HL Deb 11 July 1901 vol 97 cc5-21

Order for the day for the Third Reading read.


My Lords, I am afraid that in moving the Third Reading of this Bill I must ask for the kind indulgence of the House while I make a statement. When the Bill was read a second time I had no idea that there would be any serious opposition to it in this House. Since then, however, the noble Earl, Lord Northbrook, has given notice to move its rejection on Third Reading, and, of course, opposition coming from such a quarter is of the most formidable description. The noble Earl has informed me that his opposition to the measure is not an out-and-out opposition, and that it would be advisable for me, in moving the Third Reading, to state to the House, not only the purport of the Bill, but the reasons which induced me to bring it forward. I do so under a very deep feeling of responsibility, because this is a Bill in which three and a half millions of the working classes of this country who belong to friendly societies are keenly interested, and I should regret exceedingly if, by any omission or bad advocacy on my part, I imperilled the Bill in your Lordships' House. The object of the Bill is a very simple one. It is to encourage thrift, and, by encouraging thrift, in the long run to reduce the poor rate. Undoubtedly, if this Bill should pass into law, the immediate effect would possibly be to make a very small increase in the amount required for outdoor relief; but if the Bill should have the effect that we hope it will have—the effect of giving the working classes further inducement to become members of benefit societies—then we say that in the long run outdoor relief will decrease and the poor rate be diminished. The Bill is so very short that, as regards the purport of it, I do not know that I can do better than read it to your Lordships. The two clauses of the Bill are these:— (1) The discretion given by Section 1 of the Outdoor Relief Friendly Societies Act, 1894, to the boards of guardians to take or not to take into consideration the amount received by a member of a friendly society as sick pay when granting outdoor relief shall be limited as hereinafter provided. (2) In granting outdoor relief to a member of any friendly society the board of guardians shall not take into consideration any sum up to five shillings a week received from such friendly society as sick pay. This Bill has been bitterly opposed by the Charity Organisation Society on two grounds—firstly, that it is a revolutionary measure and entirely upsets the whole theory of the Act of Elizabeth, which declares that a man's necessities, and not his merits, shall be the sole criterion in granting outdoor relief; secondly, that it is exceedingly objectionable inasmuch as it singles out members of friendly societies for special treatment. Your Lordships will see from the Bill that we do not propose to compel guardians to do anything that it is not lawful for them to do at the present time; and if it is true that it is wrong to in any respect modify or set aside the statute of Elizabeth, that wrong was committed, not by this Bill, but by the Act of 1894. And if it is wrong to discriminate between thrift in friendly societies and other kinds of thrift, that wrong, again, was perpetrated under the Act of 1894. I think, then, in these circumstances, it would be advisable for me to say one word as to the reception of the Act of 1894 in the House of Commons. It was passed without a single dissentient voice. On the Second Reading, outside the official members of the Government, thirteen Members, in addition to the Member in charge of the Bill, spoke upon it, and every one of them was most enthusiastic in its favour. In 1894 it was not considered, nor is it now in any respect, a party question. In 1894 such diverse members, politically speaking, as the Radical tenant-farmer representative, Mr. Lambert, and the present Conservative Lord Chief Justice, Lord Alverstone, were equally enthusiastic in favour of the Bill; and one of the speakers, a Conservative Member—Sir James Rankin, I think—hit the nail on the head with regard to the Bill when he said that the number of people in receipt of outdoor relief throughout the country had considerably decreased, and that the greatest factor in that decrease had been the action of the friendly society. No doubt this Bill goes further than the Act of 1894, but in what respect does it go further? The Act of 1894 was permissive, and, in my opinion, rightly permissive. I think the Legislature would have done wrong in admitting this, to some extent, new principle, and compelling guardians to act upon it without seeing how it would work. But we are now in the year 1901. We have had seven years experience of this measure, and is it not the case that all the dismal prognostications of the Charity Organisation Society have proved false? Every year shows that boards of guardians are more and more desirous of having this Bill made compulsory, and in the other House there was only one dissentient to the compulsory nature of the measure. The Bill is only to a certain extent compulsory; it leaves considerable discretion to boards of guardians. I do not think it is a right state of things that, after seven years experience of this permissive Act, Parliament should do nothing whatever to make uniform the principle by which boards of guardians are to be guided in this matter. I do not know what case the noble Earl will make against the Bill, but I will venture to say—and it is a very significant fact—that the boards of guardians throughout the country are in favour of it. We have plenty of negative evidence that they are in favour of the measure. Boards of guardians are not backward in pressing their views on the Legislature when they are opposed to a Bill, but we have heard no objections urged by them to this measure, and we have this positive piece of evidence in its favour. At the annual conference of associations of poor-law unions, at which over 200 unions were represented, the officials drafted a resolution to the effect that this Bill ought not to be supported, but the delegates took the matter into their own hands, and threw over the officials' resolution in favour of another, which was carried without a division, endorsing the principle of the Bill and expressing the hope that it might become law. I hope your Lordships will consider that this Bill, which is supported enthusiastically by 3,500,000 working men, which passed, almost without opposition, through the House of Commons, which is approved of by the great majority of boards of guardians whose discretion is sought to be limited, and which is supported—and very enthusiastically supported—by the Local Government Board, is one which, if it is to be thrown out in your Lordships' House, ought not to be thrown out except on very good reasons shown. I beg to move the Third Reading of the Bill.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Monkswell).


