§
Amendment proposed—
Page 63, line 27, leave out sub-section (1)."—(The Earl of Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)
THE EAHL OF DUNRAVEN AND MOUNT-EARLMy Lords, I hope your Lordships will agree to omit this subsection of the clause, and thereby relieve a certain class in Ireland from the disabilities under which this Bill at present places them. I am sure the whole House will agree with me that to place any disability of this kind upon any class is a most undesirable and a most objectionable thing to do, unless there are very strong cause and reason shown why it is absolutely necessary that it should be done. And, my Lords, I submit that in this case no reason whatever has as yet been shown. To deprive the ministers of religion of the privilege that all other members of the community in Ireland will possess, of sitting upon district and county councils, without sufficient and very great cause is surely to cast a great slur upon ministers of religion in Ireland. And, my Lords, in this case disability is not only objectionable, but it appears to me totally illogical. Ministers of religion are eligible to be members of the grand juries, and why, in the name of goodness, should they not be eligible to sit as members of the boards which take over the duties of grand juries? They are capable of voting, and I do not see why they should not be capable of sitting upon those bodies. They are eligible to sit on these bodies in Great Britain, and I can see no reason whatever for differentiating between Great Britain and Ireland in this respect. My Lords, the reasons that I have heard given up to the present appear to me to be entirely unsatisfactory. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill in your Lordships' House, said, as regards this point, that he did not believe that ministers of religion in Ireland would avail themselves of the privilege of sitting on county and district councils if they had it. Well, my Lords, that may be so, but because a man is not likely, or a body of men are not likely, to avail himself or themselves 1054 of a privilege, surely that is no reason why you should debar them, from using that privilege if they have a mind to. In speaking in another place the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland said that if ministers of religion were allowed to sit on these councils it would not tend to economy or to the smooth working of these new bodies; but the Chief Secretary gave no explanation why this should be so. I confess, my Lords, I have not the slightest notion why we should suppose that ministers of religion are more likely to be extravagant than anybody else, nor do I know why I am asked to suppose that their presence would be likely to deter from the smooth working of these bodies. I find, it very difficult to advance any argument against that proposal, because I cannot understand what earthly argument can be advanced in favour of it. It is very difficult to understand what is the object and the real meaning of the exclusion of ministers of religion in Ireland. It is perfectly obvious that as they are admitted in England there must be some very strong, though some exceedingly obscure, reason which has influenced Her Majesty's Government, and the only reason that I can imagine is that some dread is entertained lest' in Ireland the ministers of religion would, in the purely mundane affairs of a county council, exercise the influence which they possess in their spiritual capacity. Well, my Lords, I will not go into the question whether they are likely or unlikely to do so. I will assume that such is the case. I will assume that it is true that ministers of religion in Ireland would use what I may term "undue influence" in purely worldly affairs. If that be so, I hold that this is the strongest possible argument in favour of, at any rate, allowing them to sit upon these councils. My own impression is that very few ministers of religion would avail themselves of the opportunity and the privilege of sitting on these boards, which I should regret. I think that one of the best things that could possibly happen in Ireland would be that they should avail themselves of the opportunity very largely. If you assume that a Roman Catholic priest or a Presbyterian minister, or an Episcopalian 1055 clergyman is prepared and anxious to use his spiritual influence in mundane, worldly affairs, I say that in proportion as you believe he will exercise that influence you ought to desire that he will exercise it openly on the councils and not secretly. It has been asked: what chance would a layman have in contesting an election against his parish priest? I admit he may have a poor chance. My real reason for feeling so strongly on this point is twofold. I do not imagine for a moment that the ministers of religion will very largely avail themselves of the privileges which we wish to grant them, but if they are excluded from the Bill altogether it will be always to give them a grievance. The great point is never to give a man a grievance or a chance for a grievance if you can possibly help it, but under this Bill as it stands they will always have an opportunity of making a grievance out of their exclusion. In the first place, there are no doubt a great number of men who would do very good and useful work upon these county councils and district councils, and if they are capable of such work it appears to me to be a pity that they should be excluded. In the second place, I feel very strongly that if the reason which influences Her Majesty's Government in this matter, in placing this disability upon ministers of religion, is the fear that they will exercise an undue influence upon the members of the council, I hold it very strongly that if they are prepared to exercise that influence they had far better sit upon the council and exercise it in the sight of man, rather than exercise it, as they will do if they are excluded, in the background, and in an underhand manner.
