HL Deb 27 February 1902 vol 103 cc1224-39

[SECOND READING.]

Order of the day for the Second Reading read

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

My Lords, the object of this Bill, to which I ask your Lordships to accord a Second Reading, is to give to the licensing authority in each of the towns and populous places in Scotland containing above 50,000 inhabitants the discretion as to closing public houses between ten and eleven o'clock, which is now vested in all other licensing authorities in Scotland. Your Lordships will see that the extension of the provisions of the present Act to the licensing authorities in the big towns in Scotland does not in any way alter the existing law with regard to closing, but merely places those authorities upon the same footing as the other licensing authorities. The present law in regard to closing in Scotland was laid down in the Act of 1887, which entrusted to the licensing authorities in towns containing not more than 50,000 inhabitants a discretionary power of ordering closing at any time between the hours of ten and eleven. The order is contained in the certificate which is given annually, and which is in force only for one year. Therefore, if it is thought desirable, the licensing authority have it in their power, at any time after a year, to rescind their previous order. The Bill of 1887, when it first came up to your Lordship's House, proposed to compulsorily close all public houses in Scotland at ten o'clock. Having been asked to take charge of the measure in this House, I told the promoters that in my opinion the Bill went too far, and that, if any opposition was offered, as I felt certain, would be the case, I could not undertake to carry the Bill unless entirely different arrangements were made. As I expected, the Bill was opposed, notably by my noble friend Lord Wemyss. I postponed the Second Reading, and we had a conference at which I suggested that instead of compulsorily closing at ten o'clock, discretionary power should be given of ordering closing at any time between the hours of ten and eleven. That arrangement was accepted, and in that form the Bill was read a second time. But when the Bill reached a later stage, my noble friend introduced a further Amendment, to which I strongly objected, because I thought that I had done my best to meet the wish of those who were opposed to the Bill, and that the compromise which I had proposed had been accepted. This Amendment came up on August 12th, and was inserted in a House of twenty-nine Members, by a majority of nineteen to ten. By this Amendment one third of Scotland was cut out of the Bill. I think your Lordships will admit that that was a very large change to be made by so small a House, and if the present Standing Orders had been in force a House of twenty-nine Members would not have had it in their power to insert the Amendment. I have drawn attention to this fact owing to a statement which has been circulated by the Liberty and Property Defence League, of which my noble friend Lord Wemyss is Chairman, to the effect that the Bill proposed to extend the provisions of the Act of 1887 to towns which were specially excluded after full consideration by both Houses of Parliament. If it be not correct to say that these towns were excluded after full consideration by this House, it is more incorrect to say that the matter was fully considered by the House of Commons. The Bill left this House at the end of August, and your Lordships know that at that time of the year, if a difference of opinion arises in regard to a measure, it is lost, and it was because it was impossible at that late period of the session to dispute this Amendment that the Bill passed with the Amendment in it. But so far from it being correct to say that the Amendment had the approval of the House of Commons, when the Bill in its original form was before that House, an Amendment identically the same as the one which was subsequently inserted in this House was rejected by a large majority. Therefore, I hope your Lordships will not accept the statement contained in the circular to which I have referred as correct.

When the Bill of 1887 came into force, the seven towns which were excluded immediately protested, and they have since protested on many occasions, and in a variety of ways. They have protested by petitions to Parliament, and I rather think a Bill has been introduced once or twice in the other House. As to that, however, I am not positive, but this I know, that on two separate occasions they have made representations at the Scottish Office. With regard to the Bill now before your Lordships, I have presented petitions in its favour from five of the seven towns concerned—namely, from Glasgow, Greenock, Leith, Aberdeen, and Paisley; and I have just received a telegram from the Lord Provost of Dundee stating that that town had petitioned the House of Commons and had intended petitioning your Lordships in favour of the measure, but up to the present I have not received the petition. There is, therefore, only one city—a very important one—which has not petitioned in favour of the Bill, namely, Edinburgh. On several occasions the Corporation of Edinburgh have objected to the omission of their city from the Act of 1887, and a meeting was recently called to consider this Bill, at which a Resolution was moved to the effect, that the Corporation should express no opinion upon the Bill one way or the other, but leave the matter to Parliament to decide. After some considerable discussion, that Motion was carried by twenty-five votes to nineteen; so that, out of the seven towns affected, six have petitioned in favour of this Bill and the other one remains neutral. But, assuming that Edinburgh is not neutral, and that this division in the City Council of twenty-five to nineteen represents public opinion in Edinburgh with regard to this matter, it is clear that if you pass this Bill your Lordships will in no way close the public houses in Edinburgh earlier than eleven o'clock, or make any change which is not agreeable to the majority, because the decision to close at any time earlier than eleven o'clock can only be arrived at by a majority of the magistrates; and if the majority of opinion is the other way, naturally no action whatever will be taken. I submit that the mere fact that Edinburgh has not petitioned in favour of the Bill is no reason why your Lordships should not pay attention to the petitions of the other six communities.

