HL Deb 08 August 1898 vol 64 cc444-60

Message received from the Commons stating that they agreed with several of the Amendments made by the Lords to the Vaccination Bill, but that they disagreed with the Amendment to strike cut clause 2 on the ground that unless some provision were made for those who conscientiously objected to vaccination, the enforcement of vaccination would be impracticable in many districts, and that the Amendment is not in the interests of the promotion of vaccination.


My Lords, I have to ask your Lordships not to insist on the Amendment to which the House of Commons have disagreed. I do not think I have much to add to what I have already said upon this subject, but I should like to repeat once more the argument I used the other night with regard to the three classes of parents who are affected by the particular clause which is under discussion. As I said the other night, the parents may be divided into three classes—the unwilling parent, the willing parent, and the lazy parent. As to the unwilling parents, it does not matter what law you pass, they will not have their children vaccinated. The willing parents are as likely to be willing to have their children vaccinated now, if this clause is accepted, as they were before, because they will be put to less trouble. The only class of parent you have to consider is the lazy, negligent parent. Under the present law these parents have to take their children to the vaccination station, possibly at some distance, and possibly in inclement weather. In fact, they are put to a great deal of trouble; but, if this clause is accepted, these parents are actually saved trouble. The vaccinating officer comes to their house and offers to vaccinate the child, and they are put to no trouble whatever; if, on the other hand, they want to obtain this exemption from the magistrates, they have to take the trouble to go to petty sessions and prove their case. I submit from the practical point of view, therefore, that it is far more likely that there will be an increase of vaccination with the clause in than under the present law, and I hope your Lordships will not insist on your Amendment, The question your Lordships have to consider to-night is whether you will accept this clause—the conscientious exemption clause—which the House of Commons has put in again, or whether the other advantages of the Bill are to be lost, at any rate, for this year. I repeat what I have already said, that it is my honest conviction that the Bill, as it now comes before your Lordships, is more likely to encourage vaccination than the Act as it at present exists, or the Bill as it was originally introduced into the House of Commons. I hope your Lordships will agree with the Commons' Amendment.


My Lords, I have taken so little part in political discussion now for some years that I feel I owe almost an apology to the House for venturing to trespass on your Lordships' time for even a few moments. I was unable to be present the other day when the Bill was discussed, but I should nit like it to go through, as I suppose it will, one way or the other to-day, without offering my protest against what I believe to be legislation the most subversive of good government which has taken place in recent times. No one of your Lordships, I imagine, will for a moment deny the advantages that have been derived from vaccination. No one, at all events, who can remember as I can the former effect of this horrible disease upon so many people, will hesitate to admit the advantages that have been derived from vaccination. Now, we are asked, because a few faddists choose to pose under the name of "conscientious objectors," to pass an exemption which will allow them to imperil not only the lives, as we believe, of their own children, but the lives of others who may be brought in contact with them. If people are allowed to set the law at defiance at their own sweet will, where are we to stop? I can conceive—it may be a ludicrous idea—that the burglar may have a conscientious objection to your interfering with his liberty, but in that case you are only protecting property, and not the health of the community. And from what I saw in the newspapers the other day, even to Mr. Long's Act, which is supposed to protect us from that terrible disease, rabies, there may be conscientious objectors. I believe there were improvements to the present law in the Bill as it was first brought in by the Government, and that that Bill would have been a great boon to the country. By rejecting the clause we shall only be delaying the matter for another year, as the responsibility to bring in a Bill of this kind will lie on the Government, if they believe, as I think they do, in the advantage of the improvements they propose to introduce. I will not occupy your Lordships' time longer, but I did not like, as an old Parliamentary hand in another place, to let this Bill pass without expressing my protest against what I believe to be a mischievous departure in legislation. I hope your Lordships will adhere to the decision you came to the other day.


