HL Deb 15 November 1918 vol 32 cc139-55

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Islington.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Capacity of women to be members of Parliament.

1. A woman shall not be disqualified by sex or marriage for being elected to or sitting or voting as a Member of the Commons House of Parliament.

LORD ROTHERHAM had the following Amendment on the Paper— Clause 1, page 1, line 7, after ("Parliament") insert ("nor shall Writs of Summons to the House of Lords be withheld from Peeresses in their own right"). The noble Lord said: My Lords, since my Amendment was put down the noble Viscount opposite, Viscount Haldane, has also tabled an Amendment with the same object but worded differently, and as I have no wish to compete with the noble Viscount in the drafting of Amendments. I do not propose to move the one standing in my name.


My Lords, my Amendment is to insert, after "Parliament," the words "or from receiving a Writ of Summons to the House of Lords or from sitting and voting in that House." I wish to say at once that I am quite aware that there will be more to be covered than my Amendment covers in order to make it perfect. Therefore, with your Lordships' consent, I propose to move just the initial word to raise the question of principle, because after the principle is settled we can easily, and on the spot if necessary, put in language which will cover all that requires to be dealt with.

When your Lordships consented to the Second Reading of this Bill you gave your assent to a general principle, and I think, if I may presume to say so, very properly. The nation has decided, and other nations have decided, and the whole tendency of the time is to put women on an equality with men as far as taking part in Parliamentary institutions is concerned. The principle of the country is to remove all sex disability so far as Parliament is concerned, whether as regards voting at elections or as regards being elected to the House of Commons, and leaving it to nature to add the rest. For many years when I was a member of the House of Commons, along with Viscount Grey of Falloden, who was also a member, we used to bring in every year a Bill to this effect. In those days it never made much progress. But the principle was there, and the principle is just the principle of this Amendment. That being unmistakably the principle of the nation, the House of Commons, by an enormous majority, gave effect to it, and I do not see how they could have done otherwise.

Your Lordships having, on the Second Reading, given a general assent to the principle, all that remains is to pass it in a form that is not ragged but self-consistent, by extending what is proposed to be extended to the House of Commons to this House also—namely, the principle that sex should not be a disqualification from sitting and voting. That seems to me to be a principle so widely accepted that, coupled with the disposition of your Lordships not to oppose yourselves to anything upon which the nation has clearly pronounced by public opinion, I do not think it necessary to take up the time of the House at any length in arguing it, and I am content to leave it in the way I have put it. To my mind we should stultify ourselves and put ourselves in an altogether false position if we were to say, "Oh, we are quite ready to allow women to sit in the House of Commons, but we refuse to have them in the House of Lords." That would be a position which certainly would not help us when we come to the momentous question of what changes are to be made in this House in order to fit it to discharge the tremendously responsible duties which will devolve upon it presently.

Speaking for myself, I should be very sorry to see the situation such that at a General Election it should be said, "The House of Lords is not willing to give effect to a principle which has met with such general acceptance in every other quarter." I do not think your Lordships need be apprehensive of being flooded by Peeresses. As far as I am aware, there are very few indeed to whom this measure can apply if we pass it in the amended form which I am venturing to suggest. Whatever may be the case in the future when opinion may have developed, for the present I think your Lordships may rely upon nature and the habits of society to keep the advance within these bounds which a nation that always likes to proceed in an orderly fashion desires should be effective.

But the legal question is quite another one. It is a question of principle. It is a question of repealing, as I think the country desires to do, that inrooted principle of the Common Law which forbids a woman to occupy a public office. That is a principle which has been deeply embedded in our Common Law and which has been gradually changed, and women have been recognised as the equal of men in respect of holding property and in almost every other respect except political rights. Now, it is obvious that the country desires to lay down the principle that in respect of political rights they should be equal also, and therefore I do not argue the question of principle any further.

When I come to the wording of my Amendment I think it goes a little differently from the Amendment of my noble friend opposite, who has been so good as to say he would prefer that it should be put in my own form. I am quite aware that it ought to be a little different in order to cover the case of Scottish Peeresses in their own right, who at present cannot vote at an election for Scottish Peers. I think there are very few of them to whom it would be open to do anything of the kind. But we want to provide for this in principle; and although I am not sure that there is any Irish Peeress at all in her own right, there may be in future—who knows?—and we ought to provide for that also.

