Lords Sitting of 11 May 1886

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Crofters (Scotland) (No. 2)* (95).
Second Reading—Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Durham) (59).
Committee—Report—Metropolitan Police Stations* (87).
Withdrawn — Salmon Fisheries Amendment (Scotland) (30).
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS — First Reading — Elementary Education Confirmation (Birmingham)* (96); Elementary Education Confirmation (London)* (97).
Committee — Report — Metropolitan Commons* (71).

SALMON FISHERIES AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 30.)
(The Marquess of Huntly.)
SALMON FISHERIES AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 30.)

  (NO. 30.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that when he presented it to their Lordships' House prior to the Easter Recess he stated that if it were their Lordships' pleasure to give it a second reading he should then ask them to refer it to a Select Committee. He felt the great responsibility devolving upon a private Member in bringing forward any measure connected with this very large and intricate subject—a subject involving a great amount of public interest, and upon which he regretted to say there was a needless difference of opinion. The great interest

  693
  that was felt in the matter was testified to by the fact that he had that day had the honour of presenting to their Lordships Petitions from the representatives of 11 of the largest salmon river districts having Fishery Boards in Scotland, all praying that their Lordships would take the course he proposed; and he had also presented a Petition from the two Associations in Scotland, formed for the purpose of improving the fisheries, praying that the Bill might be allowed to be sent to a Select Committee, and they agreed with the general lines of the legislation proposed by him. He had not sent to the public prints any of the Petitions in favour of his Bill; but he had noticed that the Memorials presented against it were always printed in the local papers, so that he had the advantage of seeing what those opposed to him said. He saw that the principal charge brought against him was that his Bill was conceived entirely in the interests of sport, and in the interest of the fishing rod. He was not altogether insensible to the interests of sport, and was, indeed, a student of the gentle art; but his Bill was not framed with the selfish object attributed to it. He disclaimed the impeachment, and assured their Lordships that his desire, and the desire of all those who acted with him in this matter, was entirely in the public interest. He would explain, as briefly as possible, his case, and he hoped to show to their Lordships that he rested his case entirely on public grounds, and he should avoid any allusion to those rather regrettable contests which had raged between the different proprietors—those situated on the coast along the mouth of a river, in the tidal waters of a river, in the middle parts, and in the upper waters. He held that all these interests were really identical, but with this qualification—that they were subservient to the great public interest of securing the largest and best supply of salmon. He would point out that that was a matter of which there was plenty of data upon which their Lordships could form an opinion. After inquiries by a special Committee of their Lordships' House in 1860, and by a Committee of the other House in 1861, an Act was passed in 1862, which was extended by an Act in 1868. These two Acts regulated the salmon fisheries in Scotland, except those of the Tweed and the rivers
  694
  flowing into the Solway, for which there were special Acts. After some agitation in 1870, special Commissioners were appointed to inquire into the working of these Acts, and the late Mr. Buckland and Mr. Archibald Young were appointed as such. They reported to Parliament on 23 points in which these Acts should, in their opinion, be amended — one being with respect to close time, both yearly and weekly; another with respect to restrictions as to stake-nets and fixed engines in the sea and at the mouths of rivers; and a third as to the removal of natural and artificial obstructions in rivers. Those recommendations were made in 1871, and people who were interested in salmon fishing hoped every day that something would be done to carry them out. It had, he believed, been promised and shadowed forth on several occasions that there should be legislation on the subject; but nothing, however, had been done, and it was not until 1882 that a step was taken in a certain direction. At the end of the Session of that year his noble Friend the present Foreign Secretary (the Earl of Rosebery) brought forward a measure to create the present Fishery Board for Scotland, and to place the salmon fisheries of Scotland under the superintendence of that Board. He (the Marquess of Huntly) cheerfully bore testimony to the very excellent work connected with the fisheries in Scotland which the Fishery Board had performed. Under the provisions of the Fishery Board Act, the Board appointed Mr. Young as Inspector of Salmon Fisheries, and instructed him to go round every salmon river in Scotland and to make a special Report upon it; and he thought every Scotsman would agree with him that the excellence of these Reports, and the care, the assiduity, and the attention which Mr. Young had paid to the matter, were deserving of the greatest credit. Further, the map that was presented with the Report, showing the extent of the fisheries in Scotland, was one of the most valuable ever presented to Parliament. Mr. Young, in his Reports, took up the thread of the Report of the Commissioners of 1871. He had gone round each river in Scotland, and he confirmed almost exactly, in all particulars, the representations of the Commission of 1871. Strictly upon these Reports the Bill he now brought forward was framed.

