HL Deb 23 July 1901 vol 97 cc1264-95

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

The MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I have to move the Second Reading of this Bill, which results from the Report of a Committee your Lordships appointed to consider the subject, and upon which a debate has already taken place in this House. I wish to point out, not all, but some of the leading considerations which have induced us to submit this measure to your Lordships. The fact that such a declaration his required has been brought to public notice by the accession of a new Sovereign, and many persons have turned their attention to it who had not previously done so. In this way it has become matter of public interest. But it is not only the mere accident of a change in the occupancy of the Throne; there is no doubt there has been a great change in public opinion going on for several generations, by which the objections to the declaration have become less and less tolerable, and as time went on and generations succeeded each other it has been brought more prominently into public view, and important considerations have been brought into discussion. Until the question was discussed on the accession I do not think the majority of the people knew the kind of oath or declaration the Sovereign was forced to make. When they did know, it affected them in various ways. In parts where a strong Protestant feeling exists it was not received with reluctance, or, at any rate, did not excite so much hostile feeling, but it was otherwise in those parts of the Empire where the Roman Catholic faith still prevails and commands the allegiance of large numbers of His Majesty's subjects. It was startling to them to know that their Sovereign was forced to make this declaration on his accession to the Throne. When I say he was forced to make it, I mean to say the whole political machine would have come to a deadlock if he had not done so. The statute compelled him to make the declaration before he met his Parliament, and until he met his Parliament it was impossible that there could be any legislation. So until the declaration was made nothing further could be done, for the only machine that would enable you to take a different course—namely, the assent of Parliament to a repealing Act—was in the very nature of the precaution of the statute of Charles II. excluded from political possibility. That being the case, it was found, among other things, that the Sovereign was required to declare— That the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other saint and the sacrifice of the mass as now used in the Church of Rome are superstitious and idolatrous. It was thus brought home to the consciences of many millions of His Majesty's subjects that the religion to which they were passionately attached was denounced in the most offensive form under statute by the Sovereign on his accession to the Throne. As your Lordships are aware, this knowledge produced a very strong feeling among Roman Catholic bodies, and Roman Catholic bodies are not the same as they were when the statesmen of Charles II. passed this law. I will not enter into the question what the particular view of Irish Roman Catholics was then or is now, it would lead to much difference of opinion; but we have not to deal with Ireland alone, we have Canada, Malta, Mauritius, and many more scattered communities now attached to the Church of Rome and subjects of the Sovereign of England, of whom that could not be said in 1680 when the oath was first enacted. It is not surprising, then, that strong feeling was excited. I have received certain documents from them, but I have some difficulty in now dealing with these. I cannot lay them on the Table; but, if any noble Lord likes to move for copies, the most important of them are addressed to me and I shall offer no opposition. This which I hold in my hand is the most important; it contains an enormous number of Maltese names, "sincere Catholics who have heard of this peculiarity in the English Statute-book with great alarm and religious indignation." I cannot read the precise terms of the petition because it is written in Italian, but your Lordships will see the feeling is keen and strong and distinct; and we have the signatures of British subjects in Malta who are Roman Catholics, and "yield to none in loyalty to the British Throne, but whose loyalty to their Sovereign stands by the side of intense loyalty to their Church." The next is a petition of the Roman Catholic community of Mauritius, and it goes on to represent that the declaration that the Sovereign is by law required to make when he meets Parliament for the first time contains expressions highly offensive to His Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects, and are at the same time unnecessary for the purpose of the declaration. They conclude with a prayer for legislation to amend the declaration. Then I have an address from the hierarchy of Canada to his Eminence Cardinal Vaughan, Archbishop of Westminster. It is perhaps too long to read, but I may say it expresses in the strongest way the feeling that animates other members of the Roman Catholic Church in other parts of the Empire. That document is signed by the Archbishops of Halifax, Ottawa, Quebec, Montreal, Toronto, and a considerable number of bishops.

What we say is this. One thing perfectly obvious is that it represents a totally different state of things from that which presented itself to the eyes of the statesmen of Charles II. when they passed the celebrated Act with which we are now dealing. These Catholics are no doubt devoted members of our Empire. But our King is their King, and they have as much claim on our King as we have, and it is not only intelligible, but quite natural, that they should look upon it as a real grievance that language of a most violent and objectionable kind should be used against the articles of their faith at the most solemn moment of his reign by the Sovereign when ascending the Throne. It has been brought to their knowledge by the discussions that have taken place, and we can imagine the pain, grief, and indignation which it has aroused in their minds. That being so, I do not think we have any choice but to bring it under the notice of Parliament again. Two hundred and fifty years have passed since it was last under the consideration of Parliament. Many things have happened since that time. The whole character of the Empire has been changed, and there are objections now—it was always open to objections—to the formula put into the mouth of the Sovereign which did not exist 250 years ago. I do not intend to treat this as, in any sense, a party question. It must be determined by Parliament according to its own will in pursuance and exercise of its supreme power. Our duty is fulfilled when we have submitted to Parliament such considerations as we can devise, and when we have called attention to the state of things that now exists and the grounds there are for revising the action imposed upon the Sovereign at so solemn a moment. That being the case, we have proposed a Bill absolutely on those lines. The object of the Committee was that these offensive expressions should be withdrawn, and that so much change as was necessary for the purpose should be made in the new statutory declaration. We never promised to go further than that. We do not desire to enter into the question; though we do not conceal our own opinion that a declaration is necessary or, or at all events, highly expedient for the maintenance of the Protestant succession. But that is not the point which we submit for the consideration of Parliament.

What we desire Parliament to consider is whether it is not possible to attain this high object of policy without, at the same time, giving statutory sanction, at a solemn moment, to words which in private life you would never dream of using towards the conviction of your friends. There is one other object of the Bill which explains many things which seem to the critics of the measure hard to understand. They say that, after all, in the present day a declaration is not necessary. I do not think we should find unanimous acceptance of that view. But, whatever our views are, that is not the point for us now. We desire to give Parliament an opportunity of revising this language of antique date and of a most objectionable character, and do not desire to make any change beyond that elementary process. In the same way, I do not know that an allusion to certain doctrines is the most desirable way of expressing our separation from the belief of the Roman Catholic Church or the separation of our Sovereign. But we could not remove these words without making a serious breach, a serious alteration in the declaration with which we are dealing; and it seemed to us an essential part of our duty at the time to keep the alterations of the declaration as low as they possibly could be consistent with the chief object of providing that these offensive words should be withdrawn. Therefore, without expressing any abstract opinion with reference to doctrines, we think it highly expedient not to enter upon the discussion of those things, and not to alter the oath save so far as it is absolutely necessary to remove these offensive expressions, which irritate and wound our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, and especially those whose accession to the Empire is later than the passing of the statute. I will not enter into minute questions of wording. According to our usual practice, they are dealt with in Committee; and, in moving that the Bill be read a second time, we only ask the House to affirm that it is desirable to remove this offensive language from the declaration; and, commending it to the favourable consideration of your Lordships, I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.

Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

LORD KINNAIRD

My Lords, it is somewhat difficult, after the speech we have just listened to, to oppose the Bill, because it would seem that by doing so one did not agree with the principles of toleration proposed by the Bill. Those whom I represent hold that it is quite possible to give absolute justice and freedom and political rights, even more advanced than many noble Lords on the opposite side of the House would consent to, and yet maintain the principle, which we strongly hold, that we are a Christian and a Protestant country. We have fellow subjects in this Empire who hold non-Christian views. The King rules over a larger number of Mohammedan subjects than any other king or ruler in the world, and we give them justice while still maintaining that we are a Christian country, and therefore in creeds and declarations we must say many things which are not acceptable to them. We have a far larger number of Hindoo fellow subjects, and those who have been in India, as I have on two occasions, and witnessed the feelings of reverence for our late beloved Queen, and also for our present Sovereign, do not feel that we are doing anything that is unfair or unjust in maintaining our Christian position. We treat them as fellow subjects without in any way giving up what we believe to be our national inheritance and birthright—namely, the Protestant and Christian religion. The question before us is whether we are called upon to alter our constitution at the beck and request of the Pope of Rome, and those who govern that great and marvellous organisation, the Roman Catholic Church. We know, many of us, what an interest His Eminence the Pope takes in regard to this matter, and that he sends special envoys over in order to keep himself acquainted with the details of the proposed change. I was surprised to hear it contended that the Church of Rome and her leaders had altered so much during the last 200 years. I follow more than many of your Lordships their writings, and what they demand from us and say with reference to us. They speak out their mind pretty clearly, and we have working models in many countries of what happens where they hold supreme power. The question is, whether we are going to give them what they demand, for lately there has been a request, not only that this declaration should be modified, but for further alterations in our constitution and our legislation. In the Tablet, which represents their views in very forcible language, of 30th March last, it is stated— It cannot be denied that the Low-Church section of the Anglican body and the Protestant masses generally have very grave interest in demanding the retention of at least some disavowal of transubstantiation in the oath on accession. It is their flag, so to speak, nailed over the threshold of the Throne, and on the very apex of the British Constitution. That shows the importance which they attach to this declaration. The first reason which I give for asking your Lordships to refuse the Bill a Second Reading is that it has been prepared with undue haste. I quite admit that the principle has been before us for some time, but some of us have not been able to get a copy of the Bill until the last moment. Some noble Lords who were interested in it tried to get a copy yesterday, but they were unable to do so. Some friends of my own applied at the printers, and were told they would probably procure a copy on Tuesday evening or on Wednesday morning, after the Second Reading.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Copies of the Bill were produced without delay, and were to be obtained on Monday night.

LORD KINNAIRD

I believe Lord Braye and Lord Halifax tried to get copies on Monday afternoon, but were unable to do so, but just before the House adjourned I succeeded in getting a few, which I distributed. There are those who are interested in the Bill who are lawyers, and who wanted copies to form an opinion upon it, but they were not able to get them in time. Another reason why I object to the Second Reading is that the Bill satisfies few people. It does not satisfy those who are mostly to be benefited by it—namely, the Roman Catholics, for I believe I am correct in saying that they are not prepared to accept any Bill containing words pronouncing against the doctrines which they hold. What they desire is to try to get rid of the declaration altogether. Then the Bill does not satisfy the High Church party, and certainly it does not satisfy those who belong to the Protestant societies throughout the United Kingdom. Further, there are doubts as to the details, for the Bill, with regard to adoration of the Virgin, has been altered from what the Committee recommended. I have some literature on the subject which I will not refer to, but I hope others may possibly refer to, which makes reference to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, and shows that adora- tion of the Virgin Mary is taught, and that no one has a right to gainsay it. I beg, therefore, to move the motion standing in my name.

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

THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

My Lords, in the peculiar position in which the discussion of this subject has now landed us, and, above all, after the very weighty words which fell to-night from the Prime Minister, I for one feel that we should be acting very wrongly indeed if we declined to give a Second Reading to the Bill which has been brought forward on behalf of the Government. Certainly I propose myself to vote for it, but in doing so I am anxious to dissociate myself from all complicity in, and to disclaim all responsibility for, the precise form of words which is proposed for our acceptance. May I for a moment recall what has been the history of this matter? If one does so, I think it will be obvious how much was to be said, and is still to be said, in favour of the proposal that was made by the most rev. Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, that the Report should be referred back to the Committee for further consideration. No one, whatever may be his private opinions, can doubt, as the noble Marquess the Prime Minister has pointed out, how difficult was the position in which the Government was placed when called upon to impose on a new Sovereign the making of a declaration which dates back to a totally different condition of things and to times far distant from our own. But I cannot help thinking that, to some extent, the difficulty is exaggerated in the popular mind by forgetfulness of the actual history of the declaration. The declaration is commonly spoken of as though it had been compiled and put together to be taken by the Sovereign alone. That, of course, is a total misapprehension. It was put together to be taken, not by a Sovereign at all, but by members of both Houses of Parliament and certain other official personages. The Sovereign was not then included, but in the reign of William III. it was enacted that the declaration hitherto binding on members of Parliament should be binding also on the Sovereign. When the time came, some seventy years ago, that members of Parliament were relieved from these tests, and were allowed to sit though Roman Catholics, the King was not similarly relieved, and upon him the old test still continued to be obligatory. Such is the plain history. The point is not vital to the controversy, but I cannot help thinking that forgetfulness with respect to this historical fact has confused the issue in the minds of a good many who have discussed it. Be this, however, as it may, the declaration is certainly objected to, and objected to on two distinct and quite different grounds. One objection is that it makes the King solemnly assure us that he is not, under the sanction of a dispensation, telling a deliberate lie. To call for such an assurance is to imply that it may be needed, and to the removal of that part of the declaration I have never heard anybody raise any reasonable objection. The declaration is also objected to on the ground that it is needlessly discourteous or even offensive in the epithets it uses with regard to certain doctrines held by members of the Roman Catholic Church. The weighty documents from the colonies, to which the noble Marquess has referred, called attention to that particular point. I confess myself to be somewhat surprised by the extreme sensitiveness shown with respect to those unhappy epithets, when I recall the phraseology and the terms which, as we are all aware, the high authorities of the Roman Church are in the habit of using with respect to the Church to which most of your Lordships belong. I do not say that two blacks make a white, I only say that their extreme sensitiveness strikes one sometimes as being a little strained.