My Lords, I very much regret that I feel it my duty to ask your Lordships not to give a Third Reading to this Bill, because I am sorry to be in any degree in even apparent opposition to the two great friendly societies whose agents have issued a circular to your Lordships in favour of the Bill. Those societies have done an infinite amount of good in the country, and I think I shall show before I sit down that it is not in the real interests of those societies that the Bill should become law. I quite agree with the noble Lord who introduced it that this is in no sense a party question. I communicated with the President of the Local Government Board upon it, and he assured me that although he supported the Bill it was not his desire to exercise any pressure in this House in respect to its passing. It was with the greatest difficulty that I could find any record of this Bill in the proceedings of the other House. It was passed without much notice and I was not even aware that there was such a Bill till I heard the speech of my noble friend the Earl of Morley the other evening, in which he called attention to it and gave his reasons against it. The Second Reading stage in your Lordships' House came on before an important debate on the Army and I doubt whether noble Lords paid any attention to it at the time. My reasons for opposing the Bill are two. In the first place, in my opinion it introduces a very important change in the principle of the administration of the poor law which ought not to be brought forward by a private Member, but which should only be undertaken after full information has been conveyed to Parliament and on the responsibility of a Minister of the Crown. In the second place, no reasons whatever have been adduced—certainly none have been stated by the noble Lord who moved the Third Reading of the Bill—to show that boards of guardians have not properly exercised the discretion given to them by the Act of 1894. The noble Lord has given the history of that Act. It had become the practice, although it was contrary to the law, for boards of guardians to make some addition in outdoor relief to the sick pay received from a friendly society, and the Act of 1894 was passed to make the practice legal. The words of the Act are— Any board of guardians may, if they think fit, grant relief out of the rates to any person……notwithstanding such person shall be in receipt of any sum as a member of a friendly society, and in estimating the amount of relief it shall be at the discretion of the board of guardians whether they will or will not take into consideration the amount which may be received by him from such friendly society. We had a discussion in this House in June, 1894, on the Bill, and the Earl of Kimberley, then Leader of the Government, stated his opinion— that the Bill could not be defended on principle, but only because it made legal a practice which largely prevailed. He there fore recommended that discretion should be left to boards of guardians, and that the practice should not be allowed to stand on the deliberate negligence of the Local Government Board. The noble Marquess the present Prime Minister expressed a similar opinion. The noble Marquess said— In my view, the thing should be done according to the circumstances of each case, and according to the discretion of the board of guardians. There are cases in which it ought to be done and others in which it ought not to be done; and it ought to be quite clear that it is left absolutely to their discretion. I think that is common sense. But the Bill now before the House contains only one clause which purports to limit the discretion of boards of guardians, but in fact destroys that discretion. The noble lord who moved the Third Reading says that he wishes to secure uniformity; but I contend that in regard to the relief of the poor you have to deal with each individual case; there should be no such thing as a hard line of uniformity. If this Bill passed boards of guardians will have to do one of two things—they must either refuse relief altogether, or not take into consideration receipts from friendly societies up to 5s. I contend that this introduces an entirely new principle. After seven years experience the noble Lord says we ought to go further. If that seven years experience shows that boards of guardians have properly exercised their powers, where is the reason for making a change?

