Page 2, Clause 1, after line 16 to insert the following new paragraph:—
("(d) Certain named persons appointed before the first day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-four, by the Governor-General in Council or by a local government, or by the High Court or Chief Court of a Province in respect of whom the Secretary of State in Council shall have certified that exemption is justified by the circumstances of their original appointment.")
THE LORD CHAIRMAN
The most convenient form of Question will be this: That the Amendment proposed by the Joint Committee to page 2, Clause 1, line 16, be disagreed to.
§ Moved, That the Amendment to page 2, Clause 1, line 16, proposed by the Standing Joint Committee on Indian Affairs he disagreed to.—(The Earl of Birkenhead.)
§ LORD OLIVIER
I want to put a preliminary inquiry to the noble Earl in order to clear the ground. First of all, I may explain that I was not in the Joint Committee when this clause was fixed upon, and it is in a form with which I could not agree for precisely the reasons I expressed in the former debate, and which have been expressed, or some of them at all events, by the noble Earl this afternoon. But I understand from the debate, and also from the White Paper that was handed to us, that it might be possible to arrive at some formula which would remove from the Secretary of State the invidious task of certifying by name a number of individuals. The India Office thought that some formula might be found which would cover the cases of the officers whom the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, desires to protect. I would 1167 like to know whether the noble Earl is prepared to make any suggestion, or whether he intends to oppose the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, altogether.
I would also like, if I may, to ask a question which I hope the noble Earl will not find impertinent. He took up the position he has indicated in support of the Government of India and the India Office. I presume he means that he does it with the concurrence of his Council—the Secretary of State for India in Council. I do not know if that is a question that I ought to ask the noble Earl.
§ THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD
If it was my statutory obligation to reach this conclusion after consulting my Council did so. My recollection is that I did, and I think it is a statutory obligation. Undoubtedly, they had the whole of all these reforms before them. As to the other matter, I believe that at one stage the suggestion which the noble Lord has referred to was proposed, but it was not found acceptable to those who took the non-official view. The observations that I have made will show that, upon more mature reflection, and apart from the utterly indefensible course, as I think it, of placing the matter upon the shoulders of the Secretary of State, with no clearly defined course of guidance for him—and on plain broad merits the proposal ought not to be accepted. There is no stage for which my Office can accept this responsibility.
§ LORD MESTON
As chairman of the Standing Joint Committee perhaps I may ask your Lordships' indulgence while I explain the reasons which induced the Committee to insert these Amendments in the Bill. The details are complex and obscure, but the main issue is simple. By the Act of 1919 certain classes of public officials in India had their salaries removed from the Vote of the Legislatures having jurisdiction over them. As a result of the Inquiry conducted by the Committee over which Lord Lee presided, and also partly, it is not unfair to say, as a result of the attitude which has been taken during the last few years by certain sections in the Legislature to deserving public servants, it became necessary to extend the list of officials whose salaries should be protected in the way that I 1168 have mentioned. That is what this Bill purports to do. It is what His Majesty's Government has regarded as essential, and it is cordially endorsed by the Standing Joint Committee.
The Standing Joint Committee, however, after they had studied the facts that were laid before them, came to the conclusion that it was necessary to make the protection more definite. The last thing they intended was to go outside the scope of the Bill. What they attempted was to make the Bill effective in carrying out the purposes for which presumably it was brought into existence. They wished to make it a Bill sufficiently wide to cover all those public servants in India whom recent experience has shown required and deserved the protection which the Bill intends for them. The Government of India were nervous about the departure which this Bill marked from the spirit of the legislation of 1919. The legislation of 1919 certainly meant to leave the handling of public officials, more especially in the Transferred Departments, very largely to the Indian Legislature. It is certainly not our fault that a departure has been made; this is not the time to allocate the fault; but that a departure had to be made is a fact accepted by His Majesty's Government, and all the Standing Joint Committee asked was that this departure should be made effective and made once for all.