The Government has sent me notice that they intend to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, and therefore I am afraid I must labour the case a little more than I should otherwise have done by mentioning two or three of the objections which I think are likely to be taken to the Bill. Firstly, it may be said that the licensing authority does not in any particular place, especially in the big towns, represent the opinion of the majority of the inhabitants; but assuming for a moment that that tis correct, how do you propose to arrive at what the public opinion is? In this particular case, the licensing law is administered by the provost and the magistrates, who are an elected body, and who, if they propose measures which are not in conformity with public opinion, will very soon be called to account by their constituents; and, as soon as a year has elapsed, the licensing authority can reverse its decision. If you accept the action which has already been taken as indicating the opinion of Scotland generally, you will find that the power which was given by the Act of 1887 to close public houses earlier than eleven o'clock has been exercised by every individual licensing authority in Scotland which came under the Act. Therefore, if we may judge public, opinion by what has been already done, it would appear that there is very strong opinion in Scotland in favour of such a Bill as this. Again, it may be argued that if you pass this Bill the result will be to introduce into municipal elections a great deal of agitation in connection with the licensing question; but I would point out that this agitation is introduced at the present moment into every municipal election, not only in Scotland but in England. If the extension of the provisions of this Act to the large towns is going to produce all this confusion and agitation, how is it that no social upheaval has arisen in the towns whose population is below 50,000, and which have for fifteen years been under the Act?

There is another argument which may be adduced against this Bill—namely, that the majority of the Licensing Commission did not recommend that the change should be made. I very much wish that some reason had been given for that statement. It certainly is not founded on the evidence, which is nearly all in the contrary direction. The only approach to a reason for expressing that opinion is the statement that the licensing authorities at the present time have it in their power to close public houses at any hour, not earlier than nine, in a special part of their district. I think it is hardly necessary to remark that the power of closing in a special part of the district is altogether different from the power of closing in the whole area. It is quite possible and likely that a licensing authority, wishing to close at ten or nine throughout the whole of its district, might have very good objections to closing at that hour in a part of the district, only that would obviously be an extremely invidious and arbitrary course to take. There is only one instance that I know of in which a licensing authority endeavoured to put this power into force. The licensing authority of the borough of Rothesay adopted the course of cutting up the borough into a lot of special districts, and they proceeded to enforce the Closing Act in the whole of them. But when the appeal came before the Court, it was held that the Act was not intended to include a whole district divided into separate parts, and from that time, I believe, the Act has remained a dead letter. I should like to impress upon the House the fact that the whole position of the licensing question in Scotland is entirely different from that in any other part of the Kingdom. The powers of the licensing authority are also quite different. Ever since 1854 we have had in Scotland complete closing on Sundays, and there has been no attempt to interfere with the operation of that Act. The hours of closing in Scotland depend upon the exercise of a discretionary power by the magistrates. Why, I ask, should a discrimination be made against the big towns? I hope that, six of the seven excluded towns having petitioned this House, your Lordships will give effect to their petition and read the Bill a second time.