My Lords, I am unwilling to give a silent vote on this question to-day, because I was not in my place last week when the Bill came before your Lordships. I feel very strongly that nothing has been said by Members of the Government to show why this clause could not have been omitted and the rest of the Bill, which contains many important Amendments of the present law, accepted. If the Government choose to abandon the Bill for the present Session it will simply be to postpone it for six months. It seems to me that there is a determination at the present moment on the Front Bench in both Houses of 'Parliament to try and force through the whole Bill. I must say with the deepest regret, having supported Her Majesty's Government in this House and the other House for several years, that there seems to be a general feeling growing up all over the country, as well as in Parliament, that a change has come over those who lead the Conservative Party, and that less attention is being paid by the Government to the wishes of the Members of the Conservative Party than used to be the case. Whether this is owing to the very large majority in the other House it is not for me to say. I will exemplify this by one illustration. In the case of the Employers' Liability Bill of last year, which affected very large industries in the northern, and midland counties of England, Amendments were moved which had the support of over 60 Members of the Conservative Party, but no attention was paid to them. I can assure the Government that this is not forgotten in the northern and midland counties. Moreover, of the 38 Members who supported the clause under discussion the other day 30 were Members of the Government or those holding official positions, and in the division in the House of Commons the Leader of the Oppositon and about 40 followers of the Radical and Irish Parties supported the Government in sending this clause back to your Lordships. I think the Conservative Party have a right to say that the legislation of the present Government is not to be conducted simply by the votes of the Leader of the Opposition and the Radical and Irish Parties. If the Government choose, in consequence of your Lordships insisting, as I hope you will, on your Amendment, to withdraw the Bill and not carry the other clauses that may prove beneficial, then the responsibility must rest with them and them, alone. I am quite sure a. great deal more would be got by the Government consulting the feelings of their followers all over the country than by endeavouring to catch a few votes.


My Lords, as a, humble supporter of the Government, who felt compelled to register his vote against them when this Bill was before your Lordships on the last occasion, I should like to be allowed to say one word. I do not know how this Debate is going to end, nor what the result of the Division will be, but I would venture to make an earnest appeal to Her Majesty's Government, even at the last moment, to- consider well and pause before they force through this Measure, which is undoubtedly and admittedly obnoxious to a large majority of the people of this country. I say "admittedly," because, my Lords, it has never been attempted to be shown that there is anything like a majority against vaccination. On the contrary, it is admitted that there is a great majority in favour of it. The facts show that there are at least two-thirds of the people in favour of the law as it stands, with, possibly, such modifications as may be necessary without altering it in this vital particular. Another reason why I think this clause as it stands should not be carried, is that it will not be workable. It provides that a conscientious objector may go before two magistrates and there make a declaration that he objects to vaccination. This puts a very undesirable and very responsible duty upon the magistrates, because they have to determine whether the applicant is telling the truth or not. The result will be that this will degenerate into a mere form. The clause seems to be loosely drafted, because it does not stipulate in what form the declaration has to be made—whether the conscientious objector has to make a statement or sign a paper; and I do not think it is laid down whether it is to be on oath or not. At any rate, we can anticipate that it will be a dead letter. It has, however, occurred to me that, with a little further consideration, this clause, if it is necessary to pass it at all, might be passed in better form. Having regard to the methods of operation of the antivaccinationists, I suggest that the clause might be so altered as to provide for the objector to come, in the first instance, before one or two medical men, who could interrogate him as to the grounds of his objection, and point out the dangers of non-vaccination, and the advantages of the new lymph as obviating any danger. Afterwards, if it was necessary, the matter could be left for magisterial determination. Of course, there is no time for such an alteration of the clause this Session, but what I have said points to the great desirability of this very important matter being reconsidered. The clause has been practically sprung upon the House of Commons and the country, and I venture to think that if it is passed in its present form it will not be giving the great cause of vaccination a fair chance, while it will be exposing the country to great danger. Even if this Bill is postponed until the next Session of Parliament, as I would suggest it should be, the country will be subjected to no disadvantage, for there is no reason why the Government could not direct the use of the new lymph by the public vaccinators without the necessity of passing a Bill. Therefore, I cannot see what you would really lose by postponing this Bill for a few months only; but, on the other hand, a good deal is to be gained, because much valuable opinion will, no doubt, make itself heard, which will be available for utilisation by the Government when next they introduce the Measure, whilst another advantage of postponement will be that it will obviate any possible question of friction or disagreement between the two Houses of Parliament.