We were convinced that the Bill as it was originally framed was in a form which left certain officials in a state in which the Secretary of State will find himself unable to protect them when the time Comes, as it will come, when he desires that they should be protected. Why did we fear this? We feared it because the Bill, as it was originally drafted, proposed to exempt from presentation to the Legislature the salaries of certain persons at a certain date in certain posts which are to be classified as "superior." We have no quarrel with the proposed classification of posts or even of services into superior and, I suppose, inferior. There are many purposes which such a classification would serve, hut our point was this, that when you have finished this classification, and have labelled all the services in India as superior or inferior, you will still find certain individual officers filling posts 1169 that it may not be possible or even proper to classify as superior, who yet, at the time of their appointment, had reason to expect the protection, and under the conditions of their appointment have a right to the protection which this Bill is intended to give to the holders of superior posts. The noble Earl tells us that some criterion of superior posts was necessary. We cordially agree with that; but is the criterion as to whether a particular post is superior or inferior to be the personal qualifications of the man who happened to hold it in March, 1924? To protect any individual by giving an artificial label to the appointment de happened to hold at a particular time seemed to us a tortuous and ineffectual way of carrying out the protection we desire to see extended. We may not have achieved perfection in regard to it. That is a question that must he left to the Government draftsmen, but we have heard no alternative suggestion. We never intended that the scheme should have any racial intention. The proposal is simply—
§ THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD
The racial question is of some importance. Does the noble Lord contemplate that the benefit of this Amendment will in fact enure equally to the benefit of Indians or not?
§ LORD MESTON
We have cases in which this benefit, if it is extended, will enure to certain Indians.
§ THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD
Why should it apply in the greater number of cases to Europeans? Why should not an Indian who is in a post seek to have the same benefit?
§ LORD MESTON
It is impossible to say what will happen when the time comes. The question of discriminating between claims which are just and unjust which are reasonable and unreasonable, is one for the Secretary of State, and we hope that the Secretary of State will be good enough to exercise that discretion.
§ LORD AMPTHILL
Your Lordships will recognise that the course adopted by the Secretary of State is a very strong measure, that is to say, to reject absolutely the recommendations which have been proposed by the Standing 1170 Joint Committee on Indian Affairs, a Committee composed of twenty-four members, twelve from each House of Parliament, of men selected for their presumed knowledge of India, whose recommendations have received unusually prolonged and careful consideration.
§ THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD
Was there not a great difference of opinion on the Committee as to the merits of the proposal as to whether it should be adopted or not?
§ LORD AMPTHILL
I am coming to that point. The Secretary of State says he has heard that there was considerable difference of opinion. The fact is that no member of the Committee—if my recollection is wrong I hope any noble Lord present will correct me—voted against these recommendations. The late Secretary of State, Lord Olivier, had a little doubt as to the phrasing, but nobody voted against the recommendations. The Secretary of State has used all his unequalled forensic talents in order to make the speech of a prosecuting advocate, and that is, I submit, hardly appropriate to a case of this kind.
I am obliged to follow the various points he has made. He told us that these Amendments are outside the scope of the Bill. I ask your Lordships to consider what an opening that gives to a Government for resisting any Amendment in any legislation. It would be possible to say that any mortal Amendment proposed is outside the scope of the Bill on the same grounds which have been adopted by the Secretary of State this afternoon. But in this case I submit that our recommendations are not outside the scope but very relevant to the Bill. What are they in effect? The Bill deals with the recommendations of the Lee Commission, which recommended that certain officers should be classified as superior and get the protection of the Secretary of State. But the Lee Commission, owing to pressure of time and other circumstances, omitted to make recommendations on behalf of a certain number of officers of exactly the same class, exactly the same type, and with exactly the same claims as those who have now been classed as superior.