There is another matter which ought to be provided for. The House of Commons, taking a more conservative view of the reality of the situation than obtains, and assuming that by the passing of the Bill in the form in which it was passing it all women would be entitled to vote for the House of Commons and not to sit elsewhere, the House of Commons put in a clause which would enable Peeresses in their own right to vote for the House of Commons as well as to enter that Chamber. I am all in favour of equality of sex. Therefore I am very much against giving a privilege to woman which does not belong to men, and I am not prepared to suggest that women should have the right to vote for the House of Commons and also to sit here unless I am to have that right myself. Therefore I would suggest that it would be well to repeal the section of the Representation of the People Act which made that change in the law—an alteration to which I am sure the other House would willingly assent. It is subsection (5) of Section 9 of the Representation of the People Act which was passed into law the other day. These are Amendments about which I myself should be prepared to suggest words to the Government, but I do not doubt that they have thought about this, and have obtained better words with the aid of their technical advisers than I can draw up. I should presume that that is so, and I should prefer to move my Amendment simply in the form of adding to Clause 1, page 1, line 7, after "Parliament" the word "or," which would enable the most suitable words to be added after we have disposed of the question of principle.

Amendment moved— Clause 1, page 1, line 7, after ("Parliament.") insert ("or").—(Viscount Haldane.)


My Lords, I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment, and in taking the course that I do—the reasons for which I shall give in the course of my remarks—I would like to say, by way of preface, that speaking for myself it is due to no hostility whatever to the actual proposal that is embodied in the Amendment—namely, that Peeresses in their own right should have the right to sit in the House of Lords. I sympathise with a great deal of what the noble Viscount said in regard to making as complete as possible the admission of women to both branches of the Constitution. It is not on those grounds that I venture to submit to your Lordships that you should hesitate before you accept this Amendment.

I will not this afternoon attempt to discuss the intrinsic merits of this proposal, or that aspect of the question embodied in the Amendment which would enable certain ladies to have a seat in this House, and therefore to be represented in the Imperial Parliament along with men. The reasons that I will ask the House to reject the Amendment are as follow. This particular proposal, I venture to say, goes beyond the actual scope and spirit of the Bill that we are now discussing. The inclusion in it of the grant to Peeresses of the right to sit in this House would be inappropriate to the sense and the spirit of this Bill, the object of which is to grant eligibility to women to be nominated for and elected by a constituency to the House of Commons.




Therefore it gives a woman the chance, which has hitherto been denied to her, to sit in the House of Commons. That is a very different proposition from the proposal by the noble Viscount which gives a Peeress in her own right the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords. I submit, with all deference, that this proposal therefore goes beyond the scope and intention of the present Bill. It may be argued—it has already been argued by the noble Viscount—that the title of the Bill is sufficiently wide to embrace both cases; but, so far as I am aware—and of course, in these highly technical matters it is not necessary for me to tell your Lordships that I am not speaking my own opinion but am voicing, however inadequately, the opinion of high legal and constitutional authorities—no attempt in previous legislation has been made to deal simultaneously and in one Bill with a disqualification to sit and vote in the two Houses respectively.

I will venture, if I may, to give the reasons why this probably has been the case, and I will give in especial one or two that are peculiarly applicable to this Amendment, apart from the broad grounds which I have already mentioned—that there is a fundamental difference between the grant of a right to women to stand and be elected for the House of Commons and the grant to certain women of the right to sit in the House of Lords. I desire to point out to your Lordships that the constitutional principle affecting the right to sit in the two Houses is quite different, and that the machinery employed to effect that purpose is also quite different. As regards the House of Commons, as your Lordships are aware, it is sufficient to remove the Common Law disqualification. That removal has made the return and the election of women valid, and a candidate for Parliament in the other place does not have to possess even the same qualifications as a voter for a candidate for that House. On the other hand, if a Peeress is to sit in this House, a Writ of Summons must be issued to her by the Crown. It is necessary, therefore, to add something to the removal of the disqualification, showing the intention of Parliament that a Writ of Summons should so be issued.