*LORD BUSSELL OF KILLOWENI desire to say a few words in support of the Amendment moved by the noble Lord. I belong to that class which looks with great hope to the good that this Bill may effect in Ireland. This is the first time in which, in any large Measure, power has been given to the Irish people to deal with their own affairs, and I think it would be a matter greatly to be regretted if a Bill, which I think has great potentialities for good, should start under a cloud of public disfavour. That this exclusion is directed against the Catholic priests in Ireland nobody can 1056 doubt. That is its avowed justification. I think, in the first instance, that that exclusion conveys an undeserved slur upon a large body of men who are just as thoroughly imbued, according to their beliefs and according to their honest opinions, with a desire to do what they regard to be in the interests of their country as any other class. They can have no motive which separates them from the interests of the great mass of the community—the great majority of the country. When, my Lords, you consider the subject-matters with which this Bill deals, purely local affairs, purely mundane, with no spiritual aspect about them at all, it does seem to me to be a most extraordinary proposal that you should do what you have not done in Scotland, that you should do what you have not done in England, exclude the whole body of clergy of all denominations from taking any part in local affairs. Why is this exclusion justified? There is but one precedent for it which is cognate to the subject, and that is that they were not eligible to be members of boards of guardians. I doubt very much whether if that poor law were put into enactment for the first time, that that exclusion would be allowed to continue, but if that precedent is to be cited in favour of their exclusion, it seems to me there is a much stronger precedent to be cited in favour of their inclusion. The Catholic priests of Ireland were, and are to-day, the law being as it is, eligible to be members of the body of grand jurors.
§ *THE EARL OF ERNEThey never are.
§ *LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWENThat is not contravening anything that I have said. They are eligible to be members of grand juries in Ireland at this moment. The noble Lord who interrupted me says they never are. Why is that? Because that depends upon the mandate of the sheriff, and he does not choose to summon them upon his panel. But there is no exclusion based upon any exclusion of the law, and Episcopalian Protestant clergymen can be, and I have known more than one instance in which they were members of the grand jury; nor is that eligibility confined to the Protestant Episcopal Church. You start, therefore, with no precedent against 1057 them. You start also, as seems to me, with, this: that the result of this exclusion is to cast a slur upon a large body of persons who command, to a large extent undoubtedly, the sympathy, as well as the support and respect, of the great bulk of the people amongst whom they live. But see what consequences follow from it. It cannot be denied that your object is to prevent the Catholic priests taking their part in local affairs. What is the consequence of that? You cannot single them alone out, and you do not single them out. You exclude also Episcopalian Protestant clergymen and Presbyterian ministers in the north of Ireland, than whom—I speak from personal knowledge and experience—there are no men more capable of usefully taking part in local affairs than they are. Surely, at this time of day, it is possible that clergymen of different denominations may sit side by side getting to know one another better, getting to dispel prejudices which interfere with their relations in life to one another, and where they may at all events work upon a common ground where no question of religion, and where no question of anything concerned with religion, in any way is involved or interferes to disturb their calm and dispassionate judgment of any subjects that may come before them upon the merits of those subjects. My own impression is that the noble Lord is quite right in saying that it is very doubtful whether, so far as regards the Catholic priests, any considerable number of them would even seek a place upon these local boards. But the objection is that you render it impossible for them, if any of them desire to do so, and thereby you cast upon them a slur which undoubtedly to some extent will rankle as recent pronouncements of Irish bishops show; they at any rate regard it as a slur