HL Deb 28 June 1904 vol 136 cc1367-84


Order of the day for the Second Reading, read.


My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I do not know that it is necessary for me to detain your Lordships at any great length. It is quite obvious that it would be too much to expect that the Bill should become law during the present session and, therefore, I shall content myself with ascertaining the feeling of the House this afternoon, and shall probably not proceed further with it if your Lordships allow it to go to a Second Reading on this occasion. It has already received approval in another place, where it was carried by a majority of something like 130 or 140. I may say, in order to commend the Bill to noble Lords on the other side of the House, that it is in some respects a reactionary Bill. In days gone by women were able to sit on the vestries and were allowed to be elected members of the school boards, but it is, now impossible for women to be members of the Metropolitan borough councils which succeeded the vestries, or to be members of county councils which have practically taken the place of the old school boards. I am anxious that women should be allowed to resume on the Metropolitan local authorities and on the county councils which have taken over the duties of the school boards the work which they previously performed.

The past few years have seen considerable changes in regard to the general idea of the position of women. I believe public opinion is willing to put a higher value upon the work of women than ten or twenty years ago. That is due to the classic example of Her late Majesty, Queen Victoria, who showed that it was possible to combine the qualities required even for the highest statesmanship with true womanliness. There are countless examples of women who have served the State well in various positions of trust and dignity in different parts of the country. There is still another direction in which I think we may conclude that public opinion is now willing and ready to give more authority to women than they have had in the past. I refer to the movement, which has considerable support, to give women votes in the Church councils when the time comes for the Church to resume her powers of self-government.

With regard to the position of women, I think I may fairly refer to the fact that over 1,000 women occupy the position of guardians of the poor, in which capacity they have without doubt rendered very valuable service to the community, and not only have they filled official positions such as guardians of the poor, but they have also performed useful work in connection with such bodies as the Charity Organisation Society, and in many other directions. I would refer noble Lords to the opinion of the late Lord Salisbury, who was, I think, strongly in favour of women being allowed to occupy the position to which this Bill would enable them to be elected. But there is one other argument which I think should appeal to all noble Lords who are interested in local government throughout this country. As time goes on the Legislature is putting more and more work upon county councils, and these councils find it increasingly difficult to perform those duties. In many parts of the country county councils are composed of squires and men of business who can only spare for the work of the county one day in the week. They try, therefore, to combine with their private business the affairs of the county, but it is becoming increasingly difficult for them to do it, and I think before very long we shall find that the county councils have practically fallen into the habit of allowing their permanent officials to rule the county because the members are unable themselves to give that time to the administration of affairs which ought properly to be given. The time, I think, has come when we shall have to tap a new class in order to perform this service.

I may perhaps refer to a case which recently attracted a great deal of attention in this country—that of Colney Hatch Asylum. I would remind your Lordships of the fire which broke out in the women's wing there, and also of the scandals which took place with reference to the stores. It was proved that tons of sugar had been poured down the drains. The proper quantity of sugar to be consumed in a large establishment like that of Colney Hatch is a matter on which women are surely able to advise, and their advice is also valuable in regard to the security of women inmates in asylums. There are two special directions in which I venture to think women should be given positions of trust. The first one is in the matter of education. It is obvious to your Lordships that, even supposing there were an equal number of boys and girls in the elementary schools in this country, the number of women teachers is very much in excess of the number of male teachers. Surely, therefore, we ought to put women at any rate in an equal position of authority with regard to women teachers. Those who are acquainted with the way the Education Act is being worked in the country know that county councils are not able always to resist the temptation to overthrow the advice of the Education Committees, and as there are no women on the county councils the advice of women is sometimes ignored by those councils. I venture to think that the one or two women who are occasionally put on by some county councils are not enough by themselves to affect the administration of the Act. I think that women ought to be given a much larger share of representation than they now enjoy, or that it is possible to give them at the present moment on the Education Committees.

I will venture to state to your Lordships a few of the functions of county councils which women are especially qualified to attend to. There is the supervision of lunatic asylums. In the asylums of this country there are something like 8,000 women, yet there is not one single woman in any position of authority over the management of those asylums. That seems to me to be a position in which women would be well qualified to advise the county councils, and to assume an equal amount of responsibility. Then there are the industrial schools, in which there are a large number of girls. At the present moment, too, the Inebriate Homes for Women are entirely managed by county councils, which consist solely of men. That, surely, is another direction in which women would be well qualified to undertake responsibility. The supervision of midwives is another function which has been put on county councils without any assistance from the women of the county, while county councils have also to pass by-laws regulating street trading and the hours of work affecting a large number of girls.