The main argument of the noble Lord, and the main argument, I think, which should receive consideration at the hands of your Lordships, is that the Bill is supported by the great friendly societies. No doubt it is true that the Bill is supported by the Parliamentary agents of the Manchester Unity, which is the largest of all the societies, and of the Foresters, which I think is the next largest; but at the same time they say that very few members of friendly societies seek parochial aid, and then chiefly in old age. Therefore if delay takes place in passing this Bill there can be no great hardship done to members of friendly societies. No doubt there are three and a half million members of friendly societies, but a very small number of them could be affected by the change in the law proposed in this Bill. I regret the change of attitude which the friendly societies have shown by supporting this Bill. I regret it because it is entirely contrary to the attitude they took when they had the question of old-age pensions before them. When my right hon. friend Mr. Chamberlain first brought forward the question of old-age pensions I had some communications with the principal officials of the Manchester Unity. I thought it quite possible that the great friendly societies might welcome the co-operation of the Government with regard to old-age pensions, and accept some kind of arrangement whereby, if so much was drawn by a member of a friendly society as an old-age pension, an equal sum might be given by the State. I found there was a strong feeling on the part of the friendly societies against any arrangement of the kind. I doubted their wisdom at the time, but I afterwards came to the conclusion that they were right in wishing to maintain the independence of the societies, and justified in apprehending that some kind of Government interference might be introduced into the working of the societies if the proposal was carried out. There is no distinction whatever in principle between State aid through the taxes and aid through the rates. To supplement 5s. a week received from a friendly society from the rates is precisely the same thing in principle as to do so from the taxes. I regret the change of opinion that has taken place amongst the friendly societies, and I have never seen the report of any discussion giving the reasons why the friendly societies support this measure. The Royal Commission of 1874, over which the late Lord Iddesleigh, then Sir Stafford Northcote, presided, and of which Sir Michael Hicks Beach, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, was a member, pointed out the mistake of encouraging a man to make a less contribution to a society than his means allowed, and to count on poor law relief to make up the sum required for his support— The tendency of holding out (said the Commission) such favours to members of friendly societies is to encourage men to insure for less than their real needs with a friendly society, and to count on poor law relief to make up the sum required for their support. It cannot be but a mistake to deceive people that they are not receiving relief when, in point of fact, they are, and to hold out inducements to them to join clubs on the promise that they may then become paupers on more favourable terms. I entirely agree with the conclusions of the Commission. Moreover, your Lordships must recollect that if this Bill is passed it will be merely a beginning, for it will not be possible to confine the application of the principle to friendly societies. There was a chart laid before Parliament last year by the Principal Registrar of Friendly Societies which showed that the total funds of registered provident societies and of certified and Post Office Savings Banks was then no less than £322,000,000. Of that sum the friendly societies represented only £38,000,000, or about one-eighth. The Post Office Savings Banks had no less than £130,000,000 deposited at that time. Deducting from that sum £30,000,000, which, according to the best calculations I can make, may be said to be subscribed by people in the higher class of life, there are at least £100,000,000 in the Post Office Savings Bank subscribed by the working classes. Is it possible to believe, if the principle of this Bill is passed, and the 5s. which a poor man receives from a friendly society is not to be considered when the question of his relief comes before the guardians, that the other methods of providence can be left out of consideration? I hope that if some delay is allowed to take place before this question is settled we shall have further discussions by the friendly societies, and some explanation of the grounds on which they support this change.