upon their general body. Why do you exclude? It must be nothing but this: that their influence in these purely—I might almost say these trivial—mundane affairs, roads, sanitary arrangements, and the like, is so great amongst the Catholic people of Ireland that the Catholic people of Ireland will not have any will of their own, and will follow blindfold the teachings of their clergy upon such matters. The notion is, to my mind, ridiculous, and I should have thought that observation of events in Ireland from 1879 to the present time would 1058 have informed this House that while the Irish people may be largely influenced by their clergy even in these matters, apart from religion, yet that, where their views differ from those of the clergy in such matters, the clergy are not followed. In other words, when the clergy lead where the people desire to go, then they are followed; but since 1879, on more than one occasion, which will be easily recalled by noble Lords, the people have not followed the lead of their clergy. It seems to me that there is a stronger argument yet. Your exclusion of this body from being possible members of these local representative bodies does not deprive them of their influence. Does it prevent them, if they wish to use their influence for malign or wrong purposes? Does it deprive them of that power? Not in the least. And the result is that you leave them with their influence, and at the same time you deprive them of that sobering sense of responsibility that ought to go along with it. That is absolutely the result of this policy, which, I think, is short-sighted, and I hope that the Government, even at this late hour, will reconsider this matter and will allow this Bill to have fair play, and to work out what I believe it can honestly work out, and result in great good to the country. I hope, my Lords, that you are not going to start it upon its career with this cloud upon it.
§ *THK EARL OF ERNEI have never been able to see why a slur should be supposed to be cast upon the clergy by their exclusion from these county councils. Of course, the case of England it always cited, but in England things were entirely different. I understand that in the rural parts of England the magistracy is largely recruited from the clergy, and, as magistrates, they were entitled to sit at quarter sessions, and to take a part in the fiscal business of the county, and when you were bringing in a local government Bill for England, a slur would indeed have been cast upon the clergy if you had said that they were ineligible to sit on the councils; but it is entirely different in Ireland. I heard with great astonishment that the clergy were not disqualified from sitting on the grand juries, but, is a matter of fact they never do sit on them.
§ *LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWENThat is not so. Clergymen—Episcopalian clergymen—have again and again served as members of grand juries.
§ *THB EARL OF ERNEThey have served because they were landlords—by virtue of that qualification. I think the noble and learned Lord will find that to be the case. They did not serve on the grand juries, they did not attend presentment sessions. They are disqualified from being members of boards of guardians, and, certainly, within the present generation at all events, successive Lords Chancellors, whether Liberal or Conservative, have refused, and I think very wisely refused, to place them upon the Commission of the Peace. I trust that I shall not be accused of disrespect for the clergy of my own-Church when I say that I do not consider that their previous training is at all a fitting preparation for the discharge of those duties which the noble Lord now seeks to place upon them. I think their present avocations would be seriously and injuriously interfered with if they are called to take part, in the business of their county, and I think (and this is probably one of the strongest objections) that they would be brought into relations—I might almost say into collision—with their parishioners on these councils, which would certainly not be dignified, and would perhaps be altogether undesirable. Of course, what applies to the clergy of my own Church also applies to the Roman Catholic priests and to Presbyterian ministers. I do not believe there is any desire, as far as I know, among the clergy of any die-nomination to serve on these councils, and a very influential body of Nationalist Members in the House of Commons oppose their inclusion, and I trust that your Lordships will adhere to the decision come to by the House of Commons.