But the objection was raised. It had somehow to be met, and the Government had before it several alternatives. They might have let the whole declaration alone, regarding it, say, as corresponding with the archaic phraseology which we heard at the trial the other day, or with the archaic garb worn by noble Lords on that occasion. Again the Government might have taken an extreme step, trusting to the Act of Settlement and the Coronation Oath, and simply have abolished the declaration altogether. The third alternative, which, in my opinion, was the right and statesmanlike one, and was properly adopted, was to endeavour to amend the words so as to make them correspond with the facts of our own day. But, if this course was to be followed, it was necessary to consider in the utmost detail the words which were to be used, because phraseology which might be tolerated if regarded as having come down for two hundred years, would obviously acquire a totally different character when regarded as the phraseology chosen in 1901. It therefore became of the utmost importance that the ipsissima verba should be weighed, formulated, and adapted in the best and most careful way possible. The members of the Committee appointed on the motion of His Majesty's Government to consider the subject were noble Lords who stand in the highest esteem in your Lordships' House, and whom it would be impertinent for me to praise. Some of them were men who must necessarily have formed part of any such Committee. But as respects several of the nine Members, the world has yet to learn that they have given special attention to the subtleties and technicalities of theological terminology. They met, and after one sitting—if report be true, not of a very long or laborious character— presented to the House the Report which was before us a week ago. In that Report very important changes were made in the Declaration. Attention was called in our recent debate to the fact that the Report was unanimous, but the difficulty of the position was surely emphasised by the fact that of the three noble Lords who addressed your Lordships on that occasion as members of the Committee, two suggested changes, and the third thought that such changes, while not necessary, might be adopted. That was the unanimous Report which was presented to us as the outcome of one very brief sitting. The most rev. Primate on that occasion moved that the Report be referred back, and that additional names, not necessarily of bishops, should be added in order that the House might have the help of noble Lords who had given special attention to the subject, and who had special opportunities of knowing the opinions of thoughtful and intelligent scholars and others on the matter. I should have thought it an immense gain if some noble Lords of the Roman Catholic faith had found a place on the Committee, but all that the most rev. Prelate actually proposed was that the Com- mittee should be increased by additional names, and that the Report should be further considered. That was not thought by His Majesty's Government to be desirable, and the motion was not pressed to a division. A few days later the Government introduces the Bill we are now considering, but, to and behold, when the Bill is printed the declaration embodied in it is not the declaration the House approved in the Report of the Committee. Some Amendments have been made which may turn out to be of larger import than at first appears. I do not say that the two changes which have been made in the Bill are not improvements. I will not enter into that question now, but I do say they are matters of very great importance indeed, and that they require to be most carefully considered before the House should be asked to give its assent to the Bill. They are, however, from their very sacredness, matters which it is practically impossible for us to adequately and properly discuss in an assembly such as this, and I feel that by these very changes strength has been given to the argument in favour of a more adequate consideration of words to which so much attention will be directed throughout the world. That consideration should, in my judgment, be given by a Committee somewhat larger than, possibly somewhat differently constituted from, the Committee which has already dealt with the subject—a Committee, too, which should weigh and discuss the matter at somewhat greater length than has been the case at present.

It is obviously impossible that the introduction of a phrase requiring the Sovereign to declare his assent to what is described as "the Protestant religion" and the removal of the word "adoration" can be adequately discussed in the House itself: both are matters extremely technical and extremely important. With regard to the former phrase, its vagueness is such as might lead to great misapprehension. Personally I was grateful to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for what he said in debate as to the nonsense (I can use no milder term) of what is frequently urged against the popular use of a word so well understood as the word Protestant. But then, my Lords, we are not dealing now with popular or colloquial phrases. We are called upon to draw up a formal technical document which is to become a part of the British Constitution, and the most minute care is therefore required as to what we say. Then, again, with regard to the word "adoration" in the connection in which it stood in the declaration, I was, I confess, somewhat startled to hear it repudiated as a vulgar misapprehension by noble Lords of the Roman Catholic faith. On returning home I referred to a great standard Roman Catholic authority, and in the very first passage I consulted I found the particular word "adoration" officially used in a way which covers the very phrase of the declaration in substantially the same connection. I mention that fact not because I wish to see the word replaced in the declaration, to which it really adds nothing, but in order to point out the rough-and-ready way in which these solemn and intricate matters appear to have been dealt with. The point I wish to make is not that I am objecting necessarily to the changes which have been made. But what I am objecting to is that there has not (owing to the insistence of the Government that these solemn and difficult subjects shall be considered in the whole House and nowhere else) been any possibility of their receiving appropriate and adequate discussion. The Government say, and I think the Government are right, that some declaration is now required, and for my own part, though I shall vote for the Second Reading of the Bill, I disclaim any complicity in the precise form which the declaration now takes, because I think it has been arrived at without adequate consideration.

VISCOUNT LLANDAFF

My Lords, I should be extremely glad if I could feel able to support the Second Reading of this Bill. The Committee were, no doubt, animated by kindly intentions to the body to which I belong. I have tried to persuade myself that the principle of the Bill was this, that the declaration framed in the Bill of Rights was undesirable and ought to be altered, if not abolished. But I am bound to confess, after mature consideration, that what seems to be the principle of the Bill is, that it is proper to put into the mouth of the Sovereign at the moment of his accession an anti-Catholic declaration, in order that His Majesty may dissociate himself from and condemn certain tenets of the Roman Catholic faith. The noble Marquess said with great frankness that the desire of the Committee had been simply to eliminate offensive expressions, but to leave the substance of the declaration exactly as it was in the Bill of Rights. If that be the right view to take, I am unable to vote for the Second Reading. I must enter my protest most distinctly against the accession of the Sovereign being made an occasion for putting into his mouth the condemnation of any lawful creed professed by any loyal subject of His Majesty. It seems to me that that is neither just nor rational.