  695
  He (the Marquess of Huntly) had been told that he ought to have brought in a Bill of his own; but he preferred to cover, as far as he could, all the important recommendations of the Commissioners of 1871, as confirmed by Mr. Young's Reports. In the first place, the Bill rested upon an enlarged constitution and extended powers of the District Boards, and this was provided for in Clauses 8 to 16. The object was to make these Boards fairly representative of all the interests within their respective districts. The Bill proceeded on the same lines as the English and Irish Salmon Acts. Having enlarged the constitution and representation of these Boards, he proposed to give them larger powers, which included powers to rent, lease, or purchase cruives and nets; to establish and maintain hatcheries; to rent, lease, or purchase lands; to make regulations as to the use of gaffs; to issue annual licences for the use of cruives, nets, and rods on payment of duties, &c., as fixed by the Secretary for Scotland; and to levy assessments for debts contracted by the District Boards. He had seen the provision as to the issue of licences criticized; but in England that was a source of great profit and emolument to the Fishery Boards, and he could not see any objection to the proposal. He then proposed to give the District Boards the same powers to deal with the abatement of pollution as riparian owners had, and also a right to sue for the removal of obstructions to the passage of salmon in rivers and estuaries. That the right ought to be possessed by District Boards was evident to anyone who had studied the Report of Mr. Young, who computed the extent of water at present barred to the ascent of salmon at between 500 and 600 miles. For the purpose of enabling the District Boards to defray the expenses which they would incur in carrying into execution the provisions of the Bill, power was given them to levy assessments. He now came to a point of the Bill as to which he believed there was strong objection. Section 6 proposed to alter the weekly close time from 36 hours to 48, and also gave power to the Secretary for Scotland to vary the commencement of the close time in any district after inquiry. He had been told such an alteration would be the ruin of the coast proprietors; but he would remind
  696
  their Lordships that England and Ireland had pretty much the same arrangement as he proposed. In England the weekly close time was 42 hours, extendable to 48, and in Ireland it was fixed at 48. It would be absurd were he to propose legislation contrary to the Commissioners' Reports, in which it would be found that the unanimous recommendation was 48 hours. Some people, however, thought that time too long; and in the Select Committee, to which he trusted the House would consent to refer the Bill, their objections might be considered with a view to a definitive settlement of the question. There was also a proposal to provide an annual close time for trout and char. Another proposal which had excited opposition was that contained in Clause 19, which abolished the stake or bag-nets near the river mouth; and by Clause 20 it was proposed to give the Secretary for Scotland power to issue regulations for the purpose of limiting the number of nets which might be placed at the mouths of rivers. The latter provision was rendered necessary by the enormous increase in recent years in the number of nets set up in the sea; it was a question which had hitherto been really slurred over, and he thought it should be faced and finally settled. It was not his desire in any way to injure the property or rights of anyone; but, looking at the questions involved as affecting the general body of the community, he thought Parliament should step in to prevent any injurious action being taken by one proprietor against another. He would be told, no doubt, that the present law was sufficient to deal with all the cases that might arise; but he thought it would be easy of conclusive proof that it was not sufficient. He had read several characteristic letters from upper and other proprietors on the subject; and, having regard to all the circumstances, it was clear that some further legislation was necessary. He would repeat his regret that the matter had not been taken up by the Government; but he believed the Secretary for Scotland would be sufficiently impressed with the necessity for further action, and that he would be disposed to agree to the Bill being referred to a Select Committee, where he hoped they would be able satisfactorily to arrange the matter. The Bill aimed at securing the public

  697
  interest, and though, he had heard that a Party Whip had been issued he could not see how it could in any sense be regarded as a Party question. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Marquess of Huntly.)
  LORD BALFOUR, in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, he would ask their Lordships not to give the Bill a second reading, in spite of the suggestion of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Huntly) that the Bill should afterwards be referred to a Select Committee. In saying that he (Lord Balfour) did not say that he was against all amendment of the present law; but he believed he should be able to show that there were in the Bill provisions that it would be most unwise for the House to appear to sanction, as they would do by reading it a second time. The noble Marquess disclaimed any idea or supposition that he was desirous to legislate in favour of one class of proprietors more than another. He (Lord Balfour) could not but think that the noble Marquess, in making that disclaimer, admitted that there was some ground for suspicion. All he could say was, he thought it would puzzle the noble Marquess to point to one provision in the Bill which was not in the interests of the upper proprietors, and to some extent hostile to the proprietors in other parts of the rivers. All previous legislation in regard to the taking and catching of salmon had been framed with the view of reconciling the conflict of interests between different classes. On all rivers there was a conflict of interests between upper and lower proprietors; and in the case of the Tay and Tweed this was complicated by a conflict of interests with what were called the middle proprietors, whose interests were different from, and to some extent hostile to, those of other proprietors. The ruling Acts in Scotland in regard to salmon fisheries were the Acts of 1862 and 1868; and his position was this—he maintained that if any alteration was to be made in the provisions of these Acts it should only be done on the initiative of the Government, and after a careful and exhaustive inquiry conducted by an impartial tribunal, and
  698
  having regard to the different interests concerned. There was considerable agitation and conflict between the different classes of proprietors and various interests before the Act of 1862 was passed. An exhaustive inquiry was undertaken, and, after all, the settlement then arrived at was in the nature of a compromise. Like many other compromises, he did not suppose it altogether satisfied all parties; but they had been living under it for nearly 25 years, and a settlement like that should not be lightly disturbed, or, at all events, ought not to be disturbed in the interests of one class of proprietors more than another. He was not prepared to say that, after this lapse of time, there were not points in which that settlement might not with advantage be re-opened; but his position was that that should not be done at the instance of a private Member of either House of Parliament, and that it was not sufficient to introduce such a Bill, and ask for a second reading on a promise to move that it be referred to a Select Committee. A matter of that importance could only be dealt with adequately by the Government of the day, on the recommendation of the Fishery Board of Scotland, which was brought into existence a few years ago. He considered the Bill an entirely one-sided one in its character, and that its provisions were in flagrant disregard of the interests of all, except those who were purely upper proprietors, and, if he might so call it, the rod-fishing interest. He was not prepared to say there were not clauses in the Bill which might be useful and might be accepted; but he would like to show their Lordships how some interests were proposed to be dealt with. The interests of riparian proprietors and the public were altogether neglected, as were also those of the lessees of the lower river and sea fisheries. The Bill handed over natural obstructions in a river to the mercies of the District Board, while the proprietor was to have no right at all in the matter. These natural obstructions, which, in most cases, were natural beauties of the scenery, were to be dealt with for the construction of salmon ladders. There were some cases in which it was impossible to make salmon ladders without wholly destroying the natural beauty of the place. He would cite one instance in which a District