At present there are twenty Peeresses in their own right. Nine of these Peeresses possess Baronies by Writ. In those cases, I am given to understand, it is by no means certain that the removal of the sex disqualification would be sufficient to enable them to sit in this House. There are also eleven Peerages conferred by Letters Patent, and in those cases it is not deemed sufficient merely to remove the sex disqualification, the Letters Patent in each case granting the right to men to sit who succeed to Peerages but exclude women who so succeed. To enable those ladies to sit and vote it would be necessary, therefore, for your Lordships to supply the deficiency at present in the Letters Patent—an operation, I venture to say, beyond the scope of this Bill, which is really to amend the capacity of women to sit in Parliament, and I lay emphasis on the word "capacity." Again—and this has already been alluded to by the noble Viscounts—in addition to the twenty Peeresses that I have mentioned, there are four Scottish Peerages held by ladies in their own right. It will naturally follow, as the noble Viscount told your Lordships, that these ladies should be granted the right to vole at elections of Scottish Representative Peers. Therefore it would be necessary to amend the Statute regulating the election of Scottish Representative Peers—again an operation which would necessitate another Amendment, And one which I think goes beyond the scope of this Bill.

One more point I should like to make, which will show that another Amendment will be entailed in order to make the proposal complete and consistent. When women were given the vote at the beginning of this year the question arose whether Peeresses in their own right should be granted the right to vote for election to the House of Commons. As your Lordships are aware, a Peer who sits in this House has not that right. But as the Peeress was excluded from the House of Lords it was considered, when the Bill was under discussion, that it would be both fair and consistent to grant her a vote for the House of Commons. Here again, if the right to sit in this House is granted, an Amendment must be made subjecting those Peeresses to the same disabilities, in view of the privilege that is granted to them, that we suffer under as Peers.

I have endeavoured to show that this proposal of the noble Viscount is not quite such a simple matter as it looks, and that if this Amendment is carried it must inevitably entail other Amendments to overcome the discrepancies which would thereby arise. I think this would be difficult at the present state of the session; and I emphasise once more that such an Amendment would be quite inappropriate to this Bill, with its present intention. I know well that certain of your Lordships are keenly anxious to see Peeresses in their own right admitted to the same privileges as your Lordships in this House, and, as I have already said, I sympathise in principle with that sentiment. I think I am right in saying that those who hold that view may be said to represent the advanced wing of those who desire to see all disqualifications of women removed in our Constitution. They may be regarded as the strongest supporters of the Bill in its present form, and I am sure that for a matter like this—which, important though it may be, is still quite subsidiary to the larger issues involved in the Bill—it would be very far from their minds to do anything at this late stage of the session to jeopardise the Bill.

I suggest, therefore, that in view of the difficulties, in view of the inevitable Amendments that would consequently have to be inserted, this proposal should now be withdrawn, and that, if it is desired to grant Peeresses in their own right the privilege to sit in this House, the object will be best effected, and will be effected also in accordance with proper precedent, by a separate Bill, dealing properly and adequately with the whole Constitutional machinery which will be thereby disturbed. In these circumstances I am afraid I cannot support this Amendment, and I hope that the few observations which I have made may have the result of inducing your Lordships to reject it.


Do I understand that my noble friend has been speaking on behalf of the Government?




Then I think it is a very extraordinary thing, that in the House of Commons His Majesty's Government should leave this question entirely to the decision of the House, and that here they should take a very strong line against the proposal. I cannot imagine why the Government should suddenly have taken a hand in this matter at all, why they should treat this House on a wholly different principle from that on which they treated the House of Commons. This is a change in which I have personally never taken any great interest. I should not have moved in this matter as regards the House of Commons any more than the House of Lords, but, as the House of Commons has dealt with this matter, I see no reason why your Lordships' House should not deal with it too, if you so think fit.

Let us take the main argument of my noble friend. He says that to deal with this question is beyond the scope and intention and spirit of this Bill, and that it would be wholly inappropriate. You may or may not think it wise to admit women to the House of Commons, or Peeresses in their own right to the House of Lords, but that particular concession is an absolutely impossible one to maintain before your Lordships. The title of the Bill, deliberately chosen, is "An Act to Amend the Law with respect to the Capacity of Women to sit in Parliament." If Parliament does not include the House of Lords, I have to learn what it does include. If this Bill had been meant only to deal with the House of Commons, it would have said so. The title of this Bill is quite deliberately drawn to cover both Houses of Parliament, and, so far as I am aware, your Lordships' House is still one of the Houses of Parliament. This very question was raised in the House of Commons, and an Amendment was moved. Was it ruled out of order as being beyond the scope or spirit of this Bill? Nothing of the kind. What took place was this. It was pointed out that perhaps it was not respectful of the House of Commons to deal with a matter that was fundamentally one for your Lordships. That was the reason why the Amendment was not pressed in the House of Commons. Therefore, whatever you may think of that suggestion, on which every conceivable stress was laid—it was put to us again and again from different aspects—the contention that this proposal is outside the scope of this Bill really will not hold water for one moment.