The object of the Standing Joint Committee was to remedy that omission, and 1171 include them in the Bill. In making that recommendation we have based ourselves on a very definite recommendation made in the Report of the Lee Commission, that officers of this class should be treated in the same way. The Secretary of State says that there is a moral case, by which he means that there are many others who should also have the benefit of the protection of the Secretary of State. We quite agree, but we felt that it was outside the scope of the Bill to deal with cases of that kind. We confined our attention to the officers of non-Asiatic domicile who were appointed before the. Reforms, who, in 1921, by the action of the Secretary of State, were separated into different categories generally for the convenience of administration. Some were posted to the All-India Services, some to the Central Services and some, without their consent and against their consent, to the Provincial Services. All those officers formed part of the minimum indispensable for efficient administration, and, therefore, they are entitled to be treated in the same way and receive the same measure of justice.
The Secretary of State tells us that these proposals are unworkable, objectionable, invidious, utterly indefensible and disingenuous, and he holds out a threat of postponing this necessary legislation. Let us consider this argument. The Secretary of State says they are objectionable, with all the emphasis he is able to put on a term of that kind, because he has to certify by name. The phrase "named persons" already exists in the Government of India Act, and we adopted it on that ground. But does anybody suppose that the Secretary of State would act without the advice of the Local Governments in India, the Government of India, and his Council. Our Amendment provides that it shall not be the Secretary of State individually, but the Secretary of State in Council. Then again, there is the limitation of the paragraph itself. The Secretary of State suggested that, armed with this power, he might give anybody exemption according to his own free will. That is not so; he is limited to the persons who were appointed in a certain way before a certain date, as your Lordships will see if you look at the Amendment.
I now come to the point as to whether these recommendations involve racial discrimination or not. That was our 1172 great difficulty. We were fold when this question was raised in this House earlier in the year that the one thing which neither the Imperial Government nor the Government of India could possibly admit was a racial discrimination. We accepted that view. The difficulty of finding a formula which does not suggest racial administration, when your object is to protect your own fellow-countrymen, is enormous, but in seeking for a formula and finally arriving at that which we submit to your Lordships in this amended Bill we found to our satisfaction that it would make it possible for a certain number of Indian officials to enjoy the same benefits as those provincial officials for whom we endeavoured to make provision. The Secretary of State asked me if we had in mind a single specific Indian case. I answer frankly "No," but we were advised that such officers existed, and would be included in the benefits.
It would be unreasonable to expect your Lordships to remember my explanation of this matter which was made in April. Your Lordships will no doubt recollect that the Secretary of State, in replying to me, retained an open mind, and promised consideration of this plea on behalf of the provincial officers. In the speech which he has just made there is no suggestion that anything will be done to accord them the protection to which they are not only entitled, but without which it is impossible for them to render us efficient service. I hope that I have said enough to make it clear that we are only trying to repair the omission of the Lee Commission and give the Secretary of State the power to accord his protection to officers of precisely the same class and with precisely the same claims as those to whom he is giving it already.
It only remains for me to ask your Lordships to consider very carefully what the consequences will be if you reject these recommendations. It will, of course, be a very serious blow to the handful of provincial officers who are concerned, officers who have been playing the game, who have been doing their best to make the Reforms scheme workable, and who have been particularly concerned in that desirable object, as they have been training the Indians who are to take their places. It 1173 will not end there. Their disappointment will be felt by the whole of the Services in India. I cannot emphasise too strongly that our fellow-countrymen who are doing the work of Empire there look to the Imperial Parliament for protection, and we have had it from a former Prime Minister and a former Secretary of State, Lord Peel, that their present difficulties are owing to the action of the, Imperial Parliament, and that the Imperial Parliament is responsible. If the Services in India feel now that there is no hope of their being supported by the imperial Parliament their present state of anxiety—and very grave it is—and despondency will be very much increased.