My Lords, on the last occasion when this question was considered by your Lordships, my noble Friend at the head of the Government made a speech of great force and great ingenuity, which was delivered with more than his usual eloquence, to convince the House that we should accept this clause. I wish, for one moment, to direct the attention of the House to the difference between the arguments used by my noble Friend at the head of the Government and those which have been pressed upon us by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. One of the arguments relied upon by the latter—certainly the one upon which he laid most emphasis—was that lit would be an uncommonly bold thing on our part to resist the recommendations of the Royal Commission. There is a slightly comic element involved in his being so exceedingly shocked at our boldness, and his not seeing any boldness at all in the fact of the Government, in the first instance, having taken exactly the same course. I confess I do not read the Report of the Royal Commission quite in the same way as the noble Lord. The Report of the Commission is explicit enough as to the inexpediency of reiterated and repeated penalties, and as to that I think we are all of one mind; but I do not read the Report as saying that the penalties should not be inflicted1 at all upon objectors. That is not, however, of great importance, The noble Marquess at the head of the Government, who spoke as a statesman, and presented to us a large and intelligent issue, dwelt, and dwelt nobly, on a great truth, which is not so much recognised as it should be—namely, the inutility of making laws unless you have public opinion to back up their enforcement. That was the sum and substance of the speech of the noble Marquess, and, as your Lordships will perceive, that completely throws over the conscientious objector. It is the objector as such that the noble Marquess speaks of, and not merely the conscientious one; his argument is that you have not a sufficiently united public opinion to enable you to enforce the law. It is not because he is a conscientious objector that my noble Friend wishes to1 relieve the parent, but because there is an amount of objection, conscientious or not, which makes it difficult to execute the law. That is an essentially different point. I suppose at this stage of the Bill it is impossible to propose any Amendment; otherwise I should like to have moved to omit the word "conscientious," and leave the clause in appearance that which it is in fact—namely, a, provision to enable any objector to evade compliance with the law. If the speech made by the noble Marquess at the head of the Government had been made in the first instance by the Minister who introduced the Bill, I for one would have accepted on the authority of the Government the assurance that there was a necessity to pass such a clause. I should have done so with regret, because I believe the clause is more likely to do mischief than good. and because it introduces the new and dangerous doctrine that conscientious objection on the part of an individual is to be a sufficient excuse for disobedience to a law passed in the general interest. We have been told, and I have been accustomed to believe hitherto, that in this country, at least, we had some reverence for the laws ourselves have made, though we might do our best to have them amended when we consider them objectionable. Though I should have gone with the Government if they had told the House in the first instance that such a Measure was necessary, the position now before us is very different, because the Government themselves deliberately, and after full consideration, determined that the Bill should be presented to Parliament without this "conscientious objection" clause. The clause has been foisted into the Bill by pressure upon the Government; they did not originate it, though apparently they have adopted it with all the zeal of converts, and the House is now told that the rejection of this clause means the loss of the Bill. I do not think we have any right offhand to assume that the House of Commons will not respect the reiterated decision of this House on that point, and that the Bill will be dropped. I have known not very long ago Amendments made in your Lordships' House rejected by the Commons, but, being returned, finally accepted by the other House. I allude to the Parish Councils Act. Why should that not happen in this case? The Government have the power, if they choose, to pass the Bill as they originally drafted it. There are some admittedly good points about the Bill, and there is no necessity for it being dropped. The noble Lord, Lord Lister, the other night expressed a fear that if the Bill were lost the Government would not reintroduce it; but that is a matter for which we are not responsible, but the Government. The question for us is— which will be the least harmful, the non-passing of the Bill now, or the passing of it with this clause in it? We believe that the postponement of the Bill, which need only be a postponement, as my noble Friend who has just spoken pointed out, for a few months, would be the least evil. Lord Lister, on the other hand, thinks that would be the greater evil, but I would venture to point out to your Lordships that his great fame and great reputation have been earned in a far nobler field than that of political struggles, and that on a question of practical politics we are justified in not ranking his opinion quite so highly as we should on a question of medical science. It is evident that Lord Lister's desire that the Bill should pass now was greatly prompted by the hope that next year the Government would bring in a Bill for compulsory revaccination of adults. He is led by a mere ignis fatuus; for anyone who has had practical experience of public life must be well aware that neither next year or ever will any Government voluntarily introduce a Measure certain to encounter such widespread opposition. I hope your Lordships will adhere to your decision.