  699
  Board proposed to deal with a well-known bit of scenery. The Tay District Board, in whose jurisdiction the Falls of Tummel lay, had told them exactly what they wished to do with regard to these Falls. In a Report of two years ago they had suggested the building of a rough wall rising above the line of high water. That meant the line of winter flood, whereas most people went to see the Falls in the summer, when the water was at its lowest level. Not content with this the District Board still further piled up their horrors, because they promised to make the wall an imitation of the natural rock. He presumed that that meant an erection of cement and stucco, with, perhaps, imitation ferns stuck on it. He did not know whether any of their Lordships had seen the Falls of Tummel; but if they had, he did not think they would readily hand over the Falls of Tummel to a District Board, to be destroyed for the mere purpose of making a salmon ladder. He ventured to say that a Bill which handed over the natural beauties of the country to the tender mercies of District Boards would require a good deal more argument than had been devoted to it by the noble Marquess before their Lordships could be induced to assent to the second reading. He did not say that no amendment of the existing law was required; but they had a Fishery Board in Scotland, and he was credibly informed that at the present time the Fishery Board was engaged upon an inquiry with the object of producing a Bill for the amendment of the present law. He, therefore, hoped their Lordships would agree with him in thinking that a matter of this importance was better left to be dealt with, in the first instance, on the authority of a responsible Government, guided by the Fishery Board; and he should be prepared to give a careful and impartial consideration to any proposal which might be made by the Government. In the meantime, he begged to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months.")—(The Lord Balfour.)
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Earl of DALHOUSIE)said, the Government were greatly indebted to the noble Marquess for the great pains he
  700
  had taken with reference to this question, and for the trouble he had taken in drawing up and introducing into their Lordships' House a Bill dealing with this difficult subject. He was only sorry that the Government had no better way of showing their gratitude to the noble Marquess than by asking their Lordships not to read the Bill a second time. It was an extremely difficult and complicated subject; and the noble Marquess, with every good intention, had passed over some of the difficulties in a somewhat light manner. The noble Marquess had said that the interests of the upper and lower proprietors were identical in the matter; but he (the Earl of Dalhousie) doubted whether the Harbour Commissioners or Town Council of Aberdeen would agree to that, considering that the Bill represented to them a loss of some £30,000. It was to be remembered that there were certain statutory as well as other rights that had to be considered. In pursuance of the Act of 1862, the estuaries of rivers had been defined by Commissioners, and large sums had been invested both by private individuals and Public Bodies in the improvement of fisheries; and if the Bill of the noble Marquess were to pass these rights would be swept away without any compensation whatsoever. Another objection he took to the Bill was this—he readily admitted that some legislation dealing with the salmon fisheries of Scotland was desirable; but he did not think it was desirable to deal with the subject in this piecemeal and amending fashion. There were a great many Salmon Acts, and Her Majesty's Government were desirous that any reform should have a general and consolidating character. On these two grounds he hoped their Lordships would not read the Bill a second time. The subject was one which for several weeks past had occupied the attention of the Government. He had been in communication for some time past with the Fishery Board of Scotland, who had been considering the matter; and he could assure the noble Marquess that it was the intention of the Government at the earliest moment to introduce a Bill dealing with the whole subject.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that this was a question in which he was largely interested, and it was on account of that interest that he

  701
  took part in this debate. It was also a subject to which he had devoted a considerable amount of attention; and he thought that he had some practical knowledge of the working of the Acts now in existence. He considered that the Bill of the noble Marquess was one of the most unnecessary and arbitrary interferences with the rights of private property that had ever been proposed in that House. He said that advisedly. In 1862 an Act was passed appointing a Fishery Board, whose special duty it was to look after the salmon fisheries in Scotland. His objection to the measure before the House was very much the same as that of his noble Friend (Lord Balfour). They had a Fishery Board whose duty it was to attend to the salmon fisheries in Scotland; and he submitted that the proposed legislation, if it was necessary, ought to come from the Government of the day, advised by the Fishery Board of Scotland. When they ignored altogether the existence of the Fishery Board, it seemed to him that there was no use for the Act of 1862, and that they had better repeal it at once; but as long as the Act existed they had a responsible Body whose duty it was to deal with these salmon fisheries, and to whom they could apply. He preferred that class of legislation to a measure brought in by one who was so distinctly identified with the upper proprietors, and who was Chairman of the Association of the Upper Proprietors of Scotland. The noble Marquess must feel, to a certain extent at all events, prejudiced in favour of the upper proprietors. In his Bill the noble Marquess took credit for enlarging the powers of the District Boards; but he actually altered the constitution of the District Boards. He proposed to reduce the qualification of the upper proprietors from £20 a-year to £10, and he further proposed to reduce the frontage from half-a-mile to a quarter of a mile. Therefore, they might have persons on the District Board possessing the smallest possible amount of property; and it might happen that a man who had only a quarter of a mile of frontage and was only assessed at £10 a-year might be Chairman of the District Board, and have the casting vote over others who might be interested in the river to the amount of many thousands of pounds. It would be an injustice to
  702
  those who had a large stake in the river. Another objection he had to the Bill was on account of the enormous power it gave to the Secretary for Scotland. By one stroke of the pen from the Secretary for Scotland a person might be deprived of his property, without the power of appeal and without getting any compensation, such property probably having been in the possession of himself and his ancestors for hundreds of years, and granted by Royal Charter. That was a power that no man ought to have. He hoped their Lordships would refuse to read the Bill a second time.
  LORD COLVILLE OF CULROSS, in opposing the Bill, said, he hoped it would be withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRESsuggested that the whole question of the working of the Salmon Acts should be referred to a Select Committee. This would satisfy the promoters, and if it was granted he hoped that the noble Marquess would withdraw the Bill.
  THE EARL OF KINTOREsaid, he agreed with those noble Lords who held the view that the Bill ought not to be read a second time. The Bill would fall by its own weight; and, moreover, if the matter was to be dealt with at all, it ought to be done by a Government Bill. In supplement of what had been said by preceding speakers, he mentioned that he was himself acquainted with many instances in which the existing regulations were constantly violated, to the immense loss of the upper proprietors, who were entitled to protection. On those grounds he was glad to think that the rumour was true that the Secretary for Scotland was about to introduce a Bill; and he was sure all their Lordships desired that it should be fair in the interests of all parties.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, he had insuperable objections to the Bill, although he considered that, in any legislation upon the question, consideration and sympathy should be shown to the upper proprietors, for the reason that the take of fish in the lower waters was entirely dependent upon the spawning grounds in the upper water. He could not, however, support the provisions of the Bill. As in the Bill before the other House, the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill, he objected to putting all such legislation in the hands

