughts; but it would be well if they could have some chance of joining in those debates, and an extra hour before dinner, by giving more time for the first two or three great speeches, might afford some opportunity for a little desultory firing during the dinner-time before the principal forces were again got into position after that hour. He was sorry to mention the dinner-hour so often, because it sounded as if their Lordships were especially fond of that entertainment. That idea was, of course, absurd. Their Lordships were always ready to subordinate their comfort to the public welfare on great occasions. But it was perfectly natural that the dinner-hour should form a legitimate boundary to the ordinary labours of the day. It would be easier to obtain the attendance of members of any assembly between the hours of 4 and 7.30 than between the hours of 5 and 8.30. The circumstances of the two Houses of Parliament were so different, it was useless to compare them. Besides, noble Lords were, no doubt, unselfishly anxious to avoid the social sin of being late for dinner. He believed the change would be to the convenience of society and of the House as a whole, with the possible exception of the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor). If it were a mere matter of personal convenience, he had no doubt that the noble and learned Lord would rise in his place and clamour to sacrifice himself to the general good; but, possibly, he thought of Lord Chancellors in the abstract, and of the legal business. The House might sit for appeals at 10 o'clock in the morning—and in doing so it would meet at the hour which all the Courts in the country met at. But if grave legal difficulties existed, he maintained that afforded no argument against the contemplated change—that was no reason why the House should lose an atom of its usefulness or sacrifice its convenience; but it did show cause why some change should be made as to the Speakership of the House. The House was its own Speaker—an anomalous state of things which had advantages, but which might lead to strange results. It was obvious that any Party in a majority might prevent the minority from ever speaking at all. That was not likely ever to be more than a theoretical possibility; but there were other objections. He would not mention them, as that was not actually the point in question. All he wished to say was that it would be better to alter the system than continue it to the detriment of the House. He did not believe it would be necessary to alter the system, because if the House sat for legal business at 10 o'clock, the Lord Chancellor could take his seat at half-past 4, or a quarter of an hour after the regular Business would commence. Surely the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees might occupy the Woolsack for those 15 minutes? And in cases where a Committee of the Whole House was the First Order of the Day there might be a Deputy Speaker or Chairman chosen. Those occasions occurred about 10 times in a Session. It would be necessary to have a Deputy Chairman for two hours and a-half each Session. He asked if such a small matter should weigh against the convenience of the whole House? He believed the alteration in the hour of assembling would increase the usefulness and add to the dignity of the proceedings of their Lordships' House.

Moved to resolve, That, in the opinion of this House, the Sittings for Public Business should commence at 4 P.M. instead of 5 P.M.—(The Earl of Dunraven.)


, in supporting the Motion of the noble Earl, said, the experience of their Lordships was in he favour of the proposed change. When brought a similar Motion forward last Session, his noble Friend at the head of the Government met it by statistics. Now, he found that in 1877 the House met 93 times and adjourned on 49 occasions before 6 o'clock. Last Session, it met 103 times and rose before 6 o'clock on only 47 occasions. Noble Lords left the building when the Select Committees adjourned and did not come back. On one occasion he met a noble Lord going home, and, on his asking him whether he intended to return, he said he had been serving on a Committee and was too exhausted to do so. It was obvious that if the House had been sitting he would have gone into it. The present arrangement for meeting had the effect of shutting out any discussion on the part of independent Peers, and confining the debates exclusively to Ministers and ex-Ministers. In the present Session, when the Afghan debate was about to be adjourned, his noble Friend at the head of the Government moved that the House should meet at 4 P.M. on the following day. The result was that the debate was resumed at that hour, and kept up until half-past 3 on the morning following. Acting on that precedent, he (Viscount Midleton) moved that the Zulu debate be resumed at 4 in the afternoon; but the Lord Chancellor said that an important appeal case would be interfered with by that arrangement, and the Prime Minister suggested that such a Motion ought not to be made without Notice. He did not press his Motion. Consequently, the debate was resumed at a quarter-past 5 and brought to a close at 12. Only 11 noble Lords took part in the debate, of whom seven were, or had been, Cabinet Ministers, two had been, or were, Under Secretaries of State, and one had been a permanent Under Secretary of State. On the occasion of the discussion of the Bill for Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister the debate ended by a quarter to 8, only three-quarters of an hour having been devoted to it after the noble Lord who had charge of the measure moved the second reading. When the Duke of Argyll brought forward the foreign policy of the Government, the dinner-hour approached before the noble Earl at the head of the Government could address their Lordships, and even his ability and eloquence could not keep a good attendance. The system of pairing was not in vogue in their Lordships' House, as it was in the House of Commons, and, therefore, noble Lords could not leave the House for a short time without running the risk of finding the Division taken before their return. The practical difficulties which it had been suggested were in the way of an earlier meeting could easily be surmounted. When noble Lords holding Office, or those who had done so, wished to address the House, no private Member with any decency could take part in the debate. There were three classes to be considered in this change. First, the officials, who would be placed in no worse position by such a change as that proposed than their colleagues in the House of Commons. With regard to the Lord Chancellor, who was the hardest-worked man in the House, he could be relieved by one or more Deputy Speakers, and he believed that any loss of dignity which might arise from such a course would be more than balanced by its convenience; and then, thirdly, with regard to the independent Members on both sides of the House and the leading Members of the Opposition, such a change as that proposed would be in their favour. Moreover, by the proposed change, younger Members of their Lordships' House would be listened to without impatience.