My Lords, I desire to express my strong and conscientious objection to this clause, which certainly opens up the greatest danger to the lives of thousands of our children, and the risk of moral deterioration, in holding out an invitation to our fellow-countrymen to come forward, not as honest objectors at the polls, but as "conscientious" objectors. You are practically inviting them to bear false witness, before their countrymen. The whole clause is too ill considered to be worth serious discussion at the hands of experienced men. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill indicated three classes of the community concerned—the parents who willingly submit their children for vaccination, and those do not require to be dealt with at all; the lazy parents, and their case is admirably met by the domiciliary visits of the doctor; and, lastly, there are the unwilling parents, and they are to be called "conscientious objectors." Well, if concessions are made to this class, you may say goodbye to most of your laws. You will find conscientious objectors, rising up as thickly as possible in all directions. I think, therefore, my Lords, that it will be wise and judicious, and in conform, it with the wishes of the majority of your countrymen, of whom you have often proved the truest representatives, if you obey their mandate—a, mandate which is expressed by a majority of 140 in the House of Commons (though not, I admit, in relation to this particular issue), and, at the same time, obey your own consciences, by insisting on the exclusion of the clause, thereby saving the lives of thousands of children, and preventing this country from becoming the centre of infection for other countries.


My Lords, after what has fallen from the noble Lords who have spoken, I do not think that I shall be justified in detaining your Lordships more than one or two minutes. I cannot admit that the only choice lies between the Bill with the clause in it, or no Bill at all. It appears to me that there is a third alternative—the passing of the Bill without the second clause. It seems extraordinary that we cannot do so when we remember that the Bill without the second clause is very much the same Bill as was first introduced by the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board in the other House. Supposing the Bill is lost: the responsibility will lie with the Government. If I were asked whether I would prefer the Bill to pass with the second clause included, or not at all, I, for one, would much prefer that it should not pass, for I think the second clause involves a great danger to the health of the people of this country. I regard the clause as one which is likely to produce great evils, and I hope your Lordships will follow the advice of the noble Lords who have preceded me, and adhere to the decision we arrived at the other night. Lord Lister then said he would be glad if the Bill could be withdrawn this year, and brought in again next year with other improvements, and I think that would be the best and wisest course to pursue.


My Lords, I venture to urge upon your Lordships to take the third alternative my noble Friend has just suggested. I can hardly conceive it possible that, if your Lordships were to insist upon the rejection of this clause, the House of Commons, which will have got by the first clause that which Lord Harris said they would not dare to postpone for a day, would refuse to go on with the Bill on that account. For myself, I detest all options, local or indi- vidual, that have to do with obedience to the law. Conscientious objection to obedience to the law is subversive of all law if you legalise it, and the principle of this clause is to legalise disobedience to the law. To that I most entirely object. I very much hope that the Government will use the influence they have in the House of Commons to induce that House to change their minds once again. They have changed it once, and put in a second clause which was inconsistent with the first, and there is no reason why they should not change their minds once again. I think this clause, to which we-conscientiously object, only panders to the sense of those people who, as a physician stated in the Times the other day, wish to get rid of vaccination, and, I think he said, all other foolish, prophylactic inoculations. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will insist on the rejection of this clause.


My Lords, I am sure it is the general wish that we should come to a Division as soon as possible. I only wish to say, as one of those who told the noble Earl, the Earl of Feversham, that I should vote again in favour of insisting upon the action we took the other night, that I have been waiting to see if there was still one independent Conservative Peer who who rise to support this clause. We have already had several speeches from members of the Government, but we have not had the testimony, as yet, of one single independent Conservative or Unionist Peer in favour of this clause. My Lords, I entirely endorse the views which fell from my noble Friend Lord Galway. I believe there is a strong feeling against this conscience clause in the country, and if we insist on the course we took last Friday, I am sure we shall receive, as we deserve, the support of the country at large.