*VISCOUNT DE VESCIAfter the forcible argument brought forward in support of this Amendment, there is naturally very little for me to say; but, as I understand the argument in favour of the subsection as it stands, it is this: that as the clergy have hitherto been debarred from serving on public bodies, therefore it is desirable that that disability should now continue. Now, my Lords, this subsection has excited a great deal of feeling 1060 in Ireland. I am not able to quote many expressions of opinion against it, but I believe, that the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church at Maynooth have expressed resentment at the presence of this sub-section in the Bill, and they have distinctly pointed out that their sole resource is to use their influence outside the councils, a course which everybody will deprecate. But the Roman Catholic clergy are not singular in this respect, for one of the most eminent prelates of the Episcopal Church in Ireland who approved of the exclusion of the clergy, said at a meeting of a diocesan synod lately—
There will be less temptation to introduce the religious element into the elections. But, on the other hand, there is much you can do to influence and mould men's minds in these matters.I think that is very much to be deprecated—that ministers of religion should be driven to use their influence, which should be devoted to sacred matters, on such purely secular matters as elections, and the other matters which will come before these local bodies. I cannot under-stand why one particular class should be excluded. If one particular class is to be excluded, I should prefer to exclude the medical profession. I should feel much more dread of the ultimate consequencss of a heated discussion with my medical adviser than one with my spiritual director on one of these boards. I think I ought to mention one thing to your Lordships. The clause, as it stands, says they are not eligible to serve on these new councils, and yet clergymen of all denominations are capable of sitting and acting as members of the present dispensary committees, and there are many of your Lordships who serve on boards of lunatic asylums who know that there are a very large proportion of clergy on those boards, and that they prove in the generality of cases most useful members. I will go further still. Speaking from my own experience and knowledge, I may say that I am acquainted with a board which does, a great deal of work in the west of Ireland—the Congested Districts Board. On that board there are two clergymen, and one of them is a prelate of the Roman Catholic Church. He is, I may say, a man who has taken a very large share in, and has very strong views upon, political matters, but I know no more 1061 fair-minded man, and no man more desirous of working to support the views and objects of that board. I hope that my noble Friend will go to a Division, and I hope that he will be supported with the majority of your Lordships' House.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYI desire to say a very few words on this question, because it is evidently one in which I cannot agree with my noble Friend. I view myself with supreme satisfaction the clause in the Bill excluding the clergy of all denominations from taking part in the administration of the district or county councils. As far as I can gather from the speech of the noble Lord opposite, it is thought that 'this Bill, as it stands at present, casts a slur on the Roman Catholic Church. I deny that entirely.
§ *LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN. They are eligible in England, and are eligible in Scotland, and by this Bill they are made ineligible in Ireland.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYThe noble and learned Lord will not deny that there are other clergy in Ireland besides the Roman Catholics. They are all excluded. I allude to the subject with great diffidence because I am so closely connected with the north of Ire-land, where the religious views of the majority of the population are not the same as they are in the south of Ireland. But those other ministers have not objected. The Episcopal Senate recently met, but no allusion was made to this exclusion, and evidently did not consider this clause to be a slur. Why, therefore, should it be considered a slur on the Roman Catholic clergy, when other clergy do not think it a slur at all. I think that the expression of the noble Earl below me was absolutely correct. I think the clergy are much better at home looking after their flocks than dealing with the county business, or with business of any sort or kind other than that strictly belonging to the Church and to the parish. I think they have plenty to do, and I have seen, with considerable regret (and I wish to say nothing of a controversial character, because many of the Roman Catholic clergy are intimate friends of my own), that when I was responsible for the government of Ire- 1062 land, in many parts of the country our difficulties of administration were greatly-added to by the action of certain priests. That, I am sure, the noble and learned Lord will not deny. Taking the experience of the line, that can be taken by some of these reverend gentlemen, I do confess that I shall look forward with considerable regret avoid apprehension to the dealings of certain boards in Ireland if these reverend gentlemen were in a position to what I may call direct the business of the various district or county councils. I have seen, only within a very few days, an instance to which I may allude of clerical intervention, which took place in Ireland. Only within the last few moments I have had put into my hands a resolution which was passed by the Board of Guardians of Mullingar, at a meeting; held on Thursday last, and I believe a question is to be put to the Chief Secretary in another place in a few days. The Mullingar Board of Guardians passed the following resolution—
That on this day fortnight the Board take action in regard to the vile and anti-clerical speech made by Mr. John P. Hayden, M.P., last week in Parliament, with the view of having his paper deprived of the advertisements of the board in the future, and that his reporter be excluded from our meetings in future.You could not have a case of greater clerical intimidation than that. This resolution was passed denouncing and punishing Mr. Hayden because he supports the clause.