Turning to the work of the Metropolitan borough councils, those bodies have to administrate the Public Health Act, the Factory Act, and the Workshops Act, which includes the inspection of rooms in factories and laundries, and the supervision of sleeping accommodation in business houses, in connection with which women might perhaps be able to alleviate the lot of many of the unhappy I girls in the business establishments of I this city. Again, if the Metropolitan borough councils had women serving upon them, the number of deaths in the I baby farms in the Metropolis would, I believe, be considerably diminished. I believe this is an instance of the way in which the Legislature has committed women's work to men to undertake. Parliament has from time to time passed laws giving the Metropolitan borough councils and the county councils, composed only of men, work which women would be much better able to do, and I venture, in conclusion, to say that those who, like myself, have had an opportunity of seeing how well women can perform work which is entrusted to them, would be very glad indeed to welcome the co-operation of women in the other directions which would be possible under this Bill.

Moved, "That the Bill be" now read 2a"—(Earl Beauchamp.)


My Lords, before I say -anything on the subject of the Bill, I should like to call the noble Lord's attention to the Memorandum which accompanies it, and which seems to show a total misapprehension of the object of a Memorandum. There is a Standing Order in the other House which, I think, might very appropriately be adopted by your Lordships, under which an instruction is given to the clerks at the Table to strike out any passages of a controversial nature. The object of a Memorandum to a Bill is for the purpose of explaining what the Bill is, and it is sometimes convenient that its object should be so explained. But this Memorandum, although in shorter form, and, therefore, not open to the observation I had to make the other day with regard to another Memorandum attached to a Bill, is really a Second Reading speech.

With regard to the Bill itself, I confess I am very familiar with the observations the noble Lord has made. We had them put before us at considerable length five years ago, and not a single new observation has been made. I confess I think it would have been more appropriate when you were forming these new municipal councils, that the matter should have been brought forward, and I think it is rather strong, after the decision of your Lordships to which I have referred, that this one single alteration of a very important Bill, agreed to by a large majority, should be raised again. Nothing has occurred during those five years that I am aware of to justify raising the question again. This is an appeal against a five years old decision on no new facts. I think the noble Earl has rather confused the administrative work of women in various capacities in life with placing them in positions of authority as county councillors and borough councillors. This is only one part of that agitation which has been going on for some time to place women in exactly the same position as men. In saying what I have said in opposition to the Bill, I may inform your Lordships that I am not speaking on the authority of His Majesty's Government. I am simply stating my own view. On the occasion I refer to the late Marquess of Salisbury moved the adoption of a course of this sort, and it was my painful duty, for, as I then explained, the first time in my life, to vote against him. On that occasion your Lordships rejected the proposals contained in this Bill by a majority of 114, and, as no new facts have been put forward by the noble Earl, I do not propose to argue the question again. I hope your Lordships will reject the Bill.


My Lords, I think the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack has somewhat misrepresented the intention of the Memorandum. As far as I am able to read the Memorandum and to understand it, it is a simple statement of the object of the Bill. It does not enter into any controversy whatever. It states the object of the Bill and the particular subjects to which women, if elected, may be able to turn their attention; and in my view you can hardly state a controverted subject with less controversy than it is stated in this particular Memorandum, Therefore, whilst I heartily concur with what the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack said about another Memorandum which is still fresh in our minds, I do not think this Memorandum at all comes in the same category; and I regret that the noble and learned Earl thought it necessary to stigmatise it in the way he did. The noble Earl also said that he did not see why this question was not raised when the new borough councils were constituted. My Lords, it was raised in both Houses of Parliament at the time. Another point I think worth considering, and a reason also for raising the question again, is that recently you have given to these various local bodies new powers and new duties, and, in many cases, the particular work is exactly the sort of work which women may very rightly, properly, and usefully turn their attention to.