  703
  of the President of the Board of Trade, so he opposed the present Bill as vesting too great powers in the Secretary for Scotland, whoever he might be.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE, with reference to the proposal to refer the question to a Select Committee for inquiry, said, he hardly thought, in the circumstances, it was at all necessary. They had a Fishery Board in Scotland which had been considering this matter for some years, and they had on more than one occasion made large and ample proposals for the amendment of the law to Her Majesty's Government. The Government had, upon those proposals, within the past week drafted a Bill which was now under consideration both by the Fishery Board and Her Majesty's Government. He thought, under those circumstances, the idea of appointing a Select Committee was one which his noble Friend (the Earl of Crawford and Balcarres) would hardly adhere to.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsaid, that he had stated that, in his opinion, this was a question for the Government; and, of course, after the statement of the noble Earl, he should withdraw his Bill.
  Amendment, Original Motion, and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (DURHAM) BILL.
(The Lord Bishop of Durham.)
SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (DURHAM) BILL.

  (NO. 59.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE BISHOP OF DURHAM (Dr. LIGHT-FOOT), in moving that the Bill be read a second time, said: My Lords, the Bill that I beg to propose for second reading is one of a very simple character, and it will not require many words from me. Its object is to close the public-houses in the county of Durham all day on Sunday to all, except our very old and very troublesome friend, the bonâ fide traveller. This measure has not been previously before your Lordships' House; but it comes recommended now by a preponderating majority of the other House—a majority of two to one—and I feel confident that it will receive the careful consideration of your Lordships. It involves no new principle, and it involves no new experiment. Sunday
  704
  Closing Acts are familiar to the Legislatures of other countries, as well as of our Colonies; and we have had experience of them far nearer home. Scotland has, for many years, reaped the advantage of such a measure; and, still more recently, Acts have been passed affecting Ireland and Wales. When I said that I asked your Lordships to affirm no new principle, I especially had the last-mentioned locality, Wales, in view; for, whatever may be said of Scotland or Ireland, in all such matters Wales is as much a part of England as the county of Durham. Nor indeed is the number of persons affected by the Bill so very different. The population of Durham at the last Census amounted to two-thirds of the population of the whole Principality of Wales, and probably it is increasing at a greater ratio. Well, my Lords, I do not think there is any risk in asking you to extend this measure to the county of Durham. Wherever it has been tried hitherto the results have been good. I am quite aware that adverse critics have referred to certain statistics with a view of disparaging the measure; but the broad fact remains that no community which has once had the benefit of such a measure has felt disposed to hark back or undo what it has done. In Scotland, where the measure has had the longest and the fairest trial, the results have been most beneficent. If any Member of your Lordships' House has any hesitation on this point, I would venture to recommend the perusal of an account, with statistic tables, given last year by Mr. Linton, for many years head of the police of Edinburgh, and the Public Prosecutor. Again, to those who are sceptical about the effect of legislation in this direction, I would say look at Norway. A generation ago travellers reported of Norway as a people of inebriates; but you may now travel there for weeks together without seeing the slightest sign of intoxication. This result has been effected, I will not say entirely, but very largely, by legislation; and in this legislation is included not only a Sunday Closing measure, but a festival closing measure—a measure which forbids the sale of spirits on Sundays and festivals, and on the eves of those days. The result produced in Norway has been surprising. But your Lordships will require to be assured