As regards boards of guardians, although at a meeting of the National Association of Boards of Guardians a resolution may have been passed in favour of this Bill, yet I do not think that association can fee considered as thoroughly representative of boards of guardians throughout the country According to the noble Lord himself, only 200 out of about 700 boards of guardians were represented at the meeting. There is another body—namely, the Poor Law Conference which I believe more fully represents the opinion of boards of guardians I have looked at the proceedings of the central conferences for the past three years. The first was presided over by Earl Beauchamp, the second by the Duke of Northumberland, and the third by Captain Griffith-Boscawen. I find that no notice whatever has been taken of this question at any of the central conferences. Neither has there been any resolution passed during those three years on the subject of this Bill at any of the district conferences which frequently meet. Neither has it been proposed at the central conferences as a subject which should be discussed. We may assume, therefore, that boards of guardians generally do not take the view expressed by the noble Lord. The Bill was recently considered at a conference at Northampton, and the opinion of almost everyone present was against it. I have received a letter from the clerk to the Paddington Union protesting in the strongest manner on behalf of the board of guardians against the Bill. He says— The main object of poor law administration for the last sixty-seven years has been that provident habits should be as little as possible discouraged, and to reverse such a policy by means of such a Bill—the ultimate effects of which might be very far-reaching—would appear neither just nor equitable. I ascertained the other day that the board of guardians in my own neighbourhood—the Winchester Union—has never heard of the Bill, and, after his attention had been called to it, I received a letter from the clerk stating that he saw the same objections as were stated by the Paddington guardians. I think that if its objects were fully explained to boards of guardians a very large majority of them would be against a measure which proposes to take away the discretion which I believe they have wisely used in these cases.

The noble Lord described this as a small measure. I do not think anybody who understands the working of friendly societies will agree with him. The great difficulty they have is in respect to their old age pensions. In point of fact, sick pay after seventy becomes a sort of pension, and it seems to me that, if this alteration in the law is passed, there may be introduced an old age pension scheme supported by rates instead of by taxes. Of all the commissions and committees that have had to report upon this question, not one of them has recommended such a scheme of old age pensions as the supplementing of only one kind of savings by payments from the poor rate.

The considerations I have ventured to put before your Lordships seem to me to justify the conclusion that this House would do wisely not to pass the Bill; at any rate, I hope I have put forward reasons which will convince your Lordships that further inquiry is necessary before deciding upon such a very important change in the law. If, after further inquiry, it should bethought by the Government advisable to legislate on these lines, let the Bill be introduced on the responsibility of the Government. Let the opinion be obtained of boards of guardians all over the country, of the Poor Law inspectors, and of a man probably more qualified than any other to give a sound opinion on this matter, the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies (Mr. Edward W. Brabrook). I asked the President of the Local Government Board whether he had consulted Mr. Brabrook, and he replied that he had, and that he was not in favour of the Bill.

Amendment moved— To leave out 'now' and add at the end of the motion 'this day three months.'"—(The Earl of Northbrook.)