supported the Motion. In these days, when every institution must expect to be freely criticized, their Lordships' House should endeavour to do more legislative Business. Under the present system, the opportunities given to independent Members to express their opinions were almost nil; and, if by meeting earlier their Lordships were enabled to give more time to practical Business, the legislation of the House must be improved. Why, he asked, was it that all the work was thrown on the shoulders of one House and none on the other, but simply because there was no time given in their Lordships' House for transacting it before the dinner-hour? It was becoming more and more necessary that there should be an independent Chamber to check the Business that was not properly considered in the House of Commons. What was the use of that House, if they had no work to do? No less an authority than Mr. Gladstone had stated a few nights since, on the occasion of the debate on Indian finance, that the reason why a measure of such vast importance had not received its proper consideration was that the pressure of Business in the House of Commons was so great that there was not time enough for deliberate debate, even on questions of so grave a character. Of course, he (Lord Zouche) did not mean that the House of Lords would be competent to legislate on money Bills; but there was a large amount of intermediate Business which, if the House met an hour earlier, the less known Members of the House might usefully deal with.


expressed a hope that the Motion would be adopted. Those of their Lordships who attended the House regularly knew that on many occasions their Lordships had not adequate time to consider the intermediate class of Business that came before them. About a quarter to 7 o'clock the House became uneasy, and at 7 o'clock noble Lords who rose to address it alluded to the lateness of the hour and apologized for intruding. There was, in consequence, a general feeling that if a noble Lord wished to make a speech, he ought to be as quick as possible about it. It was said that noble Lords must get their dinners; but, then, when they had got their dinners, they did not return. The consequence was, that matters under discussion were left to the Lord Chancellor, a Minister or two, and such few Peers who might remain in the House. The debate last night did not commence until 7 o'clock. The consequence was, that one of the most important questions that could be brought before it—the great subject of Indian Finance—was debated in a thin House. At the magic hour of 7 the House consisted of about 12 Peers, and, at one time, if their Lordships had come to a Division, he was afraid it would have been found that their number had dwindled down to nine; and, at its conclusion, the audience consisted of the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon), the noble Lord at the Table (the Earl of Redesdale), and himself—


rose to Order. The question was the meeting of the House at 4 o'clock, and not last night's debate.


said, he was strictly in Order, inasmuch as the circumstance which he had stated showed that if the House had met at 4 instead of 5 o'clock, his noble Friend (the Earl of Northbroook) would have delivered his speech to a full instead of an empty House. He would ask their Lordships to imagine what would be the feelings of " the intelligent foreigner " who, after watching the lengthened proceedings of the House of Commons, should compare its diligence with the time devoted by their Lordships to such important questions as that to which he had referred?