  705
  that this particular measure is approved in the localities and by the class whom it will chiefly affect, as it is not wise for the Legislature in such matters to be in advance of public opinion, and I trust I shall be able to give your Lordships the assurance which you will demand. This evening I have presented no fewer than 98 Petitions from divers bodies—some official, others representative of different religious communities, others advocates of the temperance movement in its different branches, others emanating from public meetings in the great towns and in the villages of the county. But these, after all, are only the efflorescence of the movement which was initiated three years ago. At that time the measure was first brought before the House of Commons, and it passed the second reading by an enormous majority; but somehow it got entangled in the quickset of obstruction and never emerged. Public meetings were then held in 133 towns or parishes throughout the county, and those meetings were reported to be practically unanimous on the subject. These towns and parishes comprised nearly the whole of the county which had not been canvassed in some other way. Then, again, a house canvass was undertaken in 25 different centres throughout the diocese, and of the voting papers returned 60,000 were in favour of Sunday closing, only 2,440 against it, and 2,144 neutral. Again, there were Petitions from every Board of Guardians throughout the county, and from every Corporation but one in its favour. There was also another test. When the Motion the other day was before the Commons, it was approved by not less than 15 of the 16 Representatives from the county. The remaining one, the hon. Member for the city of Durham (Mr. Milvain), has since found himself in conflict with some of his strongest and most influential supporters on this very ground. These are very striking facts, and, so far as my own observation goes, no one measure since I have been connected with the county of Durham has drawn to itself in the same degree persons of all opinions. It unites all religious Churches and sects—Churchmen, Roman Catholics, Nonconformists, Sabbatarians and non-Sabbatarians. It enlist both political Parties—Liberal and Conservative; it combines all
  706
  promoters of the temperance movement, the advocates and opponents of Local Option alike, abstainers and non - abstainers equally. But there is one remarkable fact; it is essentially a working man's measure. The tide of opinion is strongest in its favour just in those neighbourhoods which are inhabited chiefly by the working and poorer classes. In the city of Durham, for instance, in the household canvass, the proportion in favour of the Bill throughout the city was, if I remember rightly, as seven to one; but in some of the worst parishes where the poorest people dwell it was in one as 14 to one, and in another as 16 to one. I have presented this evening a Petition from a pit district in my diocese, a parish with a population of about 5,600 persons. It is signed by 1,646 men and women above the age of 18. My informant adds that it was got up in four evenings, and that only 4 per cent of those asked to sign had refused. In fact, the canvass of which I have spoken was chiefly conducted by working men themselves in their leisure hours. Sometimes an appeal is made by opponents to our feelings of generosity. We are told that it is an ungracious thing for persons who have their well-stocked cellars or their clubs to put these restrictions on their poorer and less favoured neighbours. However creditable these sentiments are to the hearts of those who use them, they entirely lose sight of the practical issue—the working man's view of the question. The working man looks at the question from a wholly different point of view. The climate of Durham, his arduous employment, the atmosphere of the mine, the heat of the iron foundry, all predispose him to the use of stimulants. The Sunday comes; he has his time on his hands to go where he wishes; he has money in his pocket, for he has been paid his wages the evening before. The public-house door is open to him, and it is the only door open to him. Are we surprised if he yields to the temptation? The working man looks upon legislation such as this as a helping hand stretched out to him when he is struggling in the seat of temptation; and it would be a sorry comfort to him to be told that we are actuated by sentiments of generosity in not stretching out that helping hand, and leaving him to be plunged into the abyss below.

  707
  This Bill, as affecting only a particular locality, is condemned by some as piecemeal legislation. Your Lordships have already embarked, as I have shown, upon piecemeal legislation, and the further we go in this direction the less piecemeal our work will be. I should very much sooner a Bill were introduced dealing with the whole of the United Kingdom; but we have been waiting year after year, until we have come to the conclusion that half a loaf is better than no bread. The vision of a hope of a whole loaf in the distant future, dangled before the eyes, is poor comfort for a hungry stomach. The value of the opinion of the Durham miners on any great Imperial question of wide and far-reaching issues may be differently estimated; but surely they are the best judges of what concerns the health and comfort of their own homes. No doubt, there is the question of the frontier, which presents great difficulties, and these we cannot altogether remove. But I feel sure that if you pass this Bill, the counties of Northumberland and Yorkshire will follow quickly in the wake of Durham. Movements have already begun in those counties in this same direction and your Lordships would stimulate them by passing this Bill. Then it is said that the intention of such a measure would be evaded through the clause which excepts the bonâ-fide traveller, and that it would encourage private drinking. I do not contend that this Bill or any other Bill would reclaim the inebriate. What I do claim for it is that it will keep the waverers straight, and will remove the initial temptation from many besides. It requires a deliberate act to store up drink on Saturday night for consumption on Sunday. It demands a certain effort to walk three miles in order to gratify a propensity for drink. I thank your Lordships very sincerely for the kind and patient hearing you have given me. I advocate the measure in all confidence, because I feel sure that I have at my back the very strong and enthusiastic approval of the mass of the working men of Durham. I advocate it in all earnestness, because I believe that it will confer a substantial boon on large classes whom, during a residence of seven years in Durham, I have learned to appreciate increasingly for their very sterling qualities. I cannot
  708
  expect that your Lordships will feel the same interest in the matter that I do; but I entreat you to hold out a helping hand to members of the community to whom you yourselves, directly or indirectly, are largely indebted for the comforts and necessaries of life—the miners and ironworkers, the artizans, and the shipwrights of Durham. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Bishop of Durham.)
  LORD BRAMWELL, on rising to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said: In asking your Lordships to read this Bill a second time this day six months, I do so reluctantly from my respect for the right rev. Prelate who brings it forward. But this Bill seems so wrong, so objectionable, and such an unwarrantable interference with the rights of persons, and so unlikely to bring about that for which it is intended—that is, more sobriety—that I feel bound to object to it. I am not insensible to the mischiefs of drink. I have had the opportunity of seeing some of the mischief which it brings about in my official capacity, and I have not lived to my present age without knowing privately the mischief that it has done. Whether £135,000,000 is the sum spent annually on drink in this country or not, I do not know; but even if a very large deduction has to be made from that amount, yet a very great deal too much drink is consumed, to the injury of health, thrift, and economy. I quite agree that the money spent on drink is far too much to be laid out upon it by the people who spend it; and I do not believe that they get in this way the greatest amount of enjoyment for their money. I do not seek in the least to disguise all this; but I must say that there is a very great deal of exaggeration. I will give your Lordships an illustration. We hear constantly of the number of people driven mad by drink; but it has been proved that in a very great many of these cases neither effect is the cause of the other, but that the same mental constitution alone is the cause of both drunkenness and madness. Therefore, it is an entire mistake to attribute insanity to excessive drinking in all the cases where they co-exist. I attribute this exaggeration to

