HL Deb 30 June 1904 vol 137 cc122-37

[SECOND READING.]

Order of the Day or the Second Reading read.

LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I think the only excuse I need offer is that lives are still being unduly risked through the carriage of dangerous deck loads by British ships in the winter time. Previous representations of mine in this House on the subject have had no effect whatever in official quarters; therefore I am bringing forward this Bill so that we may have a clear issue before your Lordships' House. If I can, as I hope, furnish you with convincing proof that not one only, but very many of our seamen have found a watery grave through this practice of carrying these deck loads in the winter, then I have confidence in your Lordships giving my Bill your most earnest and sympathetic consideration.

As the Memorandum of this Bill states, it is an offence against the law for any vessel to arrive between the last day of October and the 16th day of April at any port in the United Kingdom carrying a deck cargo; that is to say, anything more than deals, battens, or light wood goods not exceeding 3 feet above the deck. There is a certain amount of grim humour in the fact that so long as the vessel does not discharge her deck cargo it is quite open for her to pay a visit to our shores, come into our ports, and get coal or provisions. There is no fear of punishment until such time as she lands a single log, when the machinery of the law is at once put in motion by the Board of Trade. To put it shortly, the law forbids as a dangerous practice the carriage of deck loads to the United Kingdom in winter, but our ships may carry them with impunity to the Continent. Therefore there is not a shadow of doubt that though the law says it is dangerous, the practice of carrying dangerous deck loads in the winter time goes on as merrily as ever. The only difference is that they are discharged on the Continent instead of in this country.

This Bill aims at consistency in the law and involves no difference in point of principle to the statute as it stands at present. In view of the evidence in specific cases I shall adduce, I will not dwell on the serious and unjustifiable risks which our sailors are expected to undertake. If your Lordships have ever observed the condition of vessels arriving at our large seaports with deck cargoes, even in summer time, you will the more fully appreciate the plight of such vessels lumbering across the Atlantic in winter with an enormous incubus above deck which, if breaking loose, will carry everything before it. It is a menace to all concerned. I now propose to deal with the disaster and misery which have arisen out of this practice of carrying dangerous deck leads in the winter time.

As I have never met with anything else, I suppose I must take it as a matter of course that the Marine Department of the Board of Trade will offer determined opposition to the Bill. My noble friend representing the Board will, I have no doubt, go as usual into percentages as to loss of life, but I would exhort your Lordships not to attach too much weight to statistics submitted in this form, for they are calculated to be most misleading. If, for instance, 100 ships carried deck cargoes across the North Atlantic, and it was proved that the deck cargo was the cause of the loss of one vessel, only, with her crew, then the proportion of disaster would be 1 per cent. only. This would appear to be a most insignificant proportion, but, I ask, what about the crew of thirty-five or forty men who have perished through being subjected to unjustifiable risks? Are they not worthy of consideration? Are their lives of no value? If one life, only, is thrown away from a preventable cause, then I contend that, if it cannot be prevented otherwise, the Legislature must step in. We do not wait for a terrible catastrophe on our railways before sanctioning measures to avoid danger. One single instance of loss of life furnishes amply sufficient basis for taking precautions for the avoidance of further sacrifice.

I will now deal with the facts concerning this loss of life which the Bill seeks to put an end to. The ss. "Mobile" was lost with all hands, and it is noteworthy that on the eve of this vessel's sailing from the United States the second officer communicated with his relatives, fearing the consequence of the ship being in such a dangerous condition owing to the huge deck cargo she was carrying. It is also worthy of note that the Merchant Service Guild forwarded copies of these letters to the Board of Trade at the time. The Board of Trade Inquiry—which is a Court constituted under the Merchant Shipping Act, having the advantage of the assistance of two expert nautical assessors—found that owing to her deck load the vessel was sent to sea in an unseaworthy condition. Twenty-six men lost their lives through this disaster. Somewhere about the same time the steamer "Huddersfield" experienced an accident, her deck cargo carrying adrift, and she was placed in a very perilous situation. Some of her crew were seriously injured. The Board of Trade Inquiry which was ordered to investigate the circumstances declared that— This vessel also was sent to sea in an unseaworthy condition. I might mention that the deck cargoes in both cases were being carried in the winter time to Continental ports. The "Mobile's" deck load of timber was estimated at being not less than 700 tons weight.