There were two possible courses the Committee might have taken. In the first place, there was the plain and simple course of abolishing the declaration altogether. I regard this declaration, the history of which has been given with perfect accuracy by the right rev. Prelate, as a relic of barbarism—a memento of one of the most discreditable periods of our history. It could go without the slightest danger to the Protestant succession, or to the Protestant Established Church. The security it affords is not worth the paper it is written on, and its abolition would seem to me to be a most statesmanlike, straightforward, and civilised course to take. The second course which might have been adopted was to have framed a declaration of positive belief, instead of a negative denial of the doctrines of other people. Such a declaration might have been framed which would have satisfied all rational men. As it is, His Majesty's Government have taken a course which has pleased nobody. It has not pleased the noble Lord Kinnaird, and, as far as I could gather from the speech of the right rev. Prelate, it does not please the right rev. Bench. They see all sorts of theological blots and mistakes in the declaration even as it stands now. It certainly does not please the Roman Catholic body, to which I belong. I think it is high time that this sort of controversial attack made upon us in public documents, on solemn occasions, should cease. I regret that, for the reasons I have indicated, I shall feel myself unable to vote for the Second Reading of the Bill; but, on the other hand, I am unwilling to go into the lobby against the noble Marquess who has proposed the Bill, because I am sure his intentions were kindly and full of consideration for us, and that he believed he was removing our grievance. I have stated what our action will be to-night; but when the Bill goes into Committee I shall support any Amendment by which the objectionable features of the declaration can be altered or modified.

VISCOUNT HALIFAX

My Lords, the object of this declaration is to exclude a Roman Catholic from the throne. It is an object, as Dr. Parker, of the City Temple, in his letter to The Times of yesterday points out, which is inconsistent with the principle of religious equality, with the right of every man, even the King, to liberty of conscience; and with those general principles of civil and religious liberty which no one in England ventures to deny. Passing this by, what I say is (1) that the declaration is not necessary, for the object it has in view is secured without it; and (2) that, if it were necessary, the declaration, as amended, is not the right way to secure the object aimed at. The words of the Act of Settlement, which is part of the statute law, provide— That any person who is reconciled to the See of Rome, or shall profess the Papal religion, or shall marry a Papist, shall be excluded and be for ever incapable to inherit, possess, or enjoy the Crown or Government of this realm. Can words be stronger? Can any words be more stringent? In what way could you make them more effective for the object in view? But these words are not all. They do not stand alone. There is, in addition to them, the coronation oath, and there is the fact that the King or Queen receives the Holy Communion at his or her Coronation according to the rites of the Church of England, a thing impossible for a Roman Catholic. I say, then, that the declaration is not necessary, for the object it is supposed to secure is secured already, and next I say that if it were necessary, the declaration in its original and in its amended form is not the proper way to secure that object. In the first place, it raises the whole question of religious tests in the most objectionable way, it is insulting to many millions of the King's subjects, and is keenly resented by them. Canada has protested against the declaration almost unanimously. Similar protests have come from Australasia, India, Ceylon, Malta, and from other parts of the world. No other Sovereign or head of a State takes such a declaration—not the Emperor of Germany, not the President of the United States; not the President of the French Republic—the Emperor of Austria promises to protect all the churches.

If it is sought to justify such a declaration by a reference to the past, will not a reference to the past equally justify the King being required to abjure the doctrines of the Independents? It was the Independents who, when they had the chance, desecrated the churches, made the use of the Prayer Book penal, and transported the clergy. At this moment who is it who are seeking to disestablish and disendow the Church of England? Is it the Roman Catholics or the Nonconformists? Why pick out particular doctrines dear to many of the King's subjects in order to deny them? Why is the King to be made to do anything so ungracious? In India every respect is paid to the Mohammedan and Hindoo religions by the representatives of the Crown. Are the King's Christian subjects less entitled to consideration at the hands of the King himself? In the next place, consider the declaration, as amended, in itself. It is contrary to the whole sense and feeling of the House to be forced into a theological discussion, but such a discussion is forced upon the House by the action of the Government. Does this House think itself competent to draw up exact theological formulæ? I can conceive no body less fitted for such a task, unless it be the House of Commons. Does this House, as the noble Earl (Lord Rosebery) asked the other day, claim for itself the functions of an ecumenical council? Mr. Gladstone used to say that there were seven doctrines of transubstantiation. Which of these is the King to abjure? The Eastern churches use the phrase, though guarding themselves against being committed to the consequences of the scholastic theology. Is the King to abjure the teaching of the East as well as of the West on the subject? The authorities of the Roman Church have lately been saying that the differences between them and the Russian Church on this point are infinitesimal, yet I never heard anyone say that the Duke of Coburg, when Duke of Edinburgh, had infringed the Act of Settlement or forfeited his right to the Crown by marrying a princess who accepted the word "transubstantiation."

But there is more than this. The amended declaration suggests by implication that the terms "transubstantiation," and "the Sacrifice of the Mass" are identical with statements on the same subjects in the formularies of the Church of England, but the Prime Minister, certainly the Bishop of Winchester, knows as well as I do that they are nothing of the kind. "The Sacrifice of the Mass" of the declaration is one thing; "the Sacrifice of Masses in which it was commonly said" of the Articles is another. To deny "Transubstantiation" simpliciter is one thing, to deny the "transubstantiation which overthrows the nature of a Sacrament" in the elements is another. The words of the declaration as they stand would not have been accepted by some of the greatest English divines of the seventeenth century. They would not, I will venture to say without fear of contradiction, have been accepted by such a man as the author of the "Christian Year." Does the Prime Minister, who, as Chancellor of the University of Oxford, opened Keble College with much solemnity, wish to impose a test on the King which would have been rejected by such a man as Mr. Keble? The most rev. Prelates the Archbishops of Canterbury and York not long ago addressed a letter to Leo XIII. and the rest of the bishops of the Catholic Church laying down and vindicating the teaching of the Church of England on these very subjects. In that letter—and no letter could have been more carefully considered or more authoritative—the archbishops lay down that in the Holy Eucharist there is "no bare Commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross," that "we pray in regard to the consecration that the bread and wine may become to us the body and blood of Christ"—a phrase in the canon of the Mass—and I would ask the most rev. Prelates how it is possible to reconcile the statements in that letter with the meaning which in popular estimation will be attached to this amended declaration if it passes? The archbishops know that they cannot, consistently with their character of bishops of the Catholic Church—and I suppose, my Lords, that we shall not deny them that title—and consistently with the loyalty they owe to the Church of England, surrender the word "become" in connection with the consecration of the elements, and it is because this is so and because it is impossible for this House to draw up any adequate declaration dealing with such points of theology, that I shall very earnestly ask your Lordships not to agree to the form of words proposed in the Bill if the Bill gets into Committee.