  709
  over-zeal on the part of people who are trying to make the world better than it is. A great many people believe that drink is of great utility if used in moderation; and Sir James Paget has given it as his opinion that, for intellectual work, alcoholic stimulants are required. I would ask your Lordships whether those who support this kind of legislation are doing an altogether reasonable thing in asserting the evil of drinking without any consideration, on the other hand, of the enjoyment it gives? If not an invidious question, I should like to know how many of your Lordships entirely abstain from alcoholic beverages? We do not treat drink fairly. This Bill is to prevent the sale of "intoxicating" drinks in the county of Durham on Sundays. Wine, spirits, and beer are indeed intoxicating liquors if taken in sufficient quantities; but why is one particular property to be singled out? Why is no mention made of their pleasant and agreeable qualities? Would your Lordships speak of water as a drowning liquor? Yet it most certainly is. Intoxicating liquors give a great deal of enjoyment when taken in moderation and with reason, and it is a most unreasonable thing to treat it as an article so pernicious that it should be altogether done away with. There ought to be some little discernment in the matter, particularly when we consider that the objectionable quality of the article consists only in its being taken in excess. I ask your Lordships, therefore, to treat drink, and wine and spirits, fairly, and not to look at them unfairly. They are capable of considerable enjoyment by those who indulge in them reasonably and rationally. The right rev. Prelate has said that Durham is very much in favour of the Bill; but the matter to which I shall now have to call your Lordships' attention almost makes me think that there must be two Durhams. The right rev. Prelate has presented a variety of Petitions, and I have one which has been signed by over 60,000 people living in the county of Durham, and there are two or three other Petitions also from other bodies. Those Petitions were not sent to me in time to present to your Lordships earlier in the Sitting; but I will now present them. [The Petitions were brought in.] Those are the Petitions. Your Lordships will scarely think, therefore, that
  710
  the recital in the Preamble of this Bill is correct when it speaks of the people of Durham. Seventy thousand persons in the county of Durham, at all events, do not desire the extension of a measure of this kind to the county. One of the Petitions presented in favour of the Bill states that there is a strong necessity for the measure in the county of Durham, as drunkenness exists there among the rural population to a very large extent. If that is so, it is a very remarkable thing that such an enormous number of persons should have signed the Petitions presented by the right rev. Prelate. Then it is said that the Petitions are also signed by many publicans who desire to have Sunday as a day of rest. What is to prevent their shutting up their shops every Sunday if they wish to do so? They might do it, and would, if the people were as much in earnest as they professed to be, because there would be no customers on Sunday. I have always the greatest possible distrust about these Petitions. It is so much easier to say "Yes," than "No;" and by signing a Petition the signer hopes that the whole thing is done with, and that he will hear no more about the matter. Your Lordships know, however divided opinion may be, what influence a few persons with strong opinions have in turning the scale one way or the other. I admit in this matter that possibly there may be a majority of people in Durham in favour of the Bill, and I agree that where there must be action the majority should bind the minority; but in this matter I must protest against the majority binding the minority. I protest against the right of 99 men out of 100 to insist upon the 100th man not drinking if he wishes, or prescribing what colour or cut of coat he should wear. Where there is a necessity for action then the majority must prevail; where there is no necessity it is simply tyranny on the part of the majority to enforce their views upon the minority. Now, I ask your Lordships what this Bill is to do when it passes. Is it for the sake of those who drink too much, or for the sake of pleasing a very amiable class of persons, very earnest and very zealous, who would make the world better than it is at present? I must ask your Lordships to allow me to use an argument that I used when a similar Bill was before this House,