Then what is the next objection? That never in the Constitutional history of this country has a question of the removal of a disability been dealt with in the same Bill in respect to the House of Commons and the House of Lords. If no precedent has been set before, I think it is quite time a precedent was set. I cannot think that the foundations of the Constitution would tumble about our ears if, for the first time, we did an ordinary, practical, and common sense piece of business.

The third objection was that there was a fundamental difference between the two Houses in this matter. That is a question of opinion. But if there is any difference between the two Houses in this matter, surely it is in favour of the admission of these Peeresses to the House of Lords. That women should sit in the House of Commons to fulfil the constitutional functions of a Member of Parliament is an entirely new idea in our Constitution. But Peeresses in their own right, although they have never sat in your Lordships' Chamber, have fulfilled a position in the State for many centuries. The mere fact of a woman being a Peeress in her own right proves that there was something which in the eyes of the law she could do. She has had a status—a very ancient status—such as no woman has ever had in relation to the House of Commons. She has continued in her person through the centuries the hereditary right of a man to sit in this Chamber. Therefore if there is any difference between the two, the difference is entirely in favour of the Peeress in her own right. And in what an extraordinary position we should be. A woman may sit on the Throne; a woman may sit in the House of Commons; but the one place where she is not to sit is in the House of Lords. I cannot understand on what grounds of reason opposition can be offered to this proposal if you are going to admit women into the House of Commons.

Then my noble friend gives a whole list of Amendments. He says, "Oh, but this is a very complicated and difficult business. It is not only a question of dealing with the nine Peeresses who hold Baronies by Writ—they can be dealt with quite simply in this Bill—but you have in addition the eleven Peeresses whose Letters Patent would have to be altered; you have the four Scottish Representative Peeresses; and you have the fact that Peeresses by the Franchise Bill have been given the vote for Members of Parliament." There is not one of these Amendments which cannot be put in to-day or tomorrow, and not one which the House of Commons would not accept. We are told that the Bill will be jeopardised by these Amendments being put in. That is not the fact. It may be wise or unwise to allow Peeresses to sit here. That is a question on which we have our opinions. But to say that if you do it you will jeopardise the Bill is simply playing with your Lordships.

I come now to the last objection—namely, that by the Franchise Bill Peeresses have been given the vote. I very much hope that no amendment will be made in this Bill to take away that vote. We ourselves ought to have the vote, too. The amendment in the law which is required is that Peers should be allowed to vote for election to the House of Commons like anybody else, and then we should not be the only people exempted from that privilege except felons and lunatics, which, I believe, are the only two classes besides ourselves ineligible for the vote. But that is a separate question. I submit to your Lordships that, while it is perfectly fair to take a vote on the issue whether in your judgment it is or is not advisable to let Peeresses in their own right sit in your Lordships' House, none of the reasons that my noble friend has given—the inappropriateness of the occasion; the extraordinary difficulties of the Amendments—is an argument worthy of your Lordships' consideration.


The only question before the House—and I wish to call attention to this—is the question of principle—


That is all.


—which I understood was to be left to the House. The opposition of the Government I take to be directed to the form of the Bill rather than to the principle. I understood so, but it is necessary, I think, to make that clear; and I propose to suggest to your Lordships that it would be well to take the sense of the House on the question of principle.


Hear, hear.


When the sense of the House has been taken on the question of principle, then the situation will be this. I am prepared to suggest—I have given some thought to this since I put down the Amendment, which I did in a hurry—words following the word "or,' which is the only word the subject of division—which words think will cover the cases. If the Government have better words I should be glad to accept them. Or the Government may prefer to take another course; they may say, "We undertake and pledge ourselves to bring in a Bill early in the first session of the new Parliament." That would be a matter which would have great weight with us, if the Government would give a firm pledge upon the subject. But we have not yet reached that stage. The first and only question is the question of principle, and on that I propose to ask your Lordships to give the sense of the House.