My Lords, we have heard a good many statistics and estimates of force, which appear to me to be derived rather from the internal consciousness of the speakers than from any evidence on which they can rely. I think the noble. Lord who has just sat down and two or three other speakers have insisted that the country is very strongly on the side of the 40 who voted the other night, and very strongly against the 38. Well, my Lords, I do not know where that information comes from. The House of Commons apparently here by common consent has been ruled out as a body which knows nothing of the opinion of the country, and I will not venture, before an audience which might be unfavourable, to plead any title which they might have to that distinction. But, apart from the Vote of the House of Commons, I really know no means of ascertaining what the opinion of the country is, and I think we must come to our decision without placing that weight either in one scale or in the other. But if it is difficult to ascertain what the opinion of the country is, it seems to me to be still more difficult for many noble Lords to forecast what the result of their action will be if the Amendment is insisted on this evening. I have very little to add to what I said the other night, and I speak with great hesitation, because I observe that my noble Friend Lord Feversham has taxed me with threatening the House of Lords because I said I thought the result of the Amendment would be to destroy the Bill.


I beg the noble Marquess's pardon. I never used the word "threat."


I think you used the word "menace."


I have no recollection of it. I never used the word "menace."


Did you not? Then I beg your pardon; but I certainly understood the noble Earl to say so. I can assure your Lordships that I never intended—it would have been most absurd and improper on my part to have done so—that anything I said should have the slightest tinge of menace about it. It would be as absurd to tax me with menace because I attempted to forecast what was going to happen as it would be to say that the weather forecast menaces you with rain. My object is just to see what is likely to happen if, in the state of things as it is now, the House of Lords insists on this Amendment, What would the conduct of the House of Commons be? I know no other way of judging of the conduct of another assembly than by asking what would be the conduct of this assembly in corresponding circumstances. Supposing that you had passed a provision by a majority of 90, and supposing the House of Commons sent it back to you refused by a majority of two? Do you mean to tell me that the House of Lords would accept the verdict of the two and efface the verdict of the 90? I am quite certain, from a long experience of this House, that the House of Lords would do nothing of the kind. Well, then, that is the case we have to deal with in the House of Commons. If the House of Commons are asked to change their mind—as my noble Friend, with an unkind sarcasm, said, "Change their mind once again"—my impression is that they would ask to see by what majority that demand had been made upon them, and that when they found that the majority by which the clause was originally struck out was only two, I think they would be very much disposed to adhere to the resolution that they came to by a majority of 90. That seems to me to be the probability of the case, and I utterly deny that there is any impropriety in forecasting the decision of the House of Commons by such lights as we have on the subject. But, of course, if the House of Commons adhere to their Vote, it is not a question of discussion, it is not a matter of argument, it is a matter of fact—the Bill falls ipso facto. The Bill disappears, and that is a matter of rule. Some noble Lords seem to think that, directly Parliament meets, the Government will be eager again to introduce a Vaccination Bill to the attention of Parliament. I do not venture to make any prophecy on that subject. I have no doubt the Government will do whatever it thinks most advantageous to the public service and most likely to promote the progress of public business. But I have observed that when there is a difference of opinion between the two Houses on a Measure, Governments are anxious to avoid touch- ing that subject as long as they can; and I doubt very much myself whether there will be any great desire to introduce the subject on which the House of Commons and the House of Lords appear to be in a hopelessly different frame of mind. Therefore the probability of a Measure next year, though I do not put it aside altogether, seems to me to be very faint. If there is not a Measure next year, if we have to go on to the Dissolution, if we have to go on with the law as it is, do you think that the law as it is will be a very efficacious instrument? I observe that everybody thinks only of the conscientious objector, and whatever else I may praise in the Bill I do not praise the person who invented that phrase, because it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject. The conscientious objector is only in a secondary degree the important person. There is no doubt that a penalty falls upon him if he declines to obey the law, and there is no doubt that it is that penalty inflicted on him by the law that has created that public opinion in a considerable section of the people with which we have to deal. But it is not his objection to have his child vaccinated which is the most formidable manifestation of that opinion. What we really have to deal with is the action of local authorities, and it is now a matter of experience that one-fourth, I think, of the local authorities of the country decline to promote and work this law. Well, if you have no power over the local authorities you cannot, say, "Let us vindicate the law and send them to prison." They are the masters in this matter. You can recast the whole system on which you are working and allow vaccination to proceed by a decree from Whitehall, but, apart from all other difficulties that attach to that process it means an entirely new Bill, and a very formidable contest in Parliament. If you leave the matter as it stands, no doubt you depend upon the feeling of the local authorities, and, so far as we are able to see, the feeling of the local authorities is more and more against carrying out the Bill, and against that feeling you are powerless. You have not even the gratification of saying that they pretend to be conscientious, and that, therefore, you will punish them, because they have not got to advance the conscientious plea which offends you so much. They do it by their own will, and there is no' appeal from their action, and if they choose not to fulfil the law, if the law does not sufficiently impress them to induce them to act upon it, the number of cases where the law is not put into force will grow gradually more, the disrespect in which it is held will increase, the popular respect for vaccination which you desire, and justly desire, to disseminate and augment will become less and less, and you will have presented to yourself all over the country a fight in one local body after another, in which the issue will not be so much vaccination or not vaccination, but an issue running into all kinds of collateral and political issues, in which the fact that the law only exists by the will of a majority of two in the House of Lords, and has been condemned by a large majority in the House of Commons, you may be certain will not be forgotten, but will be very constantly insisted upon. My Lords, I do not look to the effect of this, except in one direction; I ask what effect will that have upon that willing adoption of vaccination which is the only healthy result which you can desire to accomplish? If you pass this Bill now there is nothing whatever, suppose the difficulties about the conscientious objector turn out to be real, to prevent you having another Bill to strengthen what may be thought to be too weak in this Bill. But, at all events, you will have offered an opportunity to those who say your coercion is a mistake, and you will have given an experimental trial to those improved processes by which you hope the popular illusion will be dissipated; you will have had a truce and an armistice, the bitterness will have calmed and the agitation will have gone down, and you will be able to induce local authorities to work with you instead of against you in carrying out this great enterprise for the health and welfare of the people. I think that the advice which has been given to you, under all the circumstances—I do not look beyond that—to kill the Bill is very unwise advice, and for the sake of your own opinions, for the sake of the reform of the law, for the sake of the ultimate achievement of united action upon a matter in which union and concord are essential, you ought to forego the Amendment which you only passed by a majority of two three nights ago, and allow the Bill to pass into law.