  711
  only Cornwall was then the place to be experimented upon. Your Lordships' rejected that Bill. I ask, what would your Lordships' think if a man were to come on a Saturday night and demand the key of your cellar, promising it should be returned to you on Monday morning; and when you said—"Have you any reason to fear I shall take too much?" he replied—"Oh, no; but there is a man half-a-dozen doors below who does?" What difference is there between that case and the present one? I do urge upon your Lordships that it is an unreasonable and unwarrantable thing to deprive persons of fermented liquors who take them in moderation because there are other persons who take them in excess. But I have said, and I repeat, that I believe this is a measure which, if passed, will not promote sobriety. I have several times said in this House that it is in vain to pass a law with which the public conscience does not go. I mean by that that it is not well to pass a law that right-minded and well-conducted men do not find so far in conformity with their conscience that they are willing to obey. If you do so, that law will be broken and evaded. There are two ways in which this law can be evaded. Provision will be made overnight, the drink will be consumed in private—no one seeing his discreditable condition if the man gets drunk—and not in the house of the publican, who is responsible for those he supplies. But, besides that, there is that troublesome person the bonâ-fide traveller, and travel he will in search of drink. I will give your Lordships a case. Wales has the fortune—I do not think good fortune, and as I show presently—to have a Sunday Closing Act. From the town of Swansea to the Mumbles there is a tramway, and this tramway is provided with bonâ-fide travellers on a Sunday, because it is beyond three miles from Swansea, and extra trams are also put on. They go there for drinking purposes only, and some of them become so drunk that they cannot find their way back to Swansea. Now that is one instance of the bonâ fide traveller. Another, and in my opinion a shocking case, is this. Clubs are instituted, a room is set apart, but it is perfectly well understood that no member of the club is to go there except on a Sunday. On that day the
  712
  members of the club assemble to drink at the house, and you cannot interfere with their doing it. I have here a paper in which it is stated that there are upwards of 60 of these clubs in Cardiff, which are contrivances for evading the law. That is another way in which it is done. You have, therefore, the bonâ-fide traveller and these bogus clubs. It is certain that as long as a man has got the money to command something that he wants, and there is another person who is desirous of supplying him, you may make what laws you like, but in some way or other they will be evaded and avoided. And that is why I believe that this is not a measure which is calculated to promote sobriety. The right rev. Prelate has said that this is indeed piecemeal legislation, but that there is precedent for it. But there is no reason why, because you have done one thing out of rule, or one thing that is quite abnormal, that you should do another. Why not bring the question forward at once? What objection can there be to its being enforced all over England if it is right in Durham? None. There is this to be said about Durham. Your Lordships probably know Newcastle. It has, I think, about 140,000 inhabitants in the county of Northumberland. Gateshead, which is the other side of the river, has about 50,000 inhabitants. Well, what will be the consequences of this Bill? If it cannot be evaded in any other way, as far as the Gateshead people are concerned, they will just cross the Tyne and drink their fill in the county of Northumberland. This Bill will, therefore, turn out to be a Bill for the encouragement of Newcastle publicans. The people of Darlington will likewise make an incursion into Yorkshire. They may be the most mala-fide travellers that ever travelled, but they have only to cross into the neighbouring county to get drink. Another remark I wish to make is this. Why shut up houses on Sunday? Why, if it is not wrong to drink a glass of beer on Saturday should it be wrong to do so on Sunday? Now, in my opinion, Sunday is the last day on which you ought to close a public-house, because on Sunday people recreate themselves with a walk into the country, and why should they be debarred from taking a glass of beer if they wish to do so? But the public-house is to be shut up

  713
  altogether, and a man cannot get a cup of tea or a glass of soda water. You will have that in Durham which exists now to a certain extent in other counties; you will have the publican selling beer on the sly, and there will be the usual perjury cases, several of which I have had before me. It is certain that the law imposing closing hours has given rise to a great deal of perjury. The right rev. Prelate said that wherever the experiment had been tried there was no desire to hark back. I know nothing of Norway, but I believe it is absolutely certain that the Sunday Closing Act in Wales has been a failure. Now, another thing I wish to say is this. When the Cornwall Sunday Closing Bill was under discussion before your Lordships, Lord Aberdare stated that all the Bill proposed to do was to put the publican upon the level of other traders, who were prohibited from carrying on their trade on Sunday. With great submission, that is not so. In the first place, the Act against Sunday trading is really obsolete. It is obsolete for this reason, that the construction put upon it by the Courts was, that the offence could only be committed once in the day; and if there were 20 different acts of trading on the Sunday, still it was only one Sunday trading, and the penalty was scarcely more than nominal. It is a totally different penalty to that which attaches to a publican. The latter is subject to a penalty of £10, and, moreover, he is subject to the forfeiture of his licence. These are the considerations on which I ask your Lordships not to pass this Bill. I have shown that it is, in the first place, an unwarrantable interference with the liberty of individuals to say that they shall not enjoy themselves with a rational quantity of drink, which is a source of great pleasure and enjoyment. I say also that it will not produce sobriety, and will be attended with mischief that I have endeavoured to point out—that is to say, there will be evasions and breaches of the law which it is very undesirable should take place.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now,") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months.")—(The Lord Bramwell.)
  LORD NORTONsaid, that he should vote against the second reading of the
  714
  Bill, because he believed closing public-houses, instead of converting them, was wrong in principle, and would not meet the object which the promoters had in view. It was an attempt to put down abuse by legislating against use. Public-houses had their legitimate and necessary uses for refreshment and rest, and it was wrong to say that those persons who wished to use them properly should be debarred from doing so because other persons abused them. To treat public-houses as necessarily places of drunkenness was the way to make them so. Whenever such legislation had been attempted it always excepted the bonâ-fide traveller from its operation; there was, therefore, only evasion under that character needed to keep up as much drunkenness as ever. The right legislation would be against drunkenness; and to make its permission on any premises forfeit the abused license to sell drink.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, that, having represented the city of Durham in the other House, he thought that he ought to tell their Lordships what he had been able to ascertain about the sentiments and views of the county of Durham with regard to this question. He had had considerable means of informing himself upon the subject, even more than his noble and learned Friend who had moved the rejection of this Bill (Lord Bramwell). He did not intend to deal exhaustively at that hour with the whole of this subject, because the arguments which had been addressed to their Lordships against the Bill were very much those which had been used with regard to previous Bills; and, if he might say so without disrespect to the noble and learned Lord, were the stock arguments of that Society which was good enough to instruct them from time to time as to how they were to vote, and of which the noble and learned Lord was a distinguished member. He would confine himself to the necessities of the case, and especially to what concerned this particular Bill. He quite admitted that for a long time after he had gone to the city of Durham he had been indisposed to vote for any such legislation as this, as he had always felt that it was not a matter which affected himself or those who were able to live in the same way and provide themselves with refreshments,