Then again there was the loss of the ss. "Cardinal," proceeding in winter time with a deck cargo. The Board of Trade Inquiry ordered to investigate the circumstances found that the loss of this vessel was caused by the deck cargo being washed overboard by heavy seas, carrying away her bulwarks and steering gear, and staving in the after hatches, thus rendering the vessel unmanageable and water-logged. The Court, in giving judgment, said that— Although the Merchant Shipping Act does not apply to a vessel like the 'Cardinal' bound to a Continental port in the winter time, still, having regard to the weight of the deck cargo carried and to the length and size of the great proportion of the pitch-pine logs of which it consisted, the Court is of opinion that the vessel, as laden, was not in a good and seaworthy condition when she left Pensacola on a winter voyage across the North Atlantic. It was the opinion of the Court that the vessel was rendered unmanageable and lost by the weight and size of her deck cargo. Then, again, the report of the Board of Trade Inquiry which investigated the circumstances of the accident to the steamer "Firth of Forth" contains instructive reading on this matter of the carriage of deck loads. I do not wish to infer for one moment that the particular accident—a stranding—which was inquired into was caused by the deck load which she was carrying from the United States to the Continent; but, as furnishing proof of the statements contained in the Memorandum to the Bill, I may say that the annexe to the report of the Board of Trade Inquiry into this matter states that previous to the stranding of the vessel I have mentioned she had a list which increased considerably until she was almost on her beam ends. After a consultation with the chief officer, the master decided to cut the lashings and sacrifice the deck cargo. This is a performance much more difficult than might be imagined, and I have no hesitation in saying that if it had not been attended by good fortune the ship herself would have been sacrificed, and in all probability her crew as well.

Then comes the case of the loss of the "Blenheim," under the management of Messrs. Steel, Young & Co. of London. A Board of Trade Inquiry was ordered, and after hearing all the evidence, formulated their judgment. They found that the vessel met with heavy weather and consequently the deck load shifted, causing a great list to starboard and the vessel to ship large quantities of water. The Court stated that the cause of the deck load breaking adrift and the vessel taking a list to starboard was that she listed heavily and was struck by a heavy sea on the port side. Great damage was sustained by the vessel then and thereafter, and the Court stated that although they would have been of practically no assistance, no fewer than three of the deck pumps were inaccessible in consequence of the deck timber being stowed over them. They sail that this disaster showed the wisdom of the statutory regulation that— Vessels shall not carry deck loads of timber to discharge at ports in the United Kingdom in winter. I would supplement this by the remark that this disaster shows the desirability of your Lordships giving your favourable consideration to this measure, which would prevent such vessels carrying deck-loads to the Continent.

The latest glaring case to which it is my painful duty to draw your Lordships' attention is the loss of the steamer "Salopia" together with her crew—twenty-two men all told. It is a very extraordinary thing that this vessel belonged to the same owners as the steamer "Blenheim," the loss of which I have already commented upon. I desire, however, to be perfectly fair in this matter and to say that the Board of Trade Inquiry added that the managing owner of this latter vessel—the "Salopia"—on signing the charter party of the vessel was not aware of the loss of the "Blenheim." It appears that he has declared he is determined not to carry winter deck cargoes in vessels of this class, but the Court very tersely stated that this does not seem to go far enough. I would ask your Lordships to support me in preventing other ship-owners from carrying such deck cargoes, so that this particular owner may not have to meet with what he would consider as unfair competition. From the judgment of the Board of Trade Inquiry it appears that this missing steamer "Salopia" carried on deck no fewer than 585 logs. The Court highly disapproved of carrying a deck load during the winter months, stating that at this period of the year no deck load ought to be carried, and there is no beating about the bush in a plain statement of this character.

Your Lordships have heard on several different occasions when I have brought shipping matters forward replies by the noble Lord representing the Board of Trade in this House to the effect that the master of a ship must be allowed discretion in these matters. To those who know anything about the methods of present-day merchant ships this so-called discretion of the shipmaster is a hollow mockery. He is governed by custom and by the orders of his owners. If he does not load the full amount which the custom of the port indicates then on arrival home he is displaced by another master, but for obvious reasons the cause is not assigned. Shipmasters are therefore "between the devil and the deep sea." Their living must be their first consideration; therefore, in their anxiety to retain their positions, they carry full deck loads which, according to the disasters I have mentioned, constitute their vessels as unseaworthy and unfit for sea.