My noble Friend who has addressed us with so much ability asks us what would be the feelings of a stranger if he had entered the House for the first time last night, when we were deliberating on Indian Finance. I can only say, that if a stranger had been here for the first time to-night, he would naturally have supposed that there was a plethora of business, that we were labouring under arrears, and that the most extreme measures must be taken at once in order that we should have time and opportunity to contend with the mass of affairs with which we are, unfortunately, so incommoded. My noble Friend (Lord Zouche), in the ingenious remarks addressed to us, was not very happy in his illustration. He said that it was one of the grievances of this House, which might ultimately be productive of injurious consequences, that we could not have debates on such subjects as Indian Finance. Now, the fact is that last night we had a debate on Indian Finance, and I am quite sure, if my noble Friend had addressed us on that subject with as much ability as he has done to-night, he would have received the utmost attention. But where was he? My noble Friend (Viscount Midleton) made reference to the Zulu debate. Now, it so happens that when Notice was given of bringing forward that subject, I, remembering the complaints that had been made of opportunities not being afforded to our younger Members for discussion, though I did not think those complaints well founded, took some pains to secure that there should be an adequate debate. I communicated with several Members of the House on both sides, in order to ascertain whether they desired to take part in the debate, expressing a hope that they would do so. Well, some of them did announce to me that they would participate in the discussion, and I looked forward with great confidence to the debate being sustained in a manner which would have done honour to the House. But I regret to say that when the opportunity came, and when I looked round, on the one side, for those who were to attack the policy of the Government, and, on the other, for those who were to buckle on their armour in its defence, no champions appeared. With regard to one of those noble Friends—who is capable of addressing us with power, and of whom I have had experience in the other House of Parliament—upon him I particularly counted. I had received what I regarded, of course, under a misapprehension, as a positive assurance that I might depend upon his taking part in the debate. Many were the messages sent, and many were the means taken to find out where my noble Friend was, but he could not be found. But, when I was on my legs, winding up the debate, what was my astonishment when I turned round and saw my noble Friend returning to the House in that peculiar costume which denotes the festive hour. A noble Earl seemed to think that the present hour of meeting is particularly inconvenient as regards those noble Lords who are serving on Select Committees. The Members of Committees labour during the morning in a manner the industry and efficiency of which are universally admitted; and it is refreshing to call to mind that the House of Lords has some virtues, when so many of its own Members are attacking its proceedings. The noble Earl complained that it was a great inconvenience that a Member serving on a Committee should not be able to proceed at 4 o'clock to his place in the House. My noble Friend who seconded the Motion (Viscount Midleton) completed the picture. He gave an instance — and as Sterne observes there is nothing like an individual instance, and that a solitary captive gave him the true idea of slavery, so my noble Friend met a Friend who had just left a Committee, and remonstrated with him for going away and not attending the debate. But the Friend said—"I cannot agree with your proposition that we should attend the House at 4 o'clock, because I am entirely exhausted." So the great grievance, therefore, is that we are not forcing exhausted Members to take part in our debates. I know very well that it is considered a great advantage by many noble Lords, that between the conclusion of the Committees and the commencement of the debate there should be an opportunity for Members to have some air and exercise, and then they return with renovated energies to the performance of their duties. During this debate we have had a great many remarks on the necessity of dining. One would really suppose that it was peculiar to the House of Lords that they could not go on without their dinners, and that Members of the other House of Parliament sacrified their meals without compunction. I know that what takes place in the House of Commons—what is brought forward as a model for us to imitate—is not very different from what takes place here. It is just as difficult to keep a House there during the dinner-hour as it is here. The Members of the House of Commons, inferior beings as they are, do dine, and they do so with the mortifying results which have been described with so much vigour as if they were peculiar characteristics of the Senate of England. Unfortunately, last evening, the House was not so full as might have been desired, and some of my Colleagues, who possess much experience and eloquence, had not an audience numerically worthy of the occasion; but I understand, from the usual sources of intelligence, that on a late occasion, when the same question —the Finances of India—was under consideration in "another place," and when the House was addressed by a Member of great Indian experience, and who is an effective speaker, and afterwards by the great master of eloquence in this age, the attendance did not exceed four Members. Therefore, your Lordships' House gains by the comparison, because, on the showing of the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown) we had at all periods of the previous evening a much larger attendance than that. He admits that there were nine Peers who sacrificed their dinners, and sat throughout the debate. Before your Lordships come to the conclusion which the noble Earl the Mover of the Resolution recommends, your Lordships have to consider something more than the convenience of my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack. Your Lordships must remember, a few years ago, when there was a prospect of your being deprived of your judicial powers, you very properly resented that attempt, and. you vindicated and preserved your privileges as the great Court of the Kingdom. A Bill was introduced which secured those privileges, and constructed on a larger scale the machinery by which those great duties should be fulfilled. That included a number of Peers of eminence, who formed a body for judicial func- tions. It is well to consider whether it is desirable that this considerable number of Members should be called upon to commence their Parliamentary duties without the slightest interval for refreshment or repose. Again, I venture to make another remark on behalf of those whose case has never been stated to the House. I mean the Ministers of the Crown. The Business of the country is increasing every day, and it is extremely difficult for those who till the great Offices of State to keep pace with the demand on their time and attention. But it may be said that the Ministers who are Members of the House of Commons have to attend there at an earlier hour. The pressure of Public Business in the House of Commons is so extreme that it must be met in the manner most conducive to its discharge; but all who have been Ministers know that the hour from 4 to 5 is most precious for the performance of Business, and it is highly desirable that the time which the Members of the Administration possess should be curtailed as little as possible. Some of the great Departments of the State are filled by persons who are Members of your Lordships' House. Of late years this has been the case to a greater extent than before. I myself fill an Office of constant care and labour. The Secretaries of State for more than one Public Department have seats in this House, and men who have experience of those Offices will tell your Lordships that it is a great boon to a Minister—like the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, for instance—to have the hour from 4 to 5 at his disposal. Even a Minister who rises early can scarcely expect to get well to his work before 11 o'clock, considering the immense mass of correspondence with which he has first to deal. There are then five or six hours, some portion of which must be given to refreshment and exercise, and it is, therefore, an object of importance to a man thus situated that he should have that hour of leisure which hitherto the House of Lords has so conveniently afforded him. These are considerations which, in my opinion, ought to have some degree of weight with your Lordships in coming to a decision on the question before you. The issue, I may add, has been entirely changed during the progress of the discussion; and the fact that the House met at 4, instead of 5 o'clock, would not at all remove the evils on which one or two of the noble Lords who spoke in the debate dilated. The House is asked to make this considerable change, not because it has work which it cannot get through—not because there is a large amount of arrears of Business—but because, inreality, we have not as much work as we can do, and on frequent occasions we have had to adjourn for lack of work. In these circumstances it is, that it is proposed that the whole judicial body of the House shall be disturbed—that the time of leisure most valuable to Ministers shall be curtailed — that Deputy Speakers shall be appointed—and that machinery of a colossal kind shall be set up. One would naturally suppose that the House of Lords were overwhelmed, and in despair with the Business crowding their Table, and that you were inventing this comprehensive and colossal machinery for the purpose of encountering the difficulty. Under all the circumstances of the case, I hope your Lordships will not assent to the Motion.