I think it is agreed by those who object to women's suffrage that the work which has been done by women in recent years on all sorts of local representative bodies has been extremely useful, and has tended to the advantage of the locality and the country. I can speak on this Bill without my withers being wrung at all, because I frankly confess that I am against women's suffrage for Parliamentary purposes, but my Lords, this is an entirely different matter. The question of suffrage is raised in a totally different manner by this Bill. How does the case stand? For these very bodies on which it is proposed to give women seats by this Bill women already have a vote. I do take up this position very strongly, that when you give to certain people, whatever their sex may be, the right, the duty, and the power to vote for representatives on a public body, I hold that those persons should also be given the right to sit upon those authorities; and it is on the very grounds of past legislation that I urge the necessity and the desirability of your Lordships giving assent to this Bill. I do not think I need elaborate any arguments on the subject. It has been argued again and again, and I thoroughly believe that in the minds of nine-tenths of the people of this country, without respect to Party, it is the firm conviction that on these local bodies women can do very useful work and they ought to be given the power to sit upon them.


My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down has expressed a very strong opinion that whenever a person has a right to vote he should also have a right to sit upon the body for which a vote is given. But let me ask the noble Lord how he reconciles that statement with the state of the law with respect to the clergy of the Established Church? They all have the right to vote in Parliamentary elections, but Parliament has constantly refused permission to them to sit in the House of Commons, for which they exercise the franchise. Again I differ from the noble Lord. He supported the Bill, and yet expressed himself as opposed to granting female suffrage. I take the opposite view. Ever since Mr. John Stuart Mill introduced the first Female Suffrage Bill in the House of Commons I have supported that movement. I shall continue to support it, and I look upon this Bill merely as a comparatively small but useful measure in that direction, and I shall, therefore, give it my support.


My Lords, I am sure every one of your Lordships will have heard with great pleasure my noble friend the Duke of Rutland express his opinion upon the principle involved in this Bill. To me that pleasure is very great, for I recall to my recollection that it is now more than thirty years ago that the noble Duke and I were in another place ranged on different sides in relation to this great question of female suffrage. My opposition to this Bill is to a great extent founded upon the statement that my noble friend the Duke of Rutland has just made. He admits that he supports the Bill because it is a step in the direction of female suffrage. We do not object to women dealing with subjects with which they are familiar, and in which they can be usefully engaged. The opposition proceeds from the fear that this tendency to bring them into Party political life, inter the struggles of political life, will be most injurious, not only to the State as a whole, but to domestic life generally. The noble Duke has said that he supports this Bill, not so much because it is a meritorious Bill in itself, but because it will eventually lead to equality of women in Party political life with men. It is on that ground that I oppose it, and I appeal to your Lordships to reject it.

This is a question of progress. Step by step those who support female suffrage gain their object, not by one action alone, but by several. I well recollect when women were given votes for municipal bodies. Some of us said at the time that if they were granted a vote for municipalities they would then ask for the Parliamentary franchise, but that was denied. The moment, however that a vote for municipal elections was given to women, it was used as a basis for argument in favour of its extension. It was argued, "How can you, logically, having given women a vote for municipal elections, refuse to give them a vote for Parliamentary elections?—and if now we grant this measure two steps will have been taken. It will be said at once, "If you allow women to sit upon county councils, how can you refuse them the Parliamentary vote? "And if they get the Parliamentary vote we shall have the demand that women shall be allowed to sit in the House of Commons. The difference between my noble friend opposite and myself is clear. He wishes to see women sitting in the House of Commons—


No, I do not.


I beg my noble friend's pardon; I misunderstood him. But my noble friend must admit that the precedent of allowing women to be elected to the county councils and the borough councils will be strong argument in favour of allowing them to be elected to Parliament. May I remind your Lordships that when the application of the principle contained in this Bill to the borough councils of London was before the House in 1899, it had the value of the support of the late Prime Minister, who placed the argument in favour of the Bill in the strongest possible way, and gave to it the full weight of his great authority. There was one argument in favour of the application of this principle to the London borough councils which does not exist in relation to the other bodies in the Bill. The borough councils were in one sense the successors of the Metropolitan vestries on which women could sit and Lord Salisbury urged that as Parliament had virtually changed the vestries into borough councils, women should not be deprived of their right to sit upon them. It was pointed out, however, that there were other duties given to the borough I councils besides those which the vestries had fulfilled, and that we could not, there-I fore, allow women to sit on the new I bodies. The result of the debate was that by a large majority—186 voted for and sixty-eight against—your Lordships threw out the clause.