Then the Bill proposes that the King should be required to say that "he believes in the Protestant religion." Even Mr. Samuel Smith sees the absurdity of such a phrase. What is the Protestant religion? Is it the religion established across the Tweed? Is it German Lutheranism? Is it the religion of the German Evangelical Church? Is it the religion of Geneva? Socinians, Quakers, all the various sects of Nonconformists, call themselves Protestants. In the religion of which of these bodies is the King to profess his belief? May I remind your Lordships what the Lower House of the Convocation of Canterbury replied when they were asked in the year 1689, under William and Mary, to use the phrase "Protestant" religion in reference to the Church of England? They refused to use the phrase on the ground that it was "equivocal." "Socinians," they said, "Anabaptists, Quakers, assumed that title; the Church of England was distinguished by its doctrines as contained in the Articles, Liturgy and Formularies," and in those Formularies the word Protestant is not mentioned at all. I do not think your Lordships will wish, in this respect, to go further than William III., who refrained from using the word in consequence.

Then, my Lords, consider the history of the declaration. Its germ, and most of its phrases, are first found in the Act or ordinance of the Long Parliament in 1843 requiring suspected Papists to take an oath on pain of seizure or sequestration of two-thirds part of all their goods and estates, real and personal. The oath ran— I do abjure the Pope's supremacy and authority, and I do believe there is not any transubstantiation in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper"— and go on in the words of the present amended declaration with other matter added to it. The oath was amplified under Cromwell in 1656, and it was imposed in its present shape in 1679, under Charles II., at the time of the wholly fictitious Popish plot for the express purpose of disabling Roman Catholics from sitting in either House of Parliament. It is inseparably connected with the name of Titus Oates and his perjuries. With such a history, I ask myself what reasons the Committee can have had in recommending, and the Government in accepting, such a declaration as the one proposed? The proposed declaration, except for the omission of two or three offensive words, is as objectionable as the one for which it is substituted. Why have not the Committee, with such an opportunity before them, recommended something which would have commended itself to the common sense of reasonable people throughout the country? I can only conceive one reason for the course they have adopted, and that is the one suggested by the Prime Minister himself a fortnight ago on the presentation of the Committee's Report. The Prime Minister asked what likelihood there was of the original members of the Committee changing their unanimous opinion if "theological experts," as was suggested by the most rev. Prelate and the noble Earl (Lord Rosebery), were added to advise them? The noble Marquess did not, I am sure, intend to say anything uncivil to the most rev. Prelate or to the other members of the Episcopal Bench—it was merely a hint that, though a theological statement was in question, the whole matter lay outside the limits of theology. It was a confession, emphasised by the whole of the noble Marquess's speech, that the Committee aimed at producing no suitable or sensible declaration, but merely one which should satisfy as far as possible a certain bigoted and senseless opposition outside. It was a confession of—what shall I call it?—timidity, the confession of one who was doing what he felt to be inconsistent with justice and common sense for the sake of keeping peace with those who are the very reverse of sensible or just.

My Lords, I think in this matter the noble Marquess does not altogether understand the country, or do justice to the great mass of his countrymen. There are others besides the extreme Protestant party throughout the country who, though they do not agitate, have a profound dislike to any such declaration as that proposed. But, even were it not so, is it too much to expect that a Prime Minister with such a majority should lead in a matter of this sort rather than be led?

The extreme Protestant party has only to be faced to show how little it can do. It can occupy a whole sheet of The Times with a single advertisement; it can convene meetings in the Albert Hall; it can flood the House of Commons with postcards; it can get up letters to Members of Parliament, but the last election, when it tried its best, showed how little it can do in any effectual way. No, my Lords, the great mass of our countrymen are neither so unjust or ungenerous as the Prime Minister supposes. They know that true religion does not consist in abusing the Pope and never going to church. When they see a noble Duke, a member of this House—the Duke of Norfolk—described in the public prints as the King's bitterest enemy; when, another member of your Lordships' House, the Earl of Portsmouth, is lamented over as a lost sheep because he has accepted an invitation to Arundel, they ask themselves whether human folly and bigotry can go any further. When they see what have been proved to be lies as to the bloody and traitorous oath taken by the Jesuits to upset the British Constitution still unblushingly circulated after the fullest exposure and contradiction, they judge those who are responsible for, or who do not disavow, such statements as they deserved to be judged. It is the same party that opposed Catholic emancipation that is now opposing any reasonable alteration of the declaration today. They threatened civil war then—they are now shouting "Protestants to the rescue!" in the same tone. But Catholic emancipation was carried, and there was no civil war. It will be the same with this declaration. It cannot stand; its disappearance is only a question of time.

Meanwhile, may I remind the House that to vote for the declaration as amended is to attach the present sanction and authority of this House in a most definite way to all that is retained? It is to make ourselves responsible for a declaration which is condemned by the common sense of the country, which is obnoxious to great portions of the Empire, and which, instead of helping to unite and weld the members of the Empire together, must, of necessity, whenever it is remembered—and the matter is not one which will be allowed to drop—beacause of discord and an incentive to bitter feeling. I shall move on going into Committee, if the Bill gets into Committee, the substitution of the following words suggested by the Bill. The declaration would then run— I, A. B., by the Grace of God, King (or Queen) of Great Britain and Ireland, do solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare that I am a member of the Church of England as by law established, the doctrines of which Church I unfeignedly believe and confess, and I do solemnly, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare that I do make this declaration in every part thereof unreservedly. As such it would be perfectly effective if such additional security is required to prevent a member of the Roman Catholic Church from ascending the throne, but it would outrage no one's feelings. It would not touch disputed points of theology; it would prevent the King being made ridiculous in the eyes of Europe; it would assert what the King did believe instead of saying what he did not believe, and it would be some pledge that in the beginning of this new century we are all anxious to be just to one another, to live in peace with one another as far as we may, and to forget those unhappy religious differences which have too often in the past been so marked a feature in our history.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTER-BURY

My Lords, I think the speech we have just listened to is a very good illustration of the mischief that necessarily comes from the course which has been taken in dealing with this matter. We have had a good deal of theological discussion initiated by the noble Viscount; he has thought fit to bring before this House various theological opinions which it is quite clear it is not the business of this House to consider. I do not intend to make any reply to what the noble Viscount has said about statements of my own upon such questions as these. The statements that I have publicly made are sufficiently clear if anybody really desires to ascertain what are my opinions upon such questions as transubstantiation and the like; they have been made in a form very easy for any one to obtain, and they will be in themselves a sufficient reply to the insinuations of the noble Viscount. But this is not the appropriate place for discussions of that kind. I am sure the House will be with me in my unwillingness to prolong such a discussion. But, though I do not like the exact form which this Bill has taken, and though I cannot help agreeing with the Bishop of Winchester in his criticism of the course followed by the Government, yet for all that I think the House will do wisely to pass a Bill of this kind, because, as the question has been raised, it is very important that no mistake shall be made as to the attitude of this country in regard to this matter.