said, that as he had spoken on this question when it was last brought before the House, he should not trespass on their Lordships' time at any length upon the present occasion. He agreed with the noble Earl who had just sat down, that the House was not overwhelmed with a plethora of Business—he scarcely remembered a Session in which it had so little to occupy its time as the present. As to the young Peers, he thought it was most desirable they should be afforded the opportunity of speaking; but he could not help adding that he thought they might create more frequent opportunities of doing so for themselves. Many of the young Members of the House might find the occasion for addressing their Lordships if they would only take the initiative, and he hoped they would do so more frequently in the future. He had no doubt, however, that it operated as a great discouragement to them to have to speak when the House was looking forward to breaking up. Whether they were likely to be much encouraged by the charming raillery of the Prime Minister, and whether they would not probably deem it better to postpone their speeches until he had spoken, he would not say. But be that as it might, he, for one, should be glad to see them afford the House more frequent opportunities for admiring the ability which they undoubtedly possessed. As far as he could make out, the young Peers were in favour of the proposed change, and it was one, therefore, which was likely to be again brought under their Lordships' notice. He was glad that on the present occasion the proposal had enabled the noble Earl opposite to correct some exaggerated notions which seemed to have gone forth to the public as to their Lordships' anxiety about the dinner-hour. It was not a peculiarity of the Members of the House of Lords to desire to dine. That was a most laudable desire, which was fully shared in " another place." What happened, generally speaking, was that while there was no Assembly more willing to assist at an important debate, yet when a prolonged conversation occurred in which the great majority did not intend to speak, and there was no question of a Division, many of their Lordships, having previously made their arrangements, naturally did not care to postpone them. He was, therefore, disposed to think that the change which was suggested might be found of use in giving time for the transaction of what might be called "intermediate Business," and he certainly had heard no argument from the Prime Minister to show it would not be an advantage to the House in its political character to have the additional hour before dinner for the purpose. As to the judicial argument, he would observe that he had always thought it hard that the Lord Chancellor, who had Judicial as well as Ministerial duties to perform, should be obliged to remain in the House throughout the evening in a way in which no other Peer was required to do; and he would remind the noble Earl (the Earl of Dunraven), that the suggestion of appointing a Deputy Speaker was not a new one, as he seemed to suppose; nor could he, for one, see any objection to returning to the practice of appointing such an officer, so that the Lord Chancellor might be relieved, not only between the hours of 4 and 5, but more frequently, from duties which must be very irksome to a man who was so hard worked. As to the members of the Judicial Body generally, he did not think they shared in the wish to have the additional hour at their disposal. His noble and learned Friend Lord Selborne, for instance, stated last year that he thought the proposed change would be exceedingly desirable. As regarded the Ministers, he agreed with the noble Earl that they were, for the most part, overworked—especially in the House of Commons, where they had more to go through than almost any human being could endure. The same remark, however, did not apply with equal force to those Ministers who had seats in their Lordships' House, who had no such extravagant demands made upon their time, and whom there would be nothing to prevent from returning to their Offices on many evenings if the House were to meet at 4. He did not think, therefore, the Ministerial objections ought to be allowed to stand in the way of the change, and he should be happy to support the Motion of his noble Friend.