  715
  and that it would be a monstrous thing from one's own views of comfort or morality to vote against the wishes of the class of the community that practically was affected and inconvenienced. But he could say, without hesitation, that these were the very people who were most eager for this Bill, and he could assure the noble and learned Lord that if he had mixed with the working men and talked with them as he had himself he would not have used some of the arguments which he had used tonight. It was true that there was in the county of Durham a great amount of drunkenness; but this was regretted not merely by the Temperance Societies, but by the people themselves, and those who had most impressed on him the expediency of this Bill had been men not particularly of the religious class or the tremely respectable class, but men of the working class who felt the strength of the temptation and the difficulty of resisting it, and who knew that when public-house after public-house was open in the street on Sunday they went in and drank in a way in which they never would have done if they had had to provide themselves with drink on Saturday night. The noble and learned Lord had spoken of Swansea and the Mumbles. No doubt, a certain number of people travelled by the tramway from Swansea to the Mumbles on the Sunday; but how many more would have been drinking in the public-houses of Swansea if they had been open? He had seen tramcars running to the Mumbles on Sunday afternoon, and could vouch that there was nothing like the male population of Swansea at the Mumbles, although some of the cars were well-filled; but it did not follow because certain persons went to the Mumbles for the purpose of drink that there should not be Sunday closing. He thought that the noble and learned Lord's argument went too far. It was really an argument against having any restriction at all in the hours during which drink was to be sold. It was practically saying that any man had a right not to have his liberty interfered with in the matter of getting drink when he wished. He was afraid, however, that all political Parties in this country were committed to the view that it was the legitimate function of Parliament to limit the hours in which intoxicating liquors might be sold. It was impossible
  716
  nowadays to argue that it was not so. It was thought to be in the general interests that certain restrictions should be put upon the sale of liquor. There was no new principle in a Bill of this kind; it merely extended the principle which did exist before to certain other hours, and this principle which was here extended was one which had long been recognized. An important question was what public opinion was on this subject in the county of Durham and how it was to be ascertained. The first, and a most reasonable mode, was to ascertain the views of those elected to represent the constituency. But it might be said that Parties were so evenly balanced that some crotchet would turn the scale. Nothing of the sort was the case in the county of Durham, and mere crotcheteers had no chance of turning the scale. He maintained that it would be rather dangerous for that House to disregard the views of the elected Members of a constituency as expressed in the House of Commons and to say that they would go behind those views because they knew better. As against those views, what did the noble and learned Lord say? He said that he had presented to-night a very extensive Petition. For his own part, he thought that it was perhaps fortunate that the Petition had arrived so late, and that there had not been any possibility of investigation earlier, because a great many Petitions which were presented as having a large number of signatures turned out upon investigation to be far less numerously signed. He must respectfully submit to their Lordships that no Petition should be considered as of importance against the evidence afforded by the views of every Member for the constituency except one, and, with one exception, of every Corporation. Then his noble and learned Friend said that this was piecemeal legislation. He confessed that, for his own part, he had not the same objection to piecemeal legislation as that held by his noble and learned Friend. He thought that there might be great advantage in such legislation, because it enabled them to try experiments which if unsuccessful did no mischief. They could not go far beyond public opinion in this matter; but in Durham public opinion went as far as this Bill, although that was not the case in every part of England. It

  717
  was not, therefore, expedient to pass such a Bill for the whole of England; but he hoped that the House would agree to the second reading of the Bill which was now before them.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have listened with some interest to the noble and learned Lord laying down a doctrine which has found considerable favour "elsewhere," that the opinions of the Members for a particular district are to be taken as the opinions of the people therein. I am surprised that the noble and learned Lord, connected as he has been with the county of Durham, should not have detected the principal flaw in the argument which he used. The county of Durham, outside the city of Durham, has, undoubtedly, through its Representatives, pronounced in favour of this Bill; but the city of Durham, through its Representative, has pronounced equally emphatically against the Bill. Why is the city of Durham to be compulsorily sober because there are no cakes and ale in the county of Durham? The city of Durham has just as much right to be excepted from the county of Durham for this purpose as Ulster has the right to be excepted from the rest of Ireland for another. That is a small matter; and what I desire to explain is why, if the noble and learned Lord goes to a division, I shall follow him into the Lobby. My Lords, it is interesting, no doubt, to watch the growth of this particular feeling, which has acted so much upon the recent legislation of the country, and it is impossible to ignore its existence; but I must say that it does not inspire me with so much admiration as it inspires many other people. I do not know why a number of people who never go into a public-house should close them to the people who do. There is a Nemesis in store for those who are so ready to use the terrors of the law in order to make their fellow-subjects more virtuous. The effect of this legislation has been to multiply to an enormous extent clubs in various parts of the country, and these clubs are becoming more and more a nuisance, more and more demoralizing and injurious; and the complaints which come from the police, and from ministers of religion, are very imperious in their tone. I fully look forward to the necessity for Parliament dealing with the workmen's clubs; and when they
  718
  deal with the workmen's clubs will they not have to deal with the rich man's clubs also? I shall look with considerable interest to see if there is the same unanimity of opinion as to closing the rich man's clubs on the Sunday. I cannot take my stand on the high platform of theory which is maintained with so much ability by the noble and learned Lord; but if I were to theorize on the matter I should agree with the noble and learned Lord in arguing what is consistent or inconsistent with sound principle. But I have found that sound principle never has the slightest effect with either House of the Legislature. When questions of this kind come before them, all that is considered is what is the force of public opinion which will have to be followed and observed; and, undoubtedly, public opinion on this subject is so powerful that there is not sufficient force in either House to resist it very long. My own opinion is that, to save a part, we must give up all hope of saving the whole, for the hope of saving the whole has gone long ago. Scotland, Ireland, and Wales have already been subjected to this exceptional legislation; and I believe if we are to prevent a general Sunday Closing Bill for the whole country from being passed—a result which I should regard with anything but satisfaction—our best hope of doing so must be to provide some arrangement by which, where there is an overwhelming majority of opinion in a particular district, they may try