There are various arguments that have been used on both sides, but the simple question is, How shall you adequately secure the Protestant succession? To have no declaration at all after what has passed would be simply to indicate that you did not hold that there was any longer a need for any such security. Now the security is required, not on religious, but on political grounds only. This country is determined to govern itself, and it will not have any interference from any outside Power; the Roman Catholic body declares its allegiance to a supreme power outside this country altogether, and as long as that body is hampered in that way it is of the greatest importance that the Sovereign, holding such a position as he holds, and having such influence as he must necessarily have, shall make it perfectly clear to all of us that to that body he does not belong. The mode of doing it may vary, and I think it is possible that long and careful consideration might have supplied us with some better declaration than we have got before us. But whenever it is implied that we undervalue in any way whatever the importance of the Protestant succession, or when it is in the slightest degree inferred that this country is doubtful on that point, then we must stand quite firm to this—that a body which owes allegiance to a foreign Power cannot be allowed to exercise its authority, claiming, as it does, to be an infallible authority; it is impossible for this country to allow such an authority to exercise such power as it might exercise through a Sovereign who was under such obligations. For that reason, although I do not like the form of the statement very much, I mean to vote for the Second Reading, and I hope the Bill will be carried and will ultimately become law.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

My Lords, I think the course of this debate has not been on the whole satisfactory to the Government. With the best intentions in the world, they have dipped into troubled waters, and I do not think they are likely to get any very great satisfaction from the result. What has been the course of this debate? The moment the noble Marquess sat down the noble Lord behind me rose and in an uncompromising spirit moved the rejection of the Bill. He was followed by the noble Viscount opposite, who, speaking from an opposite point of view, said that out of personal regard for the noble Marquess, and in view of the good intentions he was prepared to credit Mm with, he should not vote against him; but that it was absolutely and morally impossible for him in any way to vote for the Bill. Then we come to the noble Viscount behind me, whose singularly earnest, eloquent, and interesting speech, though it cannot have convinced many of us, yet must have appealed to the most generous sentiments of the House. Then came the noble Viscount who, with equal emphasis and even more eloquence than previous speakers, repudiated any idea of voting for this Bill. We listened also with very great interest to the speech of the Bishop of Winchester, who, though he is going to vote for the Bill, did not praise it with any great cordiality. While the Bishop of Winchester expressed his intention to vote for the Bill, he did not bless it with any great cordiality. He reverted to the idea expressed on a former occasion, when he supported the most rev. Primate, to refer the declaration back for a more prolonged consideration by the Committee than it appeared to have received. I was one of those who tendered my support to the most rev. Primate on that occasion, but I shall not readily repeat that conduct, because, when he was speaking with legions behind him confident of victory— I think we could have run the noble Marquess hard if we had not defeated him —we were a little disappointed to find the Primate give us all away and withdraw his Amendment just in our keenest anticipation of success. Though the Bishop of Winchester has said he will vote for the Bill, he did so with the extremest qualification, regretting in every sentence of his speech that the Bill had not been prepared by someone who knew something about the subject. Now, if that is to be the only blessing, as it is the only blessing which the proposal of the noble Marquess has received in this House, I confess I feel a very gloomy prognostication as to its fate in another place.

The most rev. Prelate has dwelt with force and an eloquence we all acknowledge, and which received a rare testimony of applause from your Lordships, on the unwillingness of this realm to submit to any foreign authority in its ecclesiastical or any other matters. The supremacy of the Pope, no doubt, is a doctrine to which any subject of this kingdom would be least likely to yield any sympathy, but that is one of those doctrines which, in the enumeration of doctrines in the declaration, is conspicuously omitted. The right rev. Prelate, with a lingering feeling in favour of a reference back to the Committee, is going to vote for the Bill because he repudiates a doctrine which the declaration does not repudiate. I think, therefore, I am entitled to offer my sympathy to the noble Marquess, for he must feel, from the reception his Bill has met, that it cannot become law this year. This discussion, therefore, can be but purely academic, because if it cannot go from this House with a greater impetus than it seems likely to obtain, it is unlikely to successfully face the waves and rocks it will have to encounter —the extreme Protestant in the House of Commons on the one hand, the Roman Catholic bodies on the other. I would therefore humbly suggest to the noble Marquess whether it is too late to reconsider that proposal for reference to a Select Committee which on a former occasion was abandoned in a manner which so affected our feelings. I do believe that if you could refer it to a Committee of a larger and more representative character, which should include members of the Roman Catholic faith, as well as Prelates from the Episcopal Bench, you might possibly evolve a declaration which might weather this House and possibly meet with acceptance in the other. Unless that course is adopted, I venture to say that neither will be satisfied.