What has happened since then to justify the noble Earl in asking us to reverse that decision? The only important new duty that has been thrown upon these councils is the administration of education, and that has been met by Mr. Balfour giving, by virtue of the words "of either sex, "power to elect women on the Education Committees. I believe more women will be elected by co-option on the part of the county councils than have ever been elected to the school boards. There are duties which county councils have to perform which women are eminently disqualified for. County councils have to deal with such matters as roads and bridges, and work of which women have had no experience whatever. It may be said that some of the male members have had but little experience of this work, but women as a class have had absolutely no experience of it at all. We heard from the Bishop of Rochester on a previous occasion of the great work that women can do. I admit that, but they must perform those duties in their proper sphere.

The first duty of every woman is in her home, and it is much better that she should be performing her duty there than sitting on a county council, and eventually becoming a Parliamentary elector. If this Bill were to pass we should throw a very onerous task upon our fellow-men. For the first time, I think, we should be asking women to enter into contests of a directly Party kind. In municipal boroughs these elections are fought on Party tickets and by Party organisations, and the same thing applies in many cases to the county councils. The elections are of a purely political character and you propose to invite women to become candidates, selected by Party cause enter these contests. I have heard it argued that men are inferior animals for political purposes to women. What will be the position of an unfortunate citizen who, anxious to do his duty, becomes a candidate for a seat on one of these bodies and is told that there is an attractive young lady, who takes great care of her toilet and being a good speaker, who has signified her intention of addressing meetings in opposition to his candidature? I am afraid there will be many men who will refuse to enter a contest in those circumstances. This is a proposal to introduce a new system into our political warfare, and a system from which no good can result. Whilst I fully admit that in the direction of education and of promoting the interests of women and children there can be no more beneficent action than that of women yet I contend that women ought to be prevented from entering into Party struggles connected with the election of public bodies.


My Lords, it had not been my intention to take part in this discussion, but I feel it due to the noble Earl on the Woolsack to explain why it is that I find myself in opposition to him and in agreement with the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of this Bill. Allusion has been made to "the division which took place in your Lordships' House some five years ago, when the late Prime Minister voted with the minority. As I was one of those who voted and spoke in support of the proposal, I think it perhaps not altogether? out of place if I remind your Lordships why I took that line then and why I shall vote for the Bill now before the House. I had been Chairman of the London School Board for two years, and had realised the great and important work which women could do on behalf of education. There are many functions which can be discharged better by women than by men, and my experience at the Board of Education, now for two years, has convinced me more strongly if possible that that is the case. Whenever opportunity has occurred we have at the Board of Education encouraged the appointment of women on the Education Committees, and so far as I can gather their experience has been of inestimable value to those committees, in exactly the same way as it was to the school boards.

The noble and learned Lord behind me (Lord James) said he did not see why women should be concerned with matters of local government. I quite agree that the opinions of women on many questions such as roads and other matters referred to are not of any great value; but, on the other hand, their opinion on many questions is better than that of men. While I am perfectly willing and anxious to see positions of trust given to women, I am entirely opposed to the Parliamentary franchise being extended to them. If the Parliamentary franchise were extended to women, I do not see why they should not eventually become Members of Parliament; and if they enter the House of Commons, there is no reason why a lady should not work her way up to the position occupied by the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack. I see a considerable difference between the proposal contained in this Bill and the giving to women of the Parliamentary franchise, and after my experience of the important part women can play in administrative work of the kind in question, I shall certainly record my vote in favour of the Bill.


My Lords, I agree with the noble Marquess who has just spoken, that the argument in favour of this Bill is a practical argument. With regard to the observations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord James, I may observe at the outset that I am not at all a supporter of women's suffrage, and I do not agree in thinking either with the noble Duke or with the noble and learned Lord that this Bill ought to be treated as a step or a move in that campaign. I am quite aware how great is the force of the argument of the thin end of the wedge or of the slippery slope; but that is an argument which, like most arguments, requires criticism and control. It must at least be checked against other considerations. What are those other considerations in a case like this? I venture to think that the real dividing line of principles between the cases is this. Women, so far as my experience of them goes, are not good hands at the business of legislation; they are not good hands at treating things in the general, but they are particularly good hands at dealing with things in detail, what we ordinarily call administration; and the Memorandum does very effectively draw the attention of the House to the kind of matters in connection with which the work of women is of great value.

The noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack asks why this matter is brought up again so soon. He said it was discussed five years ago. The noble and learned Earl might have strengthened his argument, for there was a Bill similar to the present one only three years ago, when we had before us a measure affecting the borough councils of London. In the division in 1901, the majority referred to by Lord James had fallen considerably, there voting with the majority 88 and with the minority 46. I refer to the Bill introduced by Lord Aberdeen for enabling women to sit on the London borough councils. The noble and learned Earl asks, Why is the House troubled with this subject again after such a short interval? I think the reason is clear. It is the pressure of real and felt practical necessity. We know the loss on administrative bodies of the services of women, and we desire to put an end to that loss. We have every year confirmatory evidence of the loss which has been incurred through women not being allowed to sit on these bodies.

I do think, therefore, that we might, without the great danger of leading on to worse results in the future, allow the provisions of this Bill to become law. The noble and learned Lord was good enough to refer to a speech I made on this matter three years ago. Speaking from an experience gained in my own diocese in South London. I did venture to point out that it is not at all easy, in many of the boroughs where they are most needed, to get workers, educated, public-spirited, and sufficiently leisured, to undertake public duties of this kind, and, therefore, when you find that there are a large number of women who can be spared from their homes for this purpose—they may be women who are not themselves mistresses or heads of homes—and who have rendered invaluable assistance on boards of guardians, to which they have been returned at contested elections, I hold that there is a very strong practical case for using that service on the new borough councils.


My Lords, I rise only to explain the reason why I cannot vote with the noble Earl who has moved the Second Reading of this Bill. I must say at the outset, to be quite frank, that I shall vote against it first and foremost because I am a thorough Philistine, in the sense that I have no sympathy with political women. A woman's politics should be the politico of her husband. I cannot help feeling; that, whatever may be said by noble Lords in respect of this Bill, those who are going to vote for it are supporting; it really with the view of promoting the-cause of women's suffrage. I was very much impressed by what the noble and learned Lord, Lord James said. These authorities have already become largely influenced by political considerations. County councils and borough councils are, many of them, worked entirely on political lines, and I cannot see myself how, if you allow women to act on councils of this kind, you can keep them apart from the strife and complications of Party politics. That in itself is to my mind very objectionable. I do think that to an uninstructed person the Memorandum attached to the Bill is somewhat misleading as regards its object, and I rather think the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, gave colour to that when he spoke as if the Bill applied only to London.


I was speaking generally.


The noble Marquess said that, speaking from his great experience on the London School Board, and also as Minister for Education, he knew the value of women in regard to work of this kind. I entirely endorse-that view; but if you put women on county councils, particularly in the country, the duties they would have to perform are not the duties stated by the noble Lord. My point is that this Memorandum is most ingeniously drafted, because it seems to imply that these social questions are the only questions which would be dealt with by the councils upon which it is proposed to place women. I differ from the noble Marquess. I think women, as regards business, may be quite as capable as men. I do not think it is a question of capacity; it is a question of sex. The right rev. Prelate argued as if women, in existing circumstances, could not take any part in public administration; and the noble Earl who has charge of this Bill said, speaking on the question of female lunatics, that women were not able to take any part in advising in that matter. I happen to know that the Duchess of Bedford, Lady Battersea, and others, are visitors of Aylesbury Asylum and do very good work there. I do not wish to reiterate the arguments which have been already expressed, but I would urge this, that Parliament could not stop short at this stage, and that those who support this Bill I advocate a great alteration in social life, to which I am strongly opposed.


My Lords, I should like to be allowed to associate myself with at least one observation which fell from the noble and learned Lord opposite, Lord James—I refer to his statement that a woman's first place and first duty is at home. But I do not think it follows that a woman's last duty is also at home. We are often told that charity begins at home. It does not with some people: it ends there. The fact of a woman being a good wife and mother qualifies her to use the spare time that a clever woman sometimes finds, in trying to spread those benefits which she enjoys to others less fortunately situated. The noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack remarked that he thought nothing had occurred since this matter was last discussed to justify its being brought forward again. I venture to submit that something has occurred which has an important bearing on the subject, namely, the Education Act. Formerly women were eligible to sit on the school boards. They are not now eligible for the county councils which have succeeded the school boards. They may be co-opted on to the Education Committee, but that is not the direct system of election rightly aimed at in this Bill. I venture to think that, if occurrences have not taken place, fresh information has certainly been adduced showing the importance of making greater use of women's services. Every day we are getting fresh evidence of the need and value of women's work in various directions. In certain specific matters women have not at present an opening to work officially. The Inebriate Homes for Women, I understand, are now so arranged that women have no right to be elected upon the authorities which manage them. The same thing applies as to the regulations of midwives and baby-farms; but it must be admitted that women understand these matters much better than men. Then there is the question of sympathy and accessibility. If a woman is asking advice of a member of one of these constituted authorities, it cannot be expected that in many delicate matters she will go to-a male member. Women members are exceedingly useful in cases of this kind. There is increasing testimony as to the many departments of administration in which the work of women is of incalculable benefit, and I do not think we-should be influenced to reject this Bill by the bogey of women's suffrage. I trust your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.