Moved, that the Bill be now read 2.—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

*THE EARL OF WEMYSS

My Lords, I intend to move the rejection of this Bill because it would destroy my child of 1887, as it was the Amendment then moved by me that exempted the seven large towns of 50,000 inhabitants and upwards from the operation of the Act. My noble friend has endeavoured to make out that the Amendment was adopted at the end of the session, and that the matter was not fully considered; but on that occasion there was a very full discussion in your Lordships' House, and the Secretary for Scotland of that day supported the Amendment against my noble friend. The reason why the large towns were expressly excluded from the Act of 1887 was that in their habits, amusements, etc., the smaller towns were so different from the larger that it was desirable and necessary to make a distinction between them in the matter of the closing of their public houses. The reason for that exemption which held good in 1887 is equally good now; and if the exemption is so objectionable as it is said to be, and was wrongly adopted then, why has my noble friend remained quiet under that wrong for the last sixteen years and allowed it to continue without protest? My noble friend must know that to shut up public houses in the larger towns at ten o'clock would be to cause very great inconvenience to a large class of the community. What will people in large towns do for refreshment after leaving theatres, concerts, and other places of amusement if the public houses are to be closed at ten o'clock? Undoubtedly they will resort to shebeens and drinking clubs, or perhaps they may go to a friend's house and make a night of it.

I venture to think that in the interests of sobriety it is not desirable that this Bill should pass. Judging by the effect of prohibition in the State of Maine, the effect of passing this Bill will be to create in a city of the size of Glasgow some 4,000 shebeens and 2,000 bogus clubs. It is always urged that this legislation is in the interests of morality and tends to reduce crime; but there is more crime, more drunkenness, and more madness in Maine, in proportion to the population, than in any other part of the United States. I do not believe in coercion. So far as it has gone, coercion in the matter of drink has been a signal failure. Is the Bill for spirits, beer and wine less in conse-quence of this legislation? On the contrary, it is increasing. Contrasting my knowledge of former times, when I used to hear in upper class life of three and four bottle men—men who would consume three and four bottles of claret after dinner—with that of today, when claret is scarcely touched, and, perhaps, only a glass of port consumed after dinner, customs we see have changed, and I contend that custom and moral influences are more to be relied upon than legislation. I would depend, not on legislation, but on moral influence, and above all, on the police, and I would treat drunkenness as a public nuisance. If a man is seen staggering about the streets, that man is a nuisance, and ought to be taken up and fined; and a publican who is in the habit of letting men drink in his bar till they are drunk ought to be warned, and, if that is not sufficient, should lose his licence. That is the practical way of dealing with the question.

Some years ago I attended a meeting where this subject was discussed, and I said I hated a drunkard. There was a groan at this; and I replied, "Yes, I hate and despise a drunkard." There were louder groans, and then I discovered that in the opinion of the meeting I ought to have loved him and taken him to my bosom and reformed him. But I prefer to reform him through the police. About ten years ago one of the leading surgeons in Edinburgh assured a friend of mine that very few people died from the effect of alcohol, while there were tens of thousands who died from over-eating, and that over-eating was the cause of nearly all disease. At a meeting of the London United Temperance Council the other day the Archbishop of Canterbury, in referring to the Bill which is to be introduced by the Government on this subject, said— When it (the Government Bill) had passed through all its stages, they would see whether it could still be accepted as an instalment of the reform which they would go on demanding to the end of the chapter. That, my Lords, is what awaits us; and I would suggest to the most rev. Primate that when he and his friends have got to the end of this chapter there will, if there is any truth in the medical opinion I have quoted, be fresh fields and pastures new for their energies in connection with the regulation of our meals. I beg to move the rejection of this Bill.

Amendment moved— To leave out 'now' and add at the end of the Motion 'this day six months.'"—(The Lord Wemyss [E. Wemyss].)

*THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR Of BURLEIGH)