My Lords, I think my noble friend who has just spoken has both minimised the attitude of the House of Commons towards this Bill and magnified the importance of it, and the change involved by the adoption of its proposals. My noble friend said he experienced difficulty in finding in the journals of the House of Commons any trace of the discussion on this Bill. The Bill was brought in by a private Member belonging to a small minority in the House, and was put down day after day so as to come on after midnight, when the objection of a single Member would have been sufficient to stop it. Yet the hon. Member in charge of the Bill succeeded in carrying it through all its stages up to the Third Reading under these conditions. The Bill came up for Third Reading on a Wednesday afternoon, at a time, again, when it would have been exceedingly easy for an obstinate member to cause the loss of the Bill by talking it out. But what happened? There was a prolonged debate on the Bill, and it was distinctly and directly due to the intervention and influence of the President of the Local Government Board that it was read a third time. It does seem to me, therefore, that it is very fair to urge that the Bill has received overwhelming support from the House of Commons. My noble friend brought forward two reasons for opposing the Bill. He said, first, that it involves a great change in the principle of the administration of the poor law. That is a proposition which I entirely challenge. It has already been shown by my noble friend Lord Monkswell that this Bill involves no change of principle, for it is the same in principle as the Act of 1894. The only thing the Bill does is to make the adoption of the principle sanctioned by the Legislature in 1894 compulsory, and to secure uniformity of action by boards of guardians throughout the length and breadth of the land. It surely is most desirable that you should not have this principle given effect to in one locality, and a totally different principle acted upon in another. The noble Earl said we ought to have shown that the powers given to boards of guardians in 1894 had been improperly used. There is no question of the improper use of those powers. Boards of guardians have used this power in the majority of cases, and I think it is desirable that we should secure uniformity of action. My noble friend argued, throughout his speech, that this was giving old-age pensions by a side-wind, but I would remind him that the Bill refers simply to the question of sick pay. Sick pay, when it is given by friendly societies, is temporary relief. I believe that only in the case of one friendly society—the Hearts of Oak, do they give anything in the shape of a permanent allowance. I believe under certain circumstances the Hearts of Oak give a permanent allowance of 4s. a week; but in the case of the ordinary friendly society a man who applies is granted sick pay for, say, three months, after which time it is renewed at a lower figure. After all, I do not see that a man who has been thrifty in other ways is really injured by this Bill. It is true that he does not get the same consideration when it comes to a question of relief from the rates, but he does not lose by it, and is not put in any worse position than at present. I do not think my noble friend has made out anything like a clear case against this Bill, and I hope my noble friend will carry it to a division. If he does, I shall be glad to support him.


My Lords, I ventured the other day to call attention to the Bill, as it was going into Committee, and I am bound to say, on further consideration, that the doubts I then entertained as to the expediency of the Bill being carried into law have been considerably strengthened. The noble Lord who last spoke and the noble Lord who introduced the Bill both maintain that there is no new principle involved in this Bill. It seems to me that there is distinctly a new principle involved. The change from discretionary to compulsory action seems to me a very large and very important change, and, although the Bill only touches a small portion of the large subject of poor-law administration, still I maintain that it does introduce a new principle, and one of a very far-reaching character. When the Bill of 1894 was read a second time in the House of Commons it was, as my noble friend Lord Northbrook stated, distinctly and emphatically accepted as a discretionary measure. The words of my noble friend, whose absence the House so much regrets—the Earl of Kimberley—and of the Prime Minister on that occasion were of the most emphatic nature that the whole point of the Bill was that it should leave the guardians absolute discretion. The noble Marquess the Prime Minister said— There are cases in which it ought to be done, and there are others in which it ought not to be done, and it ought to be quite clear that it is left absolutely to their discretion. I do not think I have omitted any words which qualify the noble Marquess's statement. The Bill at that time, as I understand it, was really a measure to indemnify the guardians, who had been in the habit for many years of not considering the pay given by friendly societies in these cases. This was the acknowledged practice, and the Act of 1894, which gave them discretion with regard to this particular practice, condoned what was in the strict letter of the law an illegal exercise of their powers. By this Bill you will be substituting some other test for that of destitution, and either the Bill goes too far or it does not go far enough. If the principle involved in the Bill is accepted, why are you to refuse to give the same consideration to men who have saved money and have put it into savings banks, co-operative societies or building societies—all of them admirable forms of thrift? Though I acknowledge that, if the Bill passes, men who have saved in other directions than in friendly societies will not be put in a worse position; they will, as a matter of fact, be placed in a relatively worse position, for they will not receive advantages which are accorded those who have invested in friendly societies.