My Lords, I have no intention, on behalf of the Local Government Board, of making any remarks on this Bill, but I should like to enter my humble protest with regard to one argument used by the noble Earl in introducing the Bill. As I understood him, he said that circumstances had considerably changed in the last few years in consequence of the enormous increase of the work thrown on county councils, and that practically they found it impossible to do that work properly, with the result that a large amount of the work was undertaken by the permanent officials. I really do not think that any gentleman with large experience of county councils will confirm the noble Earl in that statement. Personally, I have experience, not only of county council work in my own county, but in neighbouring counties, and as chairman of the County Councils Association; and I must say that the work is perfectly within the grasp of the members of the county councils, and that no work is given to the officials which ought to be done by the members. It is perfectly true that the officials give great assistance to the councils, but I have never known an official undertake work which ought to be done by an elected member of the council.

Even if that were the case, what is the I argument? It is that because county I councils are overworked, therefore you are to put a certain number of women on; them to relieve them of that work. I do not find in this Bill that it is suggested that the number of the members is to be increased to enable women to be elected, and therefore the whole argument must be that a woman is able to do a great deal more work than a man, and that if I a certain number of women find seats on the county councils, in the place of the men who at present sit upon them, the work will be more efficiently done. I fully concur in the remarks which have been made as to the excellent work done by women in some of the branches re-

ferred to. We have the advantage of women sitting on almost all the Education Committees of the county councils. In addition, in my own council, we have put women on a consultative committee to deal with those very matters of; detail which the right rev. Prelate says lie so fully within the scope of women's work. I cannot see myself that, at present, a sufficient argument has been made out for changing the whole constitution of county councils in the manner proposed. I think the arguments used by Lord James are certainly conclusive up to a certain point; and the fact of; extra work having been thrown on the county councils during the last few years is no argument in favour of coming to a different decision from that at which we arrived some few years ago.

On Question, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 38; Not-contents, 57.

Canterbury, L. Abp. Lytton, E. Davey, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) (L. President.) Dunning, L. (L. Rollo.)
Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen) Ellenborough, L.
Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.) Hardinge, V. [Teller.] Farrer, L.
Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore. Glenesk, L.
Rutland, D. Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)
Peel, V. Monkswell, L.
Ripon, M. O'Hagan, L.
Bristol, L. Bp. Ribblesdale, L.
Beauchamp, E. [Teller.] Hereford, L. Bp. Saye and Sele, L.
Camperdown, E. Rochester, L. Bp. Shuttleworth, L.
Carlisle, E. Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)
Carrington, E. Chesterfield, E. Burghclere, L. Thring, L.
Craven,E. Colchester, L. Tweed mouth, L.
Grey, E. Coleridge, L. Wolverton, L.
Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.) Manvers, E. Glanusk, L.
Portsmouth, E. Hawkesbury, L.
Grafton, D. Waldegrave, E. James, L. [Teller.]
Marlborough, D. Westmeath, E. [Teller.] Killanin, L.
Portland, D, Yarborough, E. Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.
Wellington, D. Lawrence, L.
Cross, V. Lindley, L.
Lansdowne, M. Portman, V. Ludlow, L,
Winchester, M. Sidmouth, V. Macnaghten, L.
Zetland, M. Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)
Addington, L. Napier, L.
Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward.) Aldenham, L. Newton, L.
Allerton, L. Norton, L.
Dartrey, E. Balfour, L. Robertson, I
Egerton, E. Barnard, L. Romilly, L.
Baddington, E. Barrymore, L. Saltoun, L.
Hardwicke, E. Belper, L. Sherborne, L.
Jersey, E. Biddulph, L. Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)
Kimberley, E. Calthorpe, I. Suffield, L.
Leven and Melville, E. Crawshaw, L. Windsor, L.
Malmesbury, E. Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.) Zouche of Haryngworth. L.