§ *LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWENAre any of the clergy members of that body which passed that resolution?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYThat I cannot tell you. It shows, however, the feeling that will exist if these-clerics are allowed to occupy a prominent place on the councils, and it will lead to the boycotting of men who do not do as they wish. I merely mention these facts because I do not think this clause casts any slur on the clergy, and I therefore trust that my noble Friend will adhere to the clause exactly as it stands.
*THE EARL OF MAYOWhen this Bill first came before Parliament, I was strongly of opinion that the priests and 1063 ministers of religion should become members of the county councils and the district councils, and I maintained in an article I wrote the necessity for that being so; but after what I heard from the Leaders of the two Nationalist parties in the House of Commons I now think it would be better for the proper working of this Bill, and also for the harmonious proceedings of the county councils and the district councils, that ministers of religion should not be elected to these bodies. The people will elect these county councils and district councils, and the people elect their representatives that come to Westminster, and when those representatives do not agree upon this question I think it is better that the matter should remain as it is in the Bill, and that the ministers of religion should be excluded. If the representatives of the people did agree, that would be another matter altogether; but certainly the two sections of the Nationalists do not agree upon this question, and I think they are very good judges of the opinion of the country. That is my reason for saying these few words, and, having changed my opinion upon the subject, I shall not vote on the Amendment.
§ THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN AND MOUNT-EARLAs far as I am concerned I do not say, and I do not think, that this exclusion of ministers of religion casts any particular slur upon the Roman Catholic clergy more than it does upon the clergy of any other denomination. But your Lordships at the same time will admit that it is quite impossible not to believe that this special clause is, more or less, aimed tolerably directly against the Roman Catholic clergy, because when you find that in portions of the United Kingdom, where the Protestant clergy are in a great majority, the ministers of Religion are entitled to sit upon the county councils, and that in another portion of the United Kingdom, where the Roman Catholic clergy are in a great majority, ministers of religion are not so entitled, it is almost impossible to avoid the conclusion that this disability is aimed particularly at the ministers of the Roman Catholic Church. At present I have not heard any stronger 1064 argument in favour of retaining the clause than I have heard before. I have heard that the ministers of religion will not want to sit upon the county councils, and that if they did sit upon them they had much better not do so, but I have not heard a single good reason as yet why it should be anticipated that any harm could possibly be done to the smooth working of these new bodies by the presence upon them of ministers of religion than could be done equally as well, or perhaps a good deal better, by the same ministers of religion keeping behind the scenes and working there. Unless your Lordships hear from the noble and learned Lord [the Lord Chancellor of Ireland] a very much more cogent reason against the Amendment, I, with some confidence, hope your Lordships will agree to it.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYI am rather disappointed in not hearing anything from the bench opposite, but I suppose the Bill is to be adhered to as it stands. If that be so, I deeply regret it. It seems to me a more unwise step could scarcely be taken than to exclude one of the most influential classes of the community from any participation in the administration of local affairs. The noble Earl who has just sat down has indicated what I should have been rather reluctant to assert, but for which I may conclude there is some foundation, that in reality, although this clause excludes all clergy, the object of it is to exclude the Roman Catholic clergy. If that be so—and I should be very glad to be convinced to the contrary—I think it is open to this most serious objection, that it tends distinctly to the promotion of that bitter feeling which, unfortunately, still exists "and has so long existed between the two most considerable sections of the Irish people. Could anything be more likely to produce and prolong such a feeling than the exclusion of the whole body of the Catholic priests in Ireland from these councils? As a matter of fact, whatever may be our opinions politically, we know that there is and has been no more influential body in Ireland than the Roman Catholic priests. Could anything be more unwise than not 1065 to make use of that influence when you can have the guidance of men who would exercise it upon these local councils? Could anything be more unwise than to leave them to work in the dark against you, which we know they can do to a considerable extent? Why not allow them to come into the light and exercise the influence which belongs to them, which they enjoy before their countrymen, in the administration of their local affairs? As to the argument that the clergy are better engaged in attending to their flocks, and so forth, we entertain a very different view in this country, and we are very glad indeed in our local affairs to have the assistance of many of the clergy, who have the advantage of being acquainted with the particular communities which they have to represent, and who exercise the most salutary influence in the management of local affairs. Why should you make in Ireland an excluded caste of men whom you profess to respect, but whom you exclude from one of their most natural avocations? It surpasses my understanding to comprehend it, unless, indeed, it be on account of the jealousy of one portion of the population to the influence that the Roman Catholic priests possess, and with the idea that by such an exclusion as this that influence can be diminished. Exclude them or not, their influence will remain the same, but if you do exclude them that influence will be exercised in a manner much less creditable than if it were exercised in the light of day.
*THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDI think the proposal in the Bill is a fair and reasonable one. I am aware that there is a difference of opinion on the question. I said so before, but I think the preponderance of prudence and the balance of argument is in favour of what is contained in the Bill. Anyone would think from what the noble Earl has said that there is some startling innovation, some extraordinary change to be worked out and accomplished by the Bill. In what system of Irish public life are clergymen admitted? They are not on the municipal councils, they are not on boards of guardians; and I am not aware of any single representative body where the 1066 clergy sit or where it is suggested that it is desirable that they should sit.
*THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDThe noble Earl spoke as if there were some startling change accomplished by this Bill. In the English Bill I am quite aware that there is no exclusion. That may be right; but still in England the clergy are not allowed to sit on municipal councils, and it is not suggested that there is anyone who desires to bring them into the House of Commons, and therefore we have to consider this question by the light of precedents, which all goes to support the continuance of the course which is adopted in the present case. Now there are a good many ways in which people can look at this question. How many people are there who would desire to see the clergy taking an active part in these councils? I venture to think not many—in my opinion there are very few. I have no doubt, from the speeches made and from what I have read, that a certain class would desire to see them not disqualified from sitting. I admit that, but I am of opinion that there is; a class far wider still who think it is more prudent and wise neither to have them sitting or authorised to sit on the county councils. They have ample duties to perform without sitting upon those bodies, or without taking this active part in these local affairs. They have great and important duties to perform, which everyone wishes them "God speed" in fulfilling and attending to. They can well take their part in charity, in philanthropy, in the teachings of religion. They can also give wise and prudent advice in the many matters that people in many spheres of life refer to them. But where is the point contained in the suggestion that while you leave to them their influence you deprive them at the means of exercising it in a proper manner? I cannot myself see the substantial force in that argument. If the clergyman would be likely to use extreme or extravagant influence to accomplish an election, I am not sure that the man who would so act would be likely to have his usefulness increased by putting 1067 him in a sphere where he could apply those methods in a more vigorous and open way. It is said that a slur is sought to be cast upon a particular class of the clergy in Ireland. I entirely repudiate that. A great effort has been made to suggest that a slur has been uttered and expressed, but I have not littered it, and I do not intend to. The Bill is perfectly open and fair and impartial, and there is not a word to suggest anything of intolerance, or bigotry, or unfairness, or want of charity or consideration. None of the clergy have at present any right of membership of these bodies, and I do not believe there is any very keen desire that they should take their places there. I do not believe there is any urgent desire on their part to do it, and I think it is prudent, and wise, and fair to leave the Bill as it is, which is, I venture to think, in accordance with the views of the great majority of people.