The House divided:—Contents 55; Not-Contents 45.

Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor) Addington, L.
Ampthill, L.
Devonshire, D. (L. President) Arundell of Wardour, L.
Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal) Ashbourne, L.
Bagot, L.
Balfour, L.
Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal) Bateman, L.
Belper, L.
Portland, D. Churchill, L. [Teller].
Westminster, D. Dormer, L
Farquhar, L.
Salisbury, M. Fingall, L. (E. Fingall)
Zetland, M.
Headley, L.
Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward) Headley, L.
Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun)
Abingdon, E. James, L.
Camperdown, E. Kintore, L. (E. Kintore)
Carrington, E.
Clarendon, E.. Lawrence, L.
Coventry, E Lister, L.
de Montalt, E. Lurgan, L.
de Montalt, E. Northington, L. (L. Henley)
Dudley, E,
Durham, E. Rathmore, L.
Howe, E. Ribblesdale, L.
Lucan, E. Rothschild, L.
Selborne, E. Russell of Killowen, L.
Stamford, E. Ventry, L.
Waldegrave, E. [Teller] Wantage, L.
Wigan, L. (E. Crawford)
Yarborough, E.
Knutsford, V. Wolverton, L.
Templetown, V.
Ailesbury, M. Bolton, L.
Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery)
Bathurst, E.
Brownlow, E. Braye, L.
Cawdor, E. Cheylesmore, L.
Feversham, E. [Teller] Colchester, L.
Hardwicke, E. de Vesci, L. (V. de Vesei)
Ilchester, E.
Portsmouth, E. [Teller] Forbes, L.
Scarbrough, E. Glenesk, L.
Hood, V. Hampton, L.
Llandaff, V. Hood of Avalon, L.
Howard de Walden, L.
St. Albans, L. Bp.
Winchester, L. Bp. Lingen, L.
Monckton, L. (V. Galway)
Aldenham, L.
Monk Bretton, L. Stanley of Alderley, L
Raglan, L.
Rookwood, L. Stanmore, L.
Saye and Sele, L. Tennyson, L.
Seaton, L. Thring, L.
Sherborne, L. Wandsworth, L.
Sinclair, L. Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss)
Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde)
Worlingham, L. (E. Gosford)
Southampton, L.
Stalbridge, L. Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Clause, as amended by the Commons, agreed to.

House adjourned at 5.55.