My Lords, the issue before your Lordships' House is clearly a very simple one. I make no complaint of the history of the previous legislation which has been given by the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading. Nor shall I attempt to follow the noble Lord on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss) in the dissertation on various subjects which he has given to your Lordships. He has been from long experience a licensed libertine in the matter of order, and I am doubtful whether much of what he has said is really germane to the issue before the House. The question is really this—Shall the restriction upon the discretion of the licensing authorities in the seven larger urban communities in Scotland be removed, or shall it not? Shall they have permission to close public houses within their area at any time between ten and eleven o'clock at night? Or shall the law remain as it was settled in 1887, and as it has been since that time? I ask first whether this difference between the state of the law in the larger communities and the smaller communities is a reasonable one, and is founded upon a reasonable difference of circumstances. I venture to say there can be but one opinion, that the circumstances as they exist in many smaller communities scattered all over the country and in the larger cities are very different. In the larger centres of population the hours which many people have to keep, partly from business engagements, partly from pleasure, and from public meetings, are much later than in the smaller towns. There are more people moving about the streets later in these larger communities than in the smaller ones. The places of entertainment are kept open later, and there is much more travelling through the railway stations. And there can be no doubt that to place a restriction of this kind on large communities would be a greater interference with the liberty of the subject than is the case in small communities. I can draw on the experience which I gained as Chairman of the Welsh Sunday Closing Commission, which convinced me that many things might safely be done in rural districts and small towns which were fraught with very great evils when applied to larger towns like Cardiff and Swansea, with mixed populations. That is the fundamental difference of circumstances upon which the distinction which was introduced into the Bill of 1887 really rests. I am not concerned in defending the actual limit of 50,000 population as otherwise than an arbitrary one, but for the present purpose I take it as a fact that the 50,000 limit is there, that it has endured for fifteen years, and no one has suggested to your Lordships the substitution of any other figure.

Something has been said by the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading to the effect that no one now doubted the beneficial effect of the Act of 1887 in those communities to which it had been applied. I will make this concession to the noble Earl. All the police reports go to show that after eleven o'clock there is less disorder in the streets. But I believe that a great deal of the benefit which has been derived from the Act stops there. There is nothing whatever to show that in these communities there is less drinking. On the contrary, all the reports that come to me go to show that there is a tendency to evil growing up in two or three directions which I certainly cannot look upon with satisfaction. In the first place, there is distinctly a tendency to purchase bottles of whisky, and take them to unlicensed places, such as those places known as ice-cream shops, for the purpose of there drinking them. There has been during the last few years in Scotland a very great increase in that class of institutions which we know as bogus clubs, which are in no sense respectable institutions, and which are founded and carried on for the sole purpose of supplying drink out of licensed hours; and on account of the existence of these premises a very great deal of disorder arises. I venture to suggest to your lordships that the discretion with which it is proposed to endow the larger communities is rather a fatal gift, and it would be especially so in the larger of these places. I believe it is less likely to be wisely used there than, on a full consideration of all the circumstances, in many of the smaller places, because there will be a constant tendency for those who are sent to the Town Council from the outlying districts to act in favour of repressive measures, whereas those from the central districts, who may be in the minority, but who represent districts which will be seriously affected by this legislation, will not have the power to resist. I think, moreover, it would result in this question becoming constantly a test question at elections—the point round which the struggle at these elections would turn—and the elections will be decided not upon a question of choosing the fittest man on account of administrative ability, but upon the side issue of whether he is, or is not in favour of closing public houses at ten or eleven o'clock. It is also a matter of absolute certainty that those who are engaged in local government of this kind find very great difficulty in resisting the constant importunity and pressure of those who are anxious to have this change brought about. Often they have to yield to a form of compulsion when it is really against their better judgment to do so. Something has been said by the noble Earl about petitions in favour of this Bill. It takes a very much greater strength of mind to resist a petition to have an increased power conferred upon yourself than otherwise. It is a tendency of local bodies to magnify their office. I do not blame them for doing so. But it does not follow that, because several of these communities have petitioned in favour of this Bill, therefore they would exercise the power if it is given to them. There is rather a tendency to assume that an agreement to petition means an agreement to put this measure in force if they have the power. But the one does not necessarily follow from the other.

There is one other point I think it right to make. Those who would be most affected by this legislation, who go from place to place, arriving late at night, and starting early in the morning, would have no voice whatever in saying whether their convenience was to be consulted.