In furnishing your Lordships with independent proof of my statement on this point of "discretion," I will mention evidence which came out at three different Board of Trade Inquiries. In the case of the steamer "Cardinal" the owners wrote the captain that they desired him to carry as much as he could, safely and legally. It would have been all well and good if the owners had ended with this, but they proceeded to inform the master that if he went to the Continent they thought he was entitled to carry a larger quantity than to the United Kingdom; and if he was not acquainted with the custom in such cases he could procure authentic information at Pensacola where timber carrying is a speciality. In the face of such instruction and of the recognised custom, it is obvious that the master had no alternative but to carry a dangerous deck cargo. In the case of the loss of the "Blenheim," the owners wrote to the captain to say that the home market was simply in a desperate condition and they feared the present voyage was going to be a very poor one, but they relied upon him doing his best to prevent a loss and hoped that a good cargo would be shipped. They pointed out that of course he would be allowed to carry a full deck load for the Continent compatible with the steamer's seaworthiness, and they trusted he would take full ad- vantage of this liberty. Of course such instructions leave a loophole for escaping responsibility for the shipowners, but here again your Lordships will judge as to what discretion the master really had. He had absolutely none.

At the recent inquiry into the loss or the "Salopia" with all hands, the owners stated candidly that they expected the captain to take a deck cargo, but they left it to him to load her compatible with her sea worthiness. One of the nautical assessors on the Court, in reply to this statement, said that the captain depended upon the owners, and would carry perhaps a little more rather than incur their displeasure. The assessor pointed out that it was no more safe to carry deck cargoes to a foreign port than it was to an English port. I think I have adduced sufficient authority for saying that, although pains and penalties are visited upon the master, he has no discretion left to him in avoiding them.

I do not desire to trespass unduly on your Lordships' forbearance, and consequently I will not deal with the many letters received from shipmasters and officers appealing to me to help them in this matter by bringing it before your Lordships. I would wish to impress upon your Lordships the fact of their deplorable position in this matter. Their bread-and-butter must be their first consideration. If they do not follow the recognised custom they lose their positions on arrival home. Therefore I say that it is a grievance that demands remedy. Though they have no option as to carrying deck loads, they are yet held chiefly responsible. The Merchant Service Guild, which represents eleven thousand certificated captains and officers of merchant ships, has urged me to bring this subject before your Lordships, and to state how strongly they feel on this matter. The facts they have placed in my hands are such as no man possessing an atom of feeling can disregard. It is the captains and officers of our merchant navy upon whose practical experience we must rely in preventing undue risks to life on the high seas. If, as in this case, they emphatically condemn the carrying of deck cargoes in the winter time, your Lordships cannot but attach considerable weight to their representations—backed up as they have been by decisions, such as I have quoted, of legal Courts which have fully investigated certain disasters at sea caused by deck cargoes.

If, as I have foreshadowed, my noble friend representing the Board of Trade opposes the Bill, it is practically a certainty that the fine old crusted argument of foreign competition will be urged. Where this competition is at the expense of the lives of our seafaring fellow-subjects it is a question to be dealt with by the State. It seems to me an extraordinary argument that if foreign ships are allowed to proceed to sea in an I nnseaworthy condition, then it should— on the score of "competition"—be permissible for British ships to do likewise. The Board of Trade and the shipowners seem to be the only people who can convince the Legislature that "two blacks make a white." I always thought that Great Britain led the way in promoting safety of life at sea. Nowadays the tendency is to wait for the foreigner to make the first move. Norway is, I think, our only competitor to be considered seriously in the carriage of deck cargoes. I may inform your Lordships that the Norwegian Government have now adopted a measure stipulating that vessels carrying wood on deck must hold a surveyor's certificate as to their fitness to do so, and that the deck load must be so stowed as not to impede navigation or prevent free access to boats and other life-saving appliances. Norway, your Lordships will see, is quite impressed by the dangers of such cargoes.