It will go further than that. Rightly or wrongly, there is an impression throughout India at the present time that England is more ready to conciliate her enemies than to preserve her friends, and the inevitable result is that our friends are rapidly diminishing in number. Loyal Indians, no less than officials in India, are looking to see if Parliament is going to stand up for our fellow-countrymen and friends in India. If they see we are not going to, they will know to which side to go. If there is one thing that an Indian understands more than anything else it is the principle of standing up for your own friends.
I cannot tell you how deeply I deplore the course adopted by the Secretary of State, or how very real is the anxiety that I feel about the possible consequences if your Lordships should accept his advice. The Secretary of State had the opportunity of doing something to improve conditions in India in that direction, which he himself said was more vital and important than any other—namely, to restore confidence in such a way that we should be able to recruit the right kind of Englishman to man the services in future. If he had done that, all through India they would have recognised that we are now going to stand up for our friends. He has chosen to reject that course. I say, and I say deliberately, that if the Secretary of State had accepted our recommendations he would have clone more good than he would have done by ten such speeches its he made on Tuesday last. It is for your Lordships to decide what to do, but I am quite certain that, if you had attended the prolonged meetings of the Standing Joint Committee 1174 and heard the whole case argued, you would have supported these recommendations. Unfortunately, it is impossible in the circumstances in which we meet for our business here for the whole case to be argued again. Therefore it rests with your Lordships either to act as you are advised by the Secretary of State or to support the recommendations made in the most conscientious and careful manner by those who were selected for their supposed knowledge of Indian affairs.
§ LORD SYDENHAM
I can add nothing to what has been said so clearly and emphatically by my noble friend. I can only say this, that the men for whom he has pleaded so eloquently are a very small body, part of the great machine of government in India. Upon their work depends in a great measure the prosperity and happiness of the people of India. It is a very small number.
§ THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD
It is not a small number. That statement has been made repeatedly in the course of these debates. I hoped that I had made it clear that it is a very considerable number.
§ LORD SYDENHAM
The fact is that there is throughout the Services in India a feeling of want of support. That support, I know, the noble Earl wants to give. When I heard his speech in April last I gathered that he promised to look into this question, and give it his sympathetic consideration. I do not know what induced him to change his mind, but it is a very strong measure to throw over the practically unanimous opinion of a strong Committee of twenty-four members, and the effect will be to decrease the confidence which our fellow-citizens in India feel at the present time. The only thing I think I can add is this. This case is not altogether dissimilar—if one may compare small things with great—with the abandonment of the loyalists in Ireland, which we discussed on Tuesday. I think our honour is as much bound up in supporting these men and 1175 giving them protection as it is with the defence of the loyalists who suffered so terribly in Ireland in late years.
§ THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL)
I am sure that none of your Lordships will accuse me either of being wanting in respect to the very important Committee of both Houses which considered this matter or of being lacking in sympathy for those officers in India about whom both the noble Lords have been speaking. I know very well the extent of the close investigation and sympathy which my noble friend has applied to the consideration of this question, but, though I listened very carefully to the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and of the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, it did not seem to me that they addressed themselves very closely to the arguments that had been used by my noble friend behind me. Those arguments were dismissed, I think rather summarily, by Lord Ampthill as being those of an advocate, which is not always a sufficient reply to arguments brought forward in this House. Nor have they, I think, addressed themselves to the very great practical difficulties which are imminent in this question.