On Question? Their Lordships' divided:—Contents 64; Not-Contents 101: Majority 37.

Westminster, D. Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)
Lansdowne, M. Brodrick. L. (V. Midleton.)
Ripon, M. Carlingford, L.
Airlie, E. Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)
Camperdown, E.[Teller.] Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)
Carnarvon, E.
Cowper, E. Clermont, L.
Denbigh, E. Conyers, L.
Fortescue, E. Cottesloe, L.
Granville, E. Crewe, L.
Grey, E. Crofton, L.
Ilchester, E. Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)
Kimberley, E.
Lovelace, E. Emly, L.
Morley, E. Foley, L.
Morton, E. Granard, L. (E. Granard.)
Northbrook, E.
Onslow, E. Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)
Powis, E.
Romney, E. Houghton, L.
Rosse, E. Inchiquin, L.
Shaftesbury, E. Keane, L.
Spencer, E. Kenry, L. (E. Dunravenand Mount-Earl.) [Teller.]
Sydney, E.
Canterbury, V. Leconfield, L.
Cardwell, V. Monson, L.
Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.) Mostyn, L.
Oranmore and Browne, L.
Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.) Ribblesdale, L.
Portman, V. Sandhurst, L.
Powerscourt, V. Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)
Aberdare, L. Stewart of Garlies, L.(E. Galloway.)
Blachford, L.
Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.) Sudeley, L.
Waveney, L.
Stratheden and Campbell, L. Zouche of Haryngworth, L.
Canterbury, L. Archp. Aveland, L.
Cairns, E. (L. Chancellor.) Bagot, L.
Balfour of Burley, L.
Blantyre, L.
Bedford, D. Bolton, L.
Northumberland, D. Braybrooke, L.
Richmond, D. Castlemaine, L.
Wellington, D. Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)
Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.) Clinton, L.
Clonbrock, L.
Abergavenny, M. Cloncurry, L.
Ailesbury, M. Colville of Culross, L.
Bristol, M. De Mauley, L.
Salisbury, M. de Ros, L.
De Sanmarez, L.
Amherst, E. Dunsandle and Clanconal, L.
Annesley, E.
Bathurst, E. Forbes, L.
Beaconsfield, E. Gage, L. (V. Gage.)
Beauchamp, E. Gerard, L.
Belmore, E. Gordon of Drumearn, L.
Bradford, E. Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)
Cadogan, E.
Clonmell, E. Grey de Radcliffe, L. (V. Grey de Wilton.)
Coventry, E.
Dartrey, E. Hammond, L.
Devon, E. Hampton, L.
Ducie, E. Harlech, L.
Dundonald, E. Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)
Ellesmere, E.
Hardwicke, E. Hylton, L.
Jersey, E. Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)
Lanesborough, E.
Lucan, E. Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)
Manvers, E.
Mar and Kellie, E. Norton, L.
Nelson, E. Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)
Ravensworth, E.
Redesdale, E. Penrhyn, L.
Saint Germans, E. Raglan, L.
Selkirk, E. Rivers, L.
Somers, E. Robartes, L.
Stanhope, E. Romilly, L.
Stradbroke, E. Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)
Strange, E. (D. Athol.)
Tankerville, E. Saltoun, L.
Verulam, E. Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)
Waldegrave, E.
Wilton, E. Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.]
Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.) Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)
Cranbrook, V. Templemore, L.
Hardinge, V. Tollemache, L.
Hawarden, V. [Teller.] Tredegar, L.
Hood, V. Truro, L.
Melville, V. Walsingham, L.
Winmarleigh, L.
Airey, L. Wynford, L.
Ashford, L. (V.Bury.)

Resolved in the Negative.

House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.