Should your Lordships give this Bill a Second Reading, it will of course be open to Amendment in Committee. I implore your Lordships not to disregard, not my own views, but those of independent and impartial authorities on a cause of deplorable loss of life at sea. The fact that they have no direct means of representation in the Legislature should cause their claims to appeal to us all the more. Full of toil, care, responsibility, and risk, their lives are as precious to their parents, their wives, and their families as they should be to their country. I ask, then, that these lives should not be unduly jeopardised, and that dangers altogether outside the category of ordinary perils of the sea may be the subject of your Lordships' most earnest consideration.

Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Muskerry.)

LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, although His Majesty's Government are not prepared to grant a Second Reading to this Bill, I think I may congratulate my noble friend on the very able and moderate manner in which he has brought this subject to your Lordships' notice. I think it would be as well if I read to your Lordships Section 451 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, which deals with the loading of timber. It runs as follows— If a ship, British or foreign, arrives between the last day of October and the 16th day of April in any year at any port in the United Kingdom from any port out of the United Kingdom, carrying as deck cargo, that is to say, in any uncovered space upon deck, or in any covered space not included in the cubical contents forming the ship's registered tonnage, any wood goods as hereinafter denned, the master of that ship, and also the owner, if he is privy to the offence, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £5 for every hundred cubic feet of wood goods carried in contravention of this section. And then there is a proviso— Nothing in this section shall affect any ship not bound to a port in the United Kingdom which comes into any port of the United Kingdom under stress of weather, or for repairs, or for any other purpose than the delivery of her cargo. That, my Lords, is the existing law, and I can assure your Lordships that this section is vigorously enforced by the Board of Trade. During the years 1901 and 1902, there were convictions of twenty-two vessels for contravening this section, seventeen of which were foreign vessels.

As far as I can make out from the Bill and from the speech of my noble friend, he is desirous of including all British ships starting from a foreign port, and whose cargoes are consigned to foreign ports. That is the scope, I think, of his Bill. The noble Lord has mentioned in support of his proposal many cases where we regret there has been loss of life, and others in which the ship has foundered, but in which there has been no loss of life. I have particulars of all the cases he referred to, with the exception of that of the "Cardinal," and I find that the cause of their loss is not attributed altogether by the Commisioners who inquired into the cases to their carrying deck cargoes. In the case of the "Mobile," which the noble Lord mentioned first, the Court found that the vessel had insufficient stability, but, as she was chiefly laden with grain or cotton, she is not included in the table of timber-laden vessels foundered and missing. The next case to which the noble Lord referred was that of the "Huddersfield." In the case of this vessel the Court found that the casualty was due to the excessive height of the deck cargo. With regard to the "Salopia," the Court found that apart from the vessel carrying a deck load she was not unseaworthy, and they expressed the opinion that no deck load should be carried in winter months across the Atlantic.

I think I can show your Lordships by quoting the figures on this subject, that there has been a great diminution in the number of vessels lost from this cause. The number of lives lost in foundered timber-laden ships during the last four and a half years was seventy-three, as against 327 in the previous four and a half years. As regards the trade between foreign ports, the number of vessels foundered and missing was eleven, and the number of lives lost fifty-five, during the past four and a half years; as against nineteen vessels, and 125 lives lost, in the preceding four and a half years. This very large diminution is chiefly due, I think, to the employment in this trade of steamers, which have largely taken the place of sailing vessels. In the figures I have quoted, I have not included the twenty-six lives lost in the "Mobile," for the reason I have given.

I now come to the question of foreign competition. As your Lordships are aware, foreign competition in the seafaring world is very keen, and if your Lordships grant a Second Reading to this Bill you will be doing a thing that you have never assented to before—you will be placing restrictions on British ships which you are unable to impose on ships of foreign nations. I admit that if we could get all foreign nations to adopt Section 451 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, it would be extremely desir- able, but before that could be done we should have to approach those Powers on the subject. The noble Lord made, I think, a rather strong attack on shipowners. I am not able, I must admit, to follow the noble Lord into that question, but I cannot help saying that in my opinion the general body of shipowners in England are only too anxious to do what they can for the safety and comfort of the men who go to sea in their vessels. I regret that His Majesty's Government are unable to consent to the Second Reading of this Bill.