It is perfectly true, as I said on a previous occasion, that Parliament, having passed the Act of 1919, has a great responsibility for the position in which these different sections of the Indian Civil Services are placed it is equally true that, since they are in such a position, it becomes necessary for us very carefully to consider whether a particular course of action will improve, or will not improve, their situation. So far as the discussion has gone at present, I do not think that either of the noble Lords who have spoken has shown full appreciation of the fact that the proposals of my noble friend really go a good deal further than the proposals of the Lee Commission. I should like to remind your Lordships what those proposals were. The Lee Commission reported, in Paragraph (57):—We consider that in principle the concessions proposed for members of the All-India Services should mutatis mutandis be granted to all European officers in the Central Services appointed by the Secretary of State.This proposal goes beyond that, because these proposals apply not only to officers 1176 in the Central Services but also to those in the Provincial Services as well who discharge services in the Provinces analogous to the services performed by the holders of posts in the All-India Services. Consequently these proposals go a great deal beyond the proposals of the Lee Commission. It is perfectly true that, so far as they apply to officials working in the Provinces in the Transferred Services, they do to some extent derogate from the powers which, under the Act of 1919, have been given to Ministers in the Provinces.
I do not think that either of the noble Lords who spoke has dealt with the very necessary and difficult dilemma which was put before them by my noble friend the Secretary of State. After all, in considering the position of these men, you have to consider what will be most to their benefit, and whether any action that may be taken will not really do them more harm than good. You have, on the one side, the difficulty of describing them by name or limiting them in a way which involves a danger of that racial discrimination and racial difficulty of which we have heard so much during the last few years and which we hoped was to some extent dying out. It is a very difficult and dangerous thing for the Secretary of State himself, in an Act of Parliament, to reintroduce a racial distinction which may again give rise to much of that racial ill-feeling which it has been the object of our administrators in India to soothe and pacify as far as they could. On the other side, if, as has been pointed out, those privileges are to be extended to a class of Indians as well as of Englishmen, you may go so far, in extending these rights and privileges, as to derogate very severely and very largely from the rights which were granted under the Act of 1919 to those Provinces.
We have further to consider that we have relied very largely on those Provincial Councils in the carrying out of some of the effects of the recommendations of the Lee Commission. The noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, talked about sympathising with our enemies—I do not know who are our enemies—and deserting our friends. I think that is a very serious statement to make—to suggest that those who may differ from our particular political view in India are our enemies—and I should like to give it here the most emphatic 1177 denial for my part and to assert, since the noble Lord seems to suggest that our only friends in India are particular officials of British blood, that this is really so great a travesty of our position in India, of the strength of our position in India and of the forces on which our rule in India rests, that I think it very unfortunate that a member of this Joint Committee should have permitted himself any observation of that kind.
§ LORD AMPTHILL
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount, but what is he denying? He is giving that as my opinion. I said that there was a very widespread impression in India that the accusation was that England was more ready to conciliate her enemies than to preserve her friends. Does the noble Viscount deny that that impression exists? If so, I can give him abundant documentary proof of it in the shape of hundreds of letters and articles.
§ VISCOUNT PEEL
I gathered from the way in which the noble Lord made that statement that he endorsed it himself. If he disagrees with it entirely, I do not quite know why he founded an argument upon it. I am very glad indeed to note from the noble Lord's silence that he disagrees entirely with the statement.
§ VISCOUNT PEEL
If the noble Lord does not disagree with it, I do not quite see why he interrupted me just now.
§ VISCOUNT PEEL
Apart from that, I do urge that it is of the utmost importance, in a very difficult matter of this kind, when we are met with this difficult alternative of either stirring up, through racial discrimination, some additional racial feeling or of so enlarging the area of our proposals that we derogate from the powers and duties that have bean conferred upon these Councils by the Act of 1919, that we should be very careful and pause long before we indulge in such action. After all, it is no good conferring benefits on some persons and setting up a grievance amongst others, and, in considering what you can do for these 1178 officials in India, you have to consider nowadays what may be the effect on the public opinion of those upon whose good will you rely, and whether you are going to take a course which may do more harm than good to these officials. I think that they would not thank my noble friend Lord Ampthill for his advocacy if, as the result of that advocacy, they were to find themselves in a more difficult position than they are in at present.