I was anxious to inform myself as to the present state of feeling with regard to the Bill, and since the introduction of it I have sent a circular letter from the Scottish Office to the sheriffs of all the places concerned, and to the chief constables of the seven towns. I have received answers from them all. Among the head constables there is considerable difference of opinion. Some of them say they would like it for their own town, but strongly urge that it should not be done in other towns. Some of them, on the other hand, say it would be very unfair to travellers and those in the busier parts of the towns unless some arrangements were made whereby certain licensed houses were left open. If I were to express my own judgment on the matter, I should say that the last solution is a bad one, because it would tend to concentrate all the drinking of the city in a small area and would result in a considerable increase of disorder. On one point the chief constables are, with one exception, absolutely unanimous—namely, that if this measure were to be passed, and if the councils of the larger cities were to put the earlier closing in force, it would in the present state of the law regarding clubs infallibly and almost immediately result in a great increase in that class of institution. I will go as far as to say that it that reason stood alone, it would in the present state of the law with regard to bogus clubs decide me in advising your Lordships to reject this Bill. I hope time will permit of legislation on that subject during the present session on the initiative of the Government, and if that be so, to some extent the situation will be changed. But in the existing state of the law I am satisfied that, so far from resulting in an improvement in the condition of affairs in these large towns, if the Bill were put in force, it would lead to a large increase in these clubs. I should like to read to your Lordships a communication I have received from Sheriff Berry, of Glasgow, in answer to the circular letter to which I have referred. No one will deny that Sheriff Berry is a thoroughly impartial man, and that he knows, perhaps, as well as any other individual, the whole circumstances of the city, in the midst of which he has resided for a long period. What he says is this— In Glasgow there are many evening entertainments of an innocent character which last until after ten o'clock. To leave it to the discretion of the licensing authorities to say that persons who attend these entertainments shall not be able to obtain refreshments after ten o'clock would be generally regarded as a grievance. It would be made a permanent test question at civic elections. If the licensing authority should at any time make the hour of closing ten, encouragement would be given to illicit drinking. I cannot add anything to the weight of that testimony. Everyone will acknowledge that Sheriff Berry, from his experience and position, is able to give an independent and unbiassed opinion, which will outweigh the ideas of many of those who are in favour of this Bill. A great many of those who advocate this measure are those whose whole remedy for intemperance is repression, and if the amount of repression they have got is not enough; they ask for more. I rule out of account those people who have committed themselves to total closing. You will find that a very large majority of those who are most active in promoting this Bill take it as a step in the direction of the total closing at which they are aiming. I should be sorry to convey the impression to your Lordships that I for one am satisfied with the existing state of matters in Scotland. I am very far from being satisfied. I think there is grave reason for believing that the prosperity of large classes of our population, their command of money in recent years, has led to a considerable increase of drinking, and especially among the younger generation. This is a matter I look upon with the greatest possible anxiety. I strongly object to its being suggested or thought that, because I oppose this Bill on the grounds I have stated, I am not alive to the evils that exist, and am not desirous of remedying them. In answer to this circular to which I have referred, I received suggestions from two quarters. There is a great deal in the suggestion—and the testimony of certain employers of labour confirms the idea — that if, instead of shortening the hours at night, you kept the public houses closed a little longer in the morning, you would be able to do a great deal more good in that way. The Chief Constable of Greenock says that many large employers would like to have the opening hour of the public house ten o'clock, so as to check the practice of workers in the large establishments and the shipyards, especially on Mondays and Tuesdays following the pay days, going to public houses during the breakfast hour, after which they often did not return to work at all for the day. Then the Sheriff of Forfar says— It is going a little beyond your request, but I should like to state a view which I have entertained for twenty-five years, namely, that an incalculable amount of good would be done in a town like this (Edinburgh), and I should think equally in a town like Dundee and many others, by keeping the public houses closed till after the workman's normal break fast hour. I am persuaded that breakfast hour drinking has more to do with habitual drinking than the extra hour at night. As regards clubs, I hope the House will not put a premium on the increase of bogus clubs by passing this Bill, and, therefore, I hope your Lordships will decide to postpone its Second Reading.

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

My Lords, the natural conclusions to be drawn from the arguments of the noble Earl who has moved the rejection of this Bill are, first, that an hour ought to be fixed after which His Majesty's subjects in Scotland should not be allowed to eat supper, and, second, that the Bill of 1887 ought to be withdrawn altogether, and that in towns with populations under 50,000, as in towns with populations over 50,000, the closing hour should be eleven instead of ten. The Secretary for Scotland raised a bogey by saying that this Bill was supported by those who wished to put down public-houses altogether. I do not include myself in that category, and yet I am prepared to support the Bill, because, after all, it is merely an assimilative Bill. At the present moment the Act of 1887 is purely permissible. It enables a community, of which the licensing authority wishes to close the houses at ten o'clock, to do so. This Bill only proposes that the licensing authorities in the seven towns whose population exceeds 50,000 should have the power to close them at ten, which is possessed by the licensing authorities of the smaller towns. I do not think that Ore arguments of the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland were very powerful. He told us himself that the opinion amongst the Chief Constables whom he had consulted was exceedingly varied, and apparently they all agreed that, either in their own towns, or in the other towns, the Bill would be a good one.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

That would be true of all of them except the Chief Constables of Edinburgh and Leith, who were against it.