My Lords, I hope that the House will not adopt this Amendment. It is in a somewhat peculiar form, as it consists simply of adding the word "or." What is to be put in after "or" is to be revealed later. Now, the distinction between the seat of a woman in the House of Commons and the seat of a woman who happens to be a Peeress in her own right in this House, is surely very evident indeed. A Peeress in her own right acquires that dignity by descent from a man, or very often by the grant of a Peerage in the case of some distinguished man, who happens not to have a son, having remainder to a daughter. But where a woman desires to enter the House of Commons she must submit herself to the judgment of a constituency, and her title to sit there is derived from the votes of the constituency which has chosen to elect her. Surely that is a very broad and real distinction between the two cases.

As has been stated, there are, I think, twenty Peeresses in England in their own right—nine in the case of Baronies created by Writ, and eleven in the case of Baronies, or other Peerages, created by Patent. I will give a word or two of explanation about a Barony by Writ. A Barony by Writ followed the Writ issued to a particular person; if followed by sitting in the House it conferred a Peerage of Parliament. That is well settled law. And in the case of a Peerage by Writ followed by sitting in the House, it descended to heirs female as well as to heirs male. Many interesting questions have arisen in recent years with regard to cases where there have been several daughters and descendants from them; because when there were several daughters and no son the Peerage went into abeyance until the Crown designated to which of the daughters the Peerage was to go. That is the state of the law, and that is how in the case of Peerages by Writ you have a certain number of very old Peeresses in their own right in the case of such Baronies. As had been said by the noble and learned Lord opposite, the women have never sat in this House at all. They have been Peeresses in their own right, but they have not sat. In the case of creation by Patent, where a Patent is granted to a man, you have two clauses. You have first the clause conferring the dignity of a Peerage—Baron So and So. Then, secondly, you have another and a distinct clause calling him to sit in Parliament. In the case of a Patent granted to a woman, either in the fist instance or by remainder, the second clause is invariably absent. There is no grant of the right of sitting in Parliament to a woman. The same thing applies where the Peerage to the woman is granted in remainder, on the Peerage granted, it may be, to her father or other near relative. It is only in the case of a grant originally to male issue that the grant expresses that there is to be a right to sit in Parliament.

Now with regard to this question of the grant to which my noble friend in charge of the Bill has referred, may I read to your Lordships a clause which I have no doubt is familiar to many of you from the ordinary form of Patent. I have here a draft form in blank of a grant of a Peerage. "We do by these presents advance, create, and prefer"—So and so—"to the state, degree, style, dignity, title, and honour of"—Baron So and so—"and for us, our heirs, and successors do appoint, give, and grant unto him the said … the name, state, degree, style, title, dignity, and honour of Baron … aforesaid: to have and to hold the said state, degree, style, title, dignity, and honour aforesaid to him and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten and to be begotten." Then it goes on "… willingly and by these presents grant, for us and our heirs and successors, the said … and his heirs male to have, hold, and possess a seat, place, and voice in the Parliaments and public assemblies and councils of us, our heirs and successors within our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland among other Barons as Baron of Parliament …" Then there is the second clause granting the right of sitting. That is invariably absent in the case of a Patent granted to a woman, whether directly in the first instance or by remainder. Parliament can, of course, do everything, and Parliament conceivably might enact that whatever the grant was, if there were a Peeress in her own right she should be entitled to a Writ of Summons and qualified to sit in the House of Lords. That, however, would be a somewhat remarkable enactment. There have been cases of providing that a Writ of Summons shall be granted. For instance, in the case of Lords of Appeal, Life Peers, and in the case of the creation of Bishops, there is provision that they shall be entitled to a Writ of Summons.