§ LORD OLIVIER
I was obliged to the Secretary of State for the reply that he gave to my inquiry. I should like to say a few more words on this question. The noble Lord, Lord Ampthill—I really must say this on my own behalf, and on behalf of some of those with whom I was associated—was mistaken in saying that there was no difference of opinion in the Committee. I have verified that point by a reference to the Chairman. It is true that, when the Report was brought in, it was accepted without a Division. But differences of opinion had occurred before then, and, as regards myself, I must say that as the Bill stands at present, and as the Amendments stand at present, I could not personally vote for any one of them; but I was a little disappointed that the Secretary of State has not been able to find some intermediate formula that would cover certain hard cases which we were all convinced might exist. I do very much deprecate the club held over our heads by Lord Ampthill, telling us that now the whole of the Indian Civil Services will see that they have no hope of being supported in the Imperial Parliament. I think that is making a great deal too much of the matter.
There are, I believe, a certain number of hard cases, just as there are, and have been repeatedly, a certain number of hard cases in the Imperial Civil Service, when offices are retrenched and the legitimate chances of promotion, upon the strength of which officers were induced to enter the service, are taken away. But what is done in that case in England? It is regarded as the honourable duty of the Government, of the Minister, of the Treasury, to find some alternative scope of promotion for any particular officer who may have had that misfortune, and to see that really in the long run he does not suffer. All of us who go into the 1179 public service go in with less risk than is run by any individual who enters any other profession, but we go in, nevertheless, with that risk. We have to take it, and to rely upon our superiors to see that the risk is mitigated and moderated as far as possible. I am sure the Secretary of State and his Council, and the India Office, and the Government, have fully considered the question of hardships which may arise, and if they have done so, and the Secretary of State says that nevertheless they propose to rule out these Amendments, I see not the slightest necessity for us to make ourselves more royalist than the Government.
It is often charged against the India Office and the Secretary of State that they are unduly favourable to the claims of European officers. While not supporting that charge, I am bound to say for the India Office, and the Council of the Secretary of State, which examines these cases, that they are very careful to leave no possible loophole for injustice, and consequently, if these cases have been fully considered by the Secretary of State, as they have been, I think we may take it that we are safe in supporting his judgment, believing that the Government will see that no remediable hardship shall occur in those few cases for which exemption is legitimately claimed. In my view it is impossible to charge the Secretary of State with the duty of making a long nominal schedule. I have looked with some entertainment at the fact that almost daily the Secretary of State is made the beneficiary of long homilies and objurgations in the traditional journal of his own Party, and I expect that to-morrow morning he will be told that he has aimed a violent blow against the heart of the Empire. Such charges were continually brought against me, and I think that the Secretary of State, supported as he has been by Viscount Peel, may be sure that this matter has been dealt with with full regard to the equities of the situation. As the Secretary of State has not seen his way to find a formula which will meet those cases I think we may rely upon him to see that those eases will be given every possible consideration.
My Lords, I only wish to intervene for one moment. As the Secretary of State and two ex-Secretaries of State have spoken so strongly 1180 against the proposal of the Standing Committee, your Lordships would naturally be disposed to infer that the Committee had little justification for the proposals which it made. I should only like to read you a few lines from a Memorandum which was drafted for the purposes of the Committee, and which considerably influenced its opinion, just to show that there are two sides to this case. It is as follows:—There are appointments, here and there, which it would be difficult, or even improper, to classify as superior, but which are yet held at present by persons who were originally appointed in circumstances which gave them the right to expect, and which in fact entitle them to, the same measure of protection as will extend to members of the new superior services. Such cases, it is anticipated, will be extremely rare.That is where the Committee is virtually contradicted by the Secretary of State, and I cannot imagine that his information is not superior to that of the Joint Committee. In the Joint Committee we were never definitely advised as to how many oases would be covered by these Amendments. At first the number was about 100, and finally I heard rumours of 200, but it may be that the Secretary of State, with his superior information, is aware of a good many more than that. The Memorandum proceeds:—They raise no racial question, as the proposed privilege will be open to all public servants alike,…I think that is a rather strong point.