LORD HERRIES

My Lords, as I was the first to move that there should be a Joint Committee of this House to consider the question, perhaps I may be allowed to say two or three words in explanation of the position I shall take up to-day. I must say that I am not altogether satisfied with the Report of the Committee, and I should like to support what has fallen from my noble friend, Lord Rosebery, on that subject. I hope that the matter will be again referred to a Select Committee, which should include representatives not only of the bishops but also of Roman Catholics. When the question was first brought before us, I remember stating that I thought it was better that there should be no Roman Catholics on the Committee, but I must confess I have since regretted it. In the first place, I am quite sure that if I had been on the Committee the deliberations would have lasted longer than twenty minutes, and, in the second place, I think that the Committee would have become aware, by representations made to them, of what was likely to be the result of their deliberations. When the Report of the Committee was presented to us, if I remember right, the noble Marquess at the head of the Government spoke of the declaration as the "time-honoured" declaration; but I confess that to my mind the declaration is fraught with the history of terrible events, and misery and misfortune to thousands of Catholic Englishmen. It reminds me of the opinions of Lord Shaftesbury and the use he made of Titus Oates to foist this declaration upon Parliament. It was said of Lord Shaftesbury that he, when asked what the best religion was, replied that there was only one religion to which a wise man belonged; and when he was further pressed as to what that religion was, he replied that a wise man never let his religion be known. I presume it was the desire of the Committee that the Sovereign should have that wisdom, for he is required to belong to no religion as long as he condemns the Roman Catholic religion. It was, therefore, with feelings of great dissatisfaction that I read the Report of the Committee, which is now before us in the form of a Bill. The most rev. Primate alluded to the allegiance which Roman Catholics in this country owe to a foreign potentate. If he means the recognition of the supremacy of the Pope in matters of doctrine and in all questions with regard to the spiritual government of his subjects, I think he is right; but if he means that that allegiance goes further and affects the civil duties of Roman Catholic subjects of this realm, I say he is wrong. On this matter I will quote Bishop Doyle, who was one of the most illustrious bishops in Ireland at the time of the emancipation. He said— As the power of the State is derived from God, and totally independent of the Church, we recognise in the Pope no authority whatever to interfere with it. He went on to say— He who entrusted the Church to the Pope has entrusted the State to the Sovereign. Nothing could more strongly represent the attitude that has been taken by Roman Catholics in this country during the last two hundred years. We hear out of doors accusations of want of loyalty on the part of Catholics. I affirm that there are no more loyal subjects of the King, and none more anxious to do their duty to their country, than the Roman Catholics, and I despise and condemn those people who go about and say there is a divided allegiance on their part. I challenge anyone to deny that the history of the last two centuries shows anything but the most loyal feelings and actions among English Catholics. Catholics came forward at the beginning of the last century, when there was fear of invasion, and raised troops of Yeomanry, and I could name eight or ten of the principal Roman Catholics at that time who raised troops of Yeomanry to defend the shores of England when invasion was threatened by the Emperor of France. And in the present war, have you not to be thankful for the devotion of Roman Catholics? If the declaration were to have a positive character, in terms such as the noble Viscount read out, no objection would be raised on the part of Roman Catholics. It was only the other day that I was reading the Saxon coronation oath, and I could not help thinking how different it was from the oath which it is now recommended should be retained. Would it not be better that the King should say, "I am a member of the Church of England"? Who would object to that? If His Majesty also took the coronation oath, I maintain that no further security would be required to maintain that the King of England should be a Protestant. It was said a week ago that nothing would satisfy Roman Catholics. Such a declaration would satisfy them, but we shall never be entirely satisfied so long as certain Articles of our faith are picked out for condemnation, while other religions are not interfered with.

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

My Lords, as a member of the Committee who are responsible for the form of words now put before your Lordships, I am anxious to make a few brief remarks with regard to some of the speeches which have been made this evening. My noble friend Lord Rosebery, as is his wont, dealt out Very free criticism, but he has let us know very little of his inner mind on the subject of this declaration. We have not the least idea whether he is in favour of the abolition the Bill altogether, whether he is in favour of this modification, or what he may be in favour of, except that he proposes that the Bill should be referred back to a Select Committee. He complained that there were no Catholic peers on the Committee, but it will be within your Lordships' recollection that it was by the desire of those peers themselves that they were not represented on the Committee.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

I never found fault with the Committee for having no Roman Catholic Peers on it.

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

My noble friend did, I think, say that it was a pity there were no Roman Catholic peers on the Committee. Other speakers to-night have suggested that this Bill should be referred to another Select Committee, and the argument used in favour of that course has largely been that by that means an ecclesiastical discussion would be avoided within this House. Well, my Lords, I think that if the Bill were referred to another Select Committee the Report of that Committee would lead to quite as long a discussion in this House as has taken place to-night, and, if it were to go into the very technical points suggested, we should very likely get into a still more technical ecclesiastical dispute. I am but an unlearned layman, but I do maintain that this is not an ecclesiastical question at all; it is a purely political question, and one for politicians to deal with, and I am bound to say that, in my judgment, the Committee that was appointed to deal with the subject was, as far as is possible in your Lordships' House, composed of capable politicians. I think the Committee has been somewhat hardly dealt with. It has been accused of being ignorant and hasty, and of not having carried out the work for which it was appointed. It was not appointed to do away with the declaration, but to consider whether its language could be modified without diminishing its efficacy for the security of the maintainance of the Protestant succession. I say that the Committee would have acted altogether ultra vires if it had reported that the declaration should be abolished. That was the view the Committee took. Before we had been in the committee-room five minutes it was evident that that was the view of the whole of the Committee. It then became a mere question of drafting, and I think the method adopted would commend itself to most reasonable men. It was thought that the best plan would be to cut out the objectionable words, leaving the words which were not objectionable and which bore a certain meaning. That course was adopted. I admit that a certain error was committed owing to our not having the benefit of seeing the draft before it was sent up to the House. I believe that if the Committee had seen it would have received that amount of polish which it has since received before incorporation in the Bill. The noble Lord, Viscount Llandaff, who always speaks so eloquently and so moderately, said that the Committee had put into the mouth of the Sovereign a declaration condemning certain Roman Catholic doctrines. After all, this country is a Protestant country, and we have to secure the Protestant succession. Now, what does the word "Protestant" mean, and what is "the Protestant religion"? The Protestant religion protests against certain Roman Catholic doctrines, and what can be a better way of giving voice to that protest than by making the Sovereign, the moment he steps on the Throne, declare that certain Catholic doctrines are not according to his belief, and therefore not suitable for him to hold as Sovereign of this country?

I assert that it is desirable that we should retain that declaration, in order to secure from the mouth of the Sovereign at the time of his accession a declaration of protestation against certain Roman Catholic doctrines. My noble friend Lord Llandaff suggested another method of dealing with it. He said, "make it a positive declaration —a declaration of belief in the doctrines of the Church of England." That also recommended itself to Viscount Halifax and Lord Herries, but a declaration in the belief of the Church of England will not meet the question at all. England, no doubt, to use the words of my noble friend, is the predominant partner, but there is Scotland, and there are the colonies. There is nothing to prevent the King being a Wesleyan, or a Presbyterian. There are many Nonconformist bodies and various sects in this country which are as Protestant as the Church of England. It is not necessary that the declaration should be all embracing. What we wish to secure is that the Sovereign, on his accession, shall absolutely repudiate certain Roman Catholic doctrines, and, for the purpose required, the doctrines mentioned are as good as any we could secure. I think the declaration recommended is a very satisfactory method of asserting what I believe to be the Protestant feeling of this realm.