My Lords, I hold that this is one of the gravest subjects that could be brought under the consideration of your Lordships. Indeed, so strongly do I feel upon it that I gave Lord Monkswell notice that I should move the rejection of the Bill on Third Reading, but I was glad to find that my noble friend Lord Northbrook had already undertaken to do so. The state of the law, as laid down by the Poor Law Commissioners in 1832, was this: that in giving outdoor relief boards of guardians were to take into consideration whatever means or income the applicant had, and fix the relief in proportion. The principle of giving discretion to boards of guardians in this matter was introduced in the Act of 1894. But this is a revolutionary Bill, because it makes it compulsory on the guardians to administer outdoor relief in a method directly contrary to the views of the Commissioners of 1832 and 1834. My noble friend Lord Tweedmouth said this was the private Bill of a private Member. That is the worst thing he could have said of it. The names of twelve private Members were on the tack of this Bill in the House of Commons, and I said to a friend of mine in the other House, "Who are these twelve Members? Are they genuine philanthropists or vote-hunting humanitarians?" He replied that, with one exception—I will not give the name of that gentleman—they were vote-hunting humanitarians, and that the one exception had his name on the back of almost every bad Bill, and was everything to everybody on all things. I contend that such a change as that proposed in this Bill ought not to be proposed except by the Government after careful inquiry. The danger of relaxing the method of administering outdoor relief is that we may go back to the state of things which existed seventy years ago, when the majority of the working people of England were absolutely demoralised by the way in which the poor law was administered. The following is an extract from the report of the Poor Law Commissioners of 1832— It is our painful duty to report that the fund raised under the 43rd Elizabeth—the original poor law—is applied to purposes opposed to the letter and spirit of that law and destructive to the morals of the most numerous class and to the welfare of all. A great source of abuse is the out-door relief afforded to the able-bodied. This is what the overseer of Kettering said as to the demoralised state into which the labouring classes had been brought— The men's remark is—'I must have my 12s. or 10s. a week whether I work or not. I would not be such a fool as to work. Blast work! Damn me if I work!' That is a specimen of what England was reduced to in those days by lax administration of the poor law. Since 1832, when the poor law was made more stringent, the number of friendly societies has increased from 300 to between 2,000 and 3,000. And why have they increased so enormously? It is entirely owing to the spirit of independence and thrift which has been established; and I would impress upon your Lordships the importance of this question not being dealt with except by His Majesty's Government after full inquiry. I cannot do better than conclude by reading to your Lordships the last passage in an address on "The English Poor Law and Friendly Societies," by Mr. Chance, M.A., barrister-at-law— The friendly societies have, up to now, fought a splendid fight for freedom and in- dependence. I pray that they may not be misled, but that they will steel themselves against the temptations which a few leaders, false to the whole tradition of the friendly society movement, are holding out to them; and I hope guardians of the poor will not give way to the importunity of these false guides, but hold on to the sheet anchor of the English poor law, which is, that relief should only be given out of the public moneys to the destitute, and that in relieving destitution every source of income of the applicant must be taken into account. Those are sound words, and I believe that instead of passing another Bill to make compulsory what is now permissive, it would be better to repeal the permissive Act of 1894.