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

I think that is rather in support of the position taken up by Lord Camperdown than that taken up by the Secretary for Scotland. I think we need not be afraid of giving this small power to the licensing authorities of the large towns. My noble friend Lord Balfour said that people going home from theatres and balls would be inconvenienced. If that inconvenience was likely to exist to any great extent it would have been found in the towns with populations under 50,000, and my noble friend cannot bring forward any evidence to show that inconvenience has been caused in the small towns. Therefore, I think that idea has been somewhat exaggerated. But even if the Bill did pass, it would only become operative when the licensing authority thought its adoption desirable and not inconvenient. The change is an extremely small one, and, in my opinion, its effect would be good for Scotland, and therefore I support the Second Reading.

LORD LAMINGTON

Will the noble Lord state how many of the smaller towns have put the Act of 1887 into force and closed the public-houses at ten o'clock?

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

All of them.

*THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

I think it would be a great convenience if we knew more about this matter. While Scottish Peers may know the subject which is being considered very well, there are others who would like to have it thrashed out by a careful inquiry, and I would suggest that it might not be a very mischievous compromise if we read the Bill a second time now, and refer it to a Select Committee. We should then have something to go upon in deciding how we should ultimately vote. At present I think not a few of us are somewhat in the dark.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

Personally, I think the question is a very simple one, being only as to whether this extension should be granted or not. Still, if noble Lords are willing to vote for the Bill on the understanding that it is referred to a Select Committee, I should have no objection to that course. But, beyond calling some of the Sheriffs and Chief Constables to whom the Secretary for Scotland has referred, and asking their opinion on the subject, I do not see what could be done.

On Question whether "Now" shall stand part of the Motion,

Their Lordships divided:—Centents, 37; Not Contents, 60.

CONTENTS.
Canterbury, L., Abp. Peel, V. Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)
Argyll, D. London, L. Bp. Farrer, L.
Bedford, D. Newcastle, L, Bp. Kelvin, L.
Wellington, D. Rochester, L. Bp. Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)
Winchester, L. Bp. Kinnaird, L.
Beauchamp, E. Monkswell, L.
Camperdown, E. [Teller.] Avebury, L. Northbourne, L.
Carrington, E. Barnard, L. Reay, L.
Mansfield, E. Blythswood, L. Ribblesdale, L.
Morley, E. Brassey, L. Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)
Portsmouth, E. Clifford of Chudleigh, L. Sandhurst, L.
Spencer, E. Coleridge, L. Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)
Stamford, E. Colville of Culross, L. Tweedmouth, L. [Teller.]
NOT-CONTENTS.
Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.) Stanhope, E. Glenesk, L.
Devonshire, D. (L. President.) Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) James, L.
Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.) Verulam, E. Kenyon, L.
Waldegrave, E. [Teller.] Lamington, L.
Bath, M. Lawrence, L.
Lansdowne, M. Goschen, V. Lilford, L.
Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.) Knutsford, V. Llangattock, L.
Llandaff, V. Manners, L.
Bradford, E. Manners of Haddon, L. (M. Granby.)
Coventry, E. Addington, L.
Dudley, E. Aldenham, L. Pirbright, L.
Durham, E. Alverstone, L. Poltimore, L.
Feversham, E. Balfour, L. Ponsonby, L. (E. Bcssborough.)
Fortescue, E. Belper, L. Robertson, L.
Harrowby, E. Berwick, L. Sherborne, L.
Howe, E. Burton, L. Sinclair, L.
Lauderdale, E. Churchill, L. [Teller.] Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.
Lindsey, E. Colchester, L.
Lytton, E. Congleton, L. Trevor, L.
Romney, E. Cottesloe, L. Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)
Scarborough, E. Crofton, L. Windsor, L.
Selborne, E. Dunboyne, L. Wrottesley, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Bill to be read 2a this day six months.