THE DUKE OF RUTLAND: My Lords, I have no intention whatever of entering into the technical details of this Bill, but when I hear competition alleged as a reason why it should not be read a second time my memory goes back to the great and prolonged debates in the House of Commons on the subject of factory legislation. The great argument of Mr. Bright and Mr. Cobden, and even of Sir Robert Peel, against the passing of the Ten Hours Bill was that it would subject English manufacturers to unjust competition with their foreign competitors. That was the ground of the great resistance made to those remedial measures of that time, and it seems to me that the argument of the noble Lord in opposition to this Bill is based upon precisely the same ground—the dread of foreign competition. Well, we faced it in the case to which I have referred and we conquered, and I see no reason why we should not face it and conquer in the present instance.

THE EARL OF TANKERVILLE: My Lords, I think we ought to look at this Bill from quite a different standpoint from that from which the noble Lord who represents the Board of Trade appears to regard it. Shipmasters are practically forced to take these deck loads, otherwise they lose their positions; and the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of this Bill has quoted the case of an officer writing home before starting on the voyage, expressing his fear that he would not reach the other side. The case of the Spanish ship "Vesper" has not been alluded to this afternoon. That case was tried last Friday, and resulted in judgment for £40 and costs. The offence took place on April 6th, and that vessel since that time has made two round trips. One would like to know why the Board of Trade pat off trying that case for so long, and whether they proceeded with it because this Bill was coming up. I think, my Lords, the case of the poor man who risks his life on our merchant ships should be listened to, the more so as he is a man who has served his country well. We employed, I believe, 600 ships of the mercantile marine during the Boer War. They carried 1,250,000 tons of food, not including forage; they carried many thousands of horses and mules, and 500,000 men without the loss of a single life. Not only have they served us well in the past, but the officers and men of the merchant service will be the men who, in the event of war, will be drawn upon for the Naval Reserve. Surely, there for, it is worth the country's while to pay some attention to the appeal which these men now put forward to have their case considered from the point of view of the seaman rather than from that of the owner, whose only fear is for his pocket.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I desire to say one word only with reference to what fell from the noble Duke behind me. I did not understand my noble friend who represents the Board of Trade to argue that this Bill should be refused a Second Beading merely because it had the effect of imposing restrictions upon British shipping which did not apply to the shipping of foreign nations. Where the safety of human beings or, indeed, where the welfare of human beings, is at issue, I conceive that we should never shrink from taking the precautions which humanity demands merely because the effect of those precautions would be to throw some disability or disadvantage upon the persons upon whom we impose them. But what I did understand my noble friend to suggest was this, that the number of casualties arising from the careless use of these deck loads was showing a steady and satisfactory diminution, and, that being the case, and as there are already under the existing law restrictions applicable to British and foreign ships alike, which are, we believe, operating in a satisfactory manner, my noble friend suggested that it was desirable not to impose a new restriction which would certainly operate exclusively in regard to British shipping, and therefore place the shipping interest, which is, as we all know, competing with great difficulty against the shipping of other countries, at a fresh disadvantage. That, I think, is the argument upon which we relied, and I hope that the noble Duke will not suspect us of being at all callous in the matter of risk of life and safety at sea.

*LORD KELVIN: My Lords, I think existing legislation is ample proof that our Legislature cannot be accused of callousness in respect to safety of life at sea. We are doing at present not quite all, but nearly all we can in respect to deck cargoes. We allow no ship, British or foreign, to come into a British port with a deck load of wood during the times for which such a cargo is judged inadmissible in respect to safety. We have power over ships coming into our ports, whether they are foreign ships or British ships, and we use that power against both alike. We have power over British ships over the whole sea. We have power over ships loading under the British flag in foreign ports, and it seems to me it would be only consistent with the principles upon which the existing beneficent legislation is founded, that we should not allow British ships—ships under our own control—to take a dangerous deck load during the winter months. To put a deck load on a ship in an American port which has to cross, the Atlantic is to court danger. It seems to me that we are bound by the very principles of our present legislation to adopt the provisions of the Bill now before your Lordships' House, and not allow British ships under any circumstances whatever to ship a dangerous deck cargo during the winter months. I hope the House will give this Bill a Second Reading. I hope the Government and the Board of Trade will see that it introduces no condition whatever that is inconvenient or unfair to British shipowners, unless we are to regard all British legislation unfair which, whether it affects shipowners or manufacturers, places upon British subjects liabilities that foreigners are not subject, to. I trust that the Board of Trade will see their way to accept the Bill and allow it to be read a second time.

*THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, I should like to say a word or two on this Bill. I have been asked by the Shipowners' Parliamentary Committee to do my best to oppose it, but, happily, the Government have not seen their way to accept it, and I hope, therefore, your Lordships will not give it a Second Reading. We all feel that it is desirable that risks should be removed as far as possible, but there is another consideration, namely, the question of the trade of the country; and, in the opinion of the shipowners, if this Bill passes, the timber-carrying trade will be absolutely taken away from this country and go into foreign hands. I cannot conceive a greater misfortune to those whom you wish now to benefit by this Bill than that so important a trade as the timber trade should go into foreign hands. I called attention when the fiscal question was under discussion to the fact that the high figure of British freights was very largely due to what foreigners are free from, namely, well-intentioned, but what I think in many cases is short-sighted interference with those who carry on this trade. I remember that at one time something was proposed by the Board of Trade which the shipowners of this country considered so fatal to their interests that they went to the Board of Trade and told them simply this, that if such a measure was passed they would remove their ships from the British flag and place them under the Norwegian or Spanish or other foreign flag. Therefore, in these matters it it is all very well to give way to one's natural feelings, but there are more serious considerations, and very often when you are trying to do goad it turns out to be short-sighted philanthropy, for you do more harm to those you are intending to benefit than good. I hope the Second Reading of the Bill will not be agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, it is not often my good fortune to agree with the noble Earl who has just sat down on questions of this sort. Naturally, I should be altogether inclined to sympathise with the object of the Bill which has been brought in by Lord Muskerry. I think its objects are good, and if it were not that it is undesirable to take the steps which he advocates until you have exhausted all other means of arriving at a satisfactory solution of this question, I should have been very much tempted to vote with him. But it does appear to me that it is very desirable, before you adopt a measure of this kind, which might seriously affect British shipping interests, that you should exhaust every effort in your power to induce foreign nations to come into this arrangement. I have soma reason for thinking that there is not altogether unwillingness on the part of foreign countries to adopt our principle of legislation, and I cannot vote for the Second Reading of this Bill until the noble Marquess opposite has had the fullest opportunity of inducing foreign countries to adopt our principle in this respect.

LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, with regard to what has been said by the noble Marquess who has just sat down, I would like to call attention to the fact that the winter is now coming on and that while we are waiting, before adopting preventative measures, for other countries to come into line we are unjustifiably risking a number of lives. When the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs rose, I was overjoyed to hear his first few sentences, for I made sure he was going to support my Bill. The noble Marquess said we should take every care for the safety of life irrespective of anything else. The effect of his observations was that the first object should be the safety and the welfare of seamen. I would point out that this Bill does not alter the existing law except in this one respect—the law says now that it is; dangerous to carry these cargoes to England, forbids their being carried, and provides a punishment for infringement, and all that Parliament is asked is to extend this to British vessels I going from a foreign port to a port on the Continent. Is not that perfectly consistent? You say that here is a practice which is dangerous, and yet you I allow it in cases where the vessel is bound for the Continent. I am compelled to press the Bill to a Second Reading.

CONTENTS.
Northumberland, D. Powis, E. Ellenborough, L.
Rutland, D. Romney, E. James, L.
Tankerville, E. Kelvin, L
Craven, E. Lyveden, L. [Teller.]
Dartrey, E. Clanwilliam, L.(E. Clanwilliam) Muskerry, L. [Teller.]
NOT-CONTENTS.
Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.) Carrington, E. Calthorpe, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) Denbigh, E. Crawshaw, L.
(L. President.) Hardwicke, E. Hawkesbury, L.
Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.) Mansfield, E. Killanin, L.
Stanhope, E. Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)
Waldegrave, E. [Teller.] Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)
Marlborough, D. Lawrence, L. [Teller.]
Portland, D. Ravensworth, L.
Hutchinson, V(E. Donoughmore) Ribblesdale, L.
Lansdowne, M. Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)
Ripon, M. Balfour, L. Wolverton, L.