THE LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I think I shall be right in following the most rev. Prelate the Archbishop of Canterbury and voting for the Second Reading of this Bill, but I confess I shall do so in very much the same spirit as the Bishop of Winchester, who has shown good reason why the Bill, as it at present stands, does not really carry out what we ought to aim at. What is it we ought to aim at in such a declaration as this? We ought not merely to aim at satisfying obvious and superficial objections, but to make the declaration suitable to its unique position. It is only since 1867 that the declaration has obtained this unique position. It was in that year abolished as a declaration to be taken by other persons than the Sovereign. Surely there has been a great change also in the attitude of the great body of which I wish to speak with all possible respect—the Roman Catholic Church. The noble Lord just now quoted from Bishop Doyle. He must have forgotten Cardinal Newman's famous letter to the Duke of Norfolk in 1874, in which he pointed out all those statements made by Bishop Doyle and others at the time were quite worthless because they had not the adhesion of the Pope. It was pointed out that no compact was of any efficacy unless the Pope was a party to it, and we know that the Pope was not a consenting party to those very solemn and, I think, very noble protestations made by Roman Catholics during the first quarter of the last century, and they were afterwards treated as waste paper. That brings me to this point, why was it that the doctrine of transubstantiation was chosen in the year 1673? The most judicious historian of the period says that it was introduced because it was found that there was no other doctrine which could not be dispensed with. It was introduced into the House of Commons by two members, and accepted on the ground that it was art effective barrier to a Roman Catholic ascending the throne. But since that time the Church of Rome has changed very much, and the supremacy and personal infallibility of the Pope have been introduced into the articles of faith of Roman Catholics. If we are to draw a sharp distinction between ourselves and Roman Catholics, it is far better that we should do so upon the public ground of opposition to the Pope. I am not a believer in transubstantiation. I have been, I believe, misrepresented on that matter in one or two public newspapers. I need not disclaim any sympathy with the doctrine of transubstantiation; but I do think it would be a very great advantage if we could substitute some other test. My objection against the prominence given to the point of transubstantiation is, not that it is no longer a distinctive difference between the two Churches, but that it is no longer the most obvious or appropriate distinction. I would most earnestly ask His Majesty's Government whether they could not agree, after the Second Reading, to refer the matter to a Committee. We should not, in such a critical period in the life of the Sovereign, when he is preparing to undertake the duties of ruling the Empire, call upon him to make a declaration which cannot satisfy in its. Present form any serious-minded man. I would point out a flaw in the wording of the declaration as it at present stands. It states that certain doctrines "are contrary to the Protestant religion, in which I believe." Are those words good English? We practise a religion; we do not believe in a religion. Religion is a matter of worship, and is quite different from faith. There is evidence of great haste in the preparation of this declaration, and it is impossible for these words to stand. I hope, therefore, that it will be referred to a Committee.

LORD BRAYE

My Lords, I should like to say two words on this question. Those who originally introduced the words into the declaration which are objected to had ample justification, because they were consistent with the doctrines they held. No doubt they believed the faith of the Church of Rome to be iniquitous, and punished those who adhered to it with death. Now, however, the subjects of the realm have full liberty of religious belief, and the words of the old declaration are no longer necessary. Briefly, why should not the declaration merely say, "I renounce the Pope and all his works," which I believe to be the sum total of the Protestant creed?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, the note of this debate has been, as Lord Rosebery stated, that everybody was in the main against the Bill, but there was a much more striking note—namely, that everybody was in favour of

a totally different alternative. It is true that a coalition of such peers as Lord Kinnaird, Lord Halifax, and Lord Llandaff would be perfectly capable of destroying the Bill. I do not deny that, but I am quite sure they would not be capable of putting anything else in its place. Unless you succeed in putting something else in its place, this declaration will go on and retain its legal power for an indefinite period. It either must remain or you must induce the House to put something else in its place. There is, in substance, no alternative which would command the assent of the very variegated body by whom the declaration is now opposed, and I do not think that that would be satisfactory. Whatever faults you find in the Bill are faults in the enactment which is now law. If you succeed in destroying the Bill you will succeed also in perpetuating the present law.

On Question, whether "now" shall stand part of the motion, their Lordships divided. Contents, 96; Not-contents, 6.

CONTENTS.
Canterbury, L. Abp. Stamford, E. Hobhouse, L.
Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.) Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) James, L.
Devonshire, D. (L. President.) Waldegrave, E. [Teller.] Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven, and Mount-Earl.)
Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.) Wharncliffe, E.
Kensington, L.
Marlborough, D. Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.) Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)
Falkland, V. Langford, L.
Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.) Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.) Lawrence, L.
Bath, M. Knutsford, V. Leigh, L.
Lansdowne, M. Lindley, L.
Chester, L. Bp. Ludlow, L.
Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward.) Salisbury, L. Bp. Manners of Haddon, L. (M. Granby.)
Winchester, L. Bp.
Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.) Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)
Abinger, L. Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)
Bradford, E. Addington, L. Monkswell, L.
Cadogan, E. Amherst of Hackney, L. Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
Camperdown, E. Ardilaun, L. Mostyn, L.
Carrington, E. Balfour, L. Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)
Cawdor, E. Barnard, L. Raglan, L.
Chesterfield, E. Battersea, L. Reay, L.
Dudley, E. Belhaven and Stenton, L. Rowton, L.
Feversham, E. Belper, L. Saltoun, L.
Hardwicke, E. Boyle, L.(E. Cork and Orrery.) Seaton, L.
Harewood, E. Calthorpe, L. Sinclair, L.
Howe, E. Churchill, L. [Teller.] Southampton, L.
Mar and Kellie, E. Colville of Culross, L. Templemore, L.
Mayo, E. Davey, L. Tredegar, L.
Morley, E. De Mauley, L. Tweedmouth, L.
Northbrook, E. Dinevor, L. Ventry, L.
Onslow, E. Glanusk, L. Welby, L.
Portsmouth, E. Glenesk, L. Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss)
Powis, E. Greville, L. Windsor, L.
Rosse, E. Harlech, L. Wolverton, L.
Selborne, E. Harris, L.
Spencer, E. Hatherton, L.
NOT CONTENTS.
Halifax, V. [Teller.] Kinnaird, L. [Teller.] Stanmore, L.
Aldenham, L. Norton, L. Teynham, L.

Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.