To make this change effectual, you require, as my noble friend has pointed out, a very great deal more than is contained in this Amendment; and the first point to which I wish to address myself very shortly is the question whether such a change is desirable. Reform of the House of Lords of which we have heard a great deal of late years, has always proceeded on the line of requiring some qualification other than birth for a seat in this Assembly. Is it desirable to introduce a certain number of ladies—twenty ladies? There may be more, because in many cases there may be Baronies by Writ latent and obscured by the fact that there has been a creation by Patent afterwards. They might merge. There may be more, but I will say twenty. Is it desirable to go to the extent of altering the constitution of this House by saying that these ladies ipso facto shall be qualified to sit in the House and shall be deemed to have received a Writ of Summons; or rather to enact that the Crown is to issue a Writ of Summons to such ladies whatever the terms of the grant in the first instance were? I would in this connection remind your Lordships again of a clause in an Act which we passed the other day—the Representation of the People Act, Section 9, subsection (5)—which is in these terms: Any incapacity of a Peer to vote at an election arising from the status of the Peer, shall not extend to Peeresses in their own right. My noble friend Lord Selborne says that he thinks Peers ought to have the vote. That, of course, is another matter, upon which at the present time I shall not express any opinion. It might be very desirable that Peers, if they so elect, might stand for the House of Commons, and, it they get elected, sit there at their choice. That is a very large alteration; and the alteration of giving Peers the vote would also be a large alteration. But we have not anything of that kind, and I do not think we are in sight of having it. I say frankly I do not think it a desirable change to bring in these twenty ladies by enactment. In the second place I think it is pretty plain that no Amendment on the lines proposed by my noble and learned friend would meet the case. The Amendment, of which at present only the word "or" is moved, may, I suppose, be taken to be represented by the words which appear in the Paper. The alterations required would be of a somewhat, extensive character. The words on the Paper would not effect it, and it shows that the subject is not quite so simple. My noble and learned friend, with his very great experience and astuteness, has put down on the Paper an Amendment which on second thoughts he recognises will not meet the case—


I should be well content to have that Amendment if there were nothing else to be had. It goes a little in the direction of liberality, but I am in favour of liberality.


I was going to suggest difficulties which I am afraid will prevent its being operative. Supoose it were enacted that nothing should prevent a woman from receiving a Writ of Sommons to the House of Lords or from sitting and voting in this House. Suppose a lady came and said, "I am a Peeress in my own right." The first thing the Crown Office would have to do would be to inquire what right she had to a Writ of Summons. She produces the Patent, but there is nothing there entitling her to sit in the House of Lords. It has been left out, I believe I am right in saying, in every case where a lady has received a Peerage under a Patent either directly or by way of remainder. In that case her title would be very incomplete. I do not believe the Crown Office would act. At the very

best the matter might form the subject of investigation by the Committee of Privileges and I see great difficulties. I will not prejudge such a case—it might conceivably arise—but there would certainly be great room for argument as to whether there was any right whatever on her part to a Writ.

This Amendment would remove the incapacity of the sex. But then the Crown Office might say, "Where is your grant?" and then when the Patent is produced—I am talking of the eleven Peeresses under Patent—it is found that there is no clause about sitting in Parliament. Of course, you may have an extensive alteration, by which you retrospectively deal with the grant—either acquire fresh grants, or say they shall be read as conferring the right to sit in the House, although the original grant was entirely silent upon the subject. That is a matter which certainly wants looking into, and I should suggest to my noble and learned friend that any Amendment on anything like the lines of that which he has put on the Paper would be quite insufficient. The matter, if it were ever seriously taken up, would in all probability have to be dealt with by a Committee to inquire into its effect on the privileges of the House, and the way to deal with those past grants which are entirely silent on the question of the right to sit in this House. On all these grounds I shall certainly vote against the Amendment—in the first place upon the merits, because I do not think the change is desirable; and in the second place because I think that anything on the lines that so far have been foreshadowed would be inadequate.

On Question, whether the word "or" shall be here inserted?—

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 14; Not-Contents, 33.

Chesterfield, E. Haldane, V. [Teller.] Emmott, L.
Russell, E. St. Davids, V. Muir Mackenzie, L.
Selborne, E. Rotherham, L. [Teller.]
Somerleyton, L.
Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.) Burnham, L. Stuart of Wortley, L.
Churchill, V. Colebrooke, L.
Canterbury, L. Abp. Lucan, E. Elphinstone, L.
Finlay, L. (L. Chancellor.) Stanhope, E. Fairfax of Cameron, L.
Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.) (L. Privy Seal.) Forester, L.
Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) Gisborough, L. [Teller.]
Hylton, L.
Argyll, D. Knollys, V. Islington, L.
Peel, V. Lamington, L.
Salisbury, M. Oranmore and Browne, L.
Armaghdale, L. [Teller.] Ranksborough, L.
Eldon, E. Avebury, L. Revelstoke, L.
Howe, E. Barrymore, L. Saltoun, L.
Jersey, E. Cawley, L. Shandon, L.
Lindsay, E. Clinton, L. Stanmore, L.
Dinevor, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Remaining clause agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment. Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.