I do not know who drafted it. There is no necessity for me to commit myself as to the author, but it was accepted by the Committee. The Secretary of State must realise this, that it is a very severe rebuff to a Joint Committee solemnly appointed by Parliament for the consideration of questions of very great moment, upon that most difficult 1181 question of the government of India, and it is a very severe rebuff to a body appointed for the purpose of advising the Secretary of State, when asked to do so, upon matters referred to it. The Memorandum proceeds:—and the Secretary of State will not exercise his power of individual exemption without investigating the particular conditions under whch each claimant was appointed. The number of officers thus privileged will steadily diminish, and the Committee do not regard the concession as constituting any appreciable derogation from the powers of the Legislatures, while it will remove any sense of grievance from a few meritorious officials.I only read that to show your Lordships that there are two sides to the question, and whilst I recognise that, with the opposition presented by a Secretary of State and two ex-Secretaries of State, it is hardly possible to expect your Lordships to agree with the Committee, I think it is well to point out that there are two sides to the question.
§ Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.1182
§ LORD AMPTHILL
I am sure my noble friend, Lord Olivier, would not like anything inaccurate left on the records, but I think his memory is at fault. There were no Divisions on the two first Amendments before the Committee, and, whatever the rights of the proposal, the noble Lord agreed to them.
§ LORD OLIVIER
I did not say that there was a Division, but the Chairman of the Committee will confirm me when I say that the draft Report of the Committee stated that the third Amendment was carried by a majority, and that, he cut that phrase out because he did not think it necessary to come down to this House and say that the action of the Committee had been taken by a majority.
§ On Question, Whether the Amendment proposed by the Joint Committee shall be disagreed to?—
§ Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 55; Not-Contents, 29.1181
|Cave, V. (L. Chancellor.)||Mayo, E.||Biddulph, L.|
|Morton, E.||Bledisloe, L.|
|Sutherland, D.||Plymouth, E. [Teller.]||Cable, L.|
|Yarborough, E.||Danesfort, L.|
|Exeter, M.||Desborough, L.|
|Zetland, M.||Bertie of Thame, V.||Ernle, L.|
|Cecil of Chelwood, V.||Erskine, L.|
|Shaftesbury, E. (L. Steward.)||Chaplin, V.||Gage, L. (V. Gage.)|
|Churchill, V.||Jessel, L.|
|Cromer, E. (L. Chamberlain.)||FitzAlan of Derwent, V.||Merrivale, L.|
|Haldane, V.||O'Hagan, L.|
|Birkenhead, E.||Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore)||Olivier, L.|
|Bradford, E.||Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)|
|Clarendon, E.||Peel, V.||Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)|
|De La Warr, E.||Plunket, L.|
|Eldon, E.||Southwark, L. Bp.||Ritchie of Dundee, L.|
|Harewood, E.||St. Levan, L.|
|Leicester, E.||Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)||Sinclair, L.|
|Lucun, E. [Teller.]||Askwith, L.||Somers, L.|
|Malmesbury, E.||Atkinson, L.||Stuart of Wortley, L.|
|Manvers, E.||Balfour of Burleigh, L.||Thomson, L.|
|Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)||Ullswater, V.||Meston, L. [Teller.]|
|Monk Bretton, L.|
|Ampthill, L. [Teller.]||Raglan, L.|
|Bathurst, E.||Channing of Wellingborough, L.||Redesdale, L.|
|Beauchamp, E.||Ruthven of Gowrie, L.|
|Chesterfield, E.||Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)||Sandys, L.|
|Denbigh, E.||Shandon, L.|
|Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)||Emmott, L.||Southwark, L.|
|Harris, L.||Stanmore, L.|
|Strafford, E.||Hatherton, L.||Strachie, L.|
|Lamington, L.||Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)|
|Allendale, V.||Lawrence of Kingsgate, L.||Sydenham, L.|