My Lords, I hope the House will not reject this Bill without full consideration. The Government take no part with regard to it, and, though the President of the Local Government Board strongly supported the Bill in the House of Commons, that was not an official act on his part, and the opinions which I shall express will only be my own personal opinions. You have had placed before you the views of a great many bodies, and there has been a question raised as to whether opinion has been sufficiently obtained or not. If I may be allowed to say so, I care very little for the opinions of the friendly societies themselves, who may be interested, or of the Charity Organisation Society. I agree with my noble friend that we ought not to be governed entirely by the opinion of the House of Commons, but I venture, with great respect, to ask him whether he is justified in speaking of Members of the other House as vote-hunting humanitarians. It is possible that Gentlemen so styled may make it a pretext for moving the adjournment of the House. I can assure the noble Lord that when I was in the House of Commons hon. Members always spoke of him and other noble Lords with bated breath. What are the real merits of this Bill? A strong feeling has grown up in this

Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.) Ripon, M. Kilmorey, E.
Lauderdale, E. [Teller.]
Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.) Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain) Mayo, E.
Portland, D. Beauchamp, E. Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)
Carrington, E.
Bath, M. Chesterfield, E. Sidmouth, V.
Bristol, M. Denbigh, E.
Lansdowne, M. Jersey, E. Ripon, L. Bp.

country that every consideration should be shown to the man who has displayed habits of thrift, and that everything that can be done should be done to raise up that portion of the community who may be described as the deserving poor. One statute passed which would show that we looked favourably upon this kind of thrift would be of far more value than all the precepts. Let us take the case of two agricultural labourers discussing the question whether they should contribute to a friendly society or not. The first man says, "I am a poor man, but I am going to pay 6d. a week into a friendly society, and I do so because I know that when I am sick I shall have 5s. a week to supplement the relief I may get." The other says, "I am going to spend my 6d. a week in the public-house, because if you go to the union they will take the 5s. a week you get from your friendly society from you in relief of the rates, or they will say—'Look to your friendly society payment; we will give you nothing.' Thus we shall be exactly in the same position, as I shall have 5s. a week from the rates, except that I shall have been having my beer all the time." If this Bill is rejected the argument of the man who goes to the public-house would be unanswerable. I desire to see every encouragement given to the thrifty man. Three-fourths of the unions have already accepted the Act of 1894, and what is required now is uniformity. If this measure will encourage the thrifty man as against the man who spends all his money, is it wise to reject it? The noble Lord contended that if you allow this in regard to friendly societies you ought to extend it to other societies, but I would appeal to your Lordships not to allow the best to be the enemy of the good.

On Question, Whether "now" shall stand part of the motion, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 39; Non-contents, 66.

Ashbourne, L. Hawkesbury, L. Monkswell, L. [Teller.]
Balfour, L. James, L. O'Neill, L.
Battersea, L. Kelvin, L. St. Levan, L.
Brassey, L. Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.) Tredegar, L.
Burghclere, L. Tweedmouth, L.
Churchill, L. Kenyon, L. Wandsworth, L.
Digby, L. Leigh, L. Wrottesley, L.
Northumberland, D. Cross, V. Dunboyne, L.
Falkland, V. Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.);
Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.) Falmouth, V. Harlech, L.
Frankfort De Montmorency, V. Hatherton, L.
Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward.) Hay, L. (E. Kinnoul.)
Goschen, V. Heneage, L. [Teller.]
Bandon, E. Hampden, V. Hobhouse, L.
Camperdown, E. Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) Hylton, L.
Drogheda, E. Lindley, L.
Fevarsham, E. Portman, V. Lingen, L.
Ferrers, E. Templetown, V. Monck, L. (V. Monck.)
Grey, E. Norton, L.
Mansfield, E. Ardilaun, L. Poltimore, L.
Morley, E. Avebury, L. Ponsonby, L. (.E. Bessborough.)
Munster, E. Barnard, L. Robertson, L.
Northbrook, E. [Teller.] Belper, L. Seaton, L.
Onslow, E. Brougham and Vaux, L. Sherborne, L.
Rosse, E. Calthorpe, L. Stalbridge, L.
Stamford, E Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.) Stanmore, L.
Stanhope, E. Castletown, L. Suffield, L.
Waldegrave, E. Clonbrock, L. Templemore, L.
Westmeath, E. Crofton, L. Ventry, L.
de Ros, L. Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)
Cobham, V. De Saumarez, L. Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative.

Bill to be read 3a this day three months.