VISCOUNT CLIFDENI think the Government is wrong. I think the Saxon Lords ought to understand that this Bill is taking the government of Ireland out of the hands of those who have not only known how to do it, but who have done well by their country in that government, and handing it over in the ultimate result to the priests. As they have the power I think they ought to have the responsibility. I am all for their being on these councils, and if I know anything about them and my countrymen they will remain there a very short time. They are much too wise to remain there any length of time. I think it is unwise if they have the power that they should not exercise it openly, because you know perfectly well how these elections will be managed. The priests will control all the elections, and therefore they ought to have some responsibility. I do not understand the argument of the Government. I was surprised to hear the noble Lord say what he did say. The Leader of the Opposition—one of the best debaters in this House'—made use of a great many arguments which I think were entirely fallacious. He showed more ignorance of Ireland than he ought to. He has been Viceroy of Ireland before this, but I do not think he knows anything about the country; in fact, I do not know 1068 whether Members of the front benches on either side of the House do know anything about Ireland—they are all tarred with the same brush. The priests have got the power—I am talking about the south of Ireland, I know nothing about the north—and why should they not have the responsibility? I shall vote for their taking their proper part on the councils.
§ The House divided:—Contents 62; Not-contents 26.
| CONTENTS. | |
| Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor) | Addington, L. |
| Ampthill, L. | |
| Devonshire, D. (L. President) | Ardilaun, L. |
| Ashbourne, L. | |
| Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal) | Bagot, L. |
| Balfour, L. | |
| Belper, L. | |
| Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal) | Bolton, L. |
| Braye, L. | |
| Portland, D. | Carysfort, L. (E. Canysfort) |
| Abercorn M. (D. Abercorn) | Castlemaine, L. |
| Churchill, L. [Teller] | |
| Bath, M. | Clonbrock, L. |
| Hertford, M. | Cloncurry, L. |
| Lansdowne, M. | Crawshaw, L. |
| Zetland, M. | Crofton, L. |
| Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne) | |
| Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward) | |
| Harris, L. | |
| Inchiquin, L. | |
| Abingdon, E. | James, L. |
| Clarendon, E. | Kinnaird, L. |
| Coventry, E. | Kintore, L. (E. Kintore) |
| Dartrey, E. | |
| de Montalt, E. | Lawrence, L. |
| Denbigh, E. | Macnaghten, L. |
| Egerton, E. | Massy, L. |
| Mar and Kellie, E. | Monck, L. (V. Monck) |
| Mount Edgcumbe, E. | Monckton, L. (V. Galway) |
| Onslow, E. | |
| Portsmouth, E. | O'Neill, L. |
| Rosse, E. | Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde) |
| Selborne, E. | |
| Vane, E. (M. Londonderry) | Plunket, L. |
| Poltimore, L. | |
| Waldegrave, E. [Teller] | Rathmore, L, |
| Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown) | |
| Hood, V. | Saltoun, L. |
| Templemore, L. |
| NOT-CONTENTS. | |
| Grafton, D. | Aberdare, L. |
| Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery) | |
| Crewe, E. | |
| Kimberley, E. | Castletown, L. |
| Morley, E. | de Vesci. L. (V. de Vesci) [Teller] |
| Spencer, E. | |
| Stamford, E. | Digby, L. |
| Fingall, L. (E. Fingall) | Monteagle of Brandon, L. |
| Hare, L. (E. Listowel) | Russell of Killowen, L |
| Harlech, L. | Shute, L. (V. Barrington) |
| Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl) [Teller] | |
| Stanmore, L. | |
| Tweedmouth, L. | |
| Mendip, L. (V. Clifden) | Windsor, L. |
| Worlingham, L. (E. Gosford) | |
| Methuen, L. | |
| Monkswell, L. | Wrottesley, L. |
§
Motion made and question put—
That clauses 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, and 98 stand part of the Bill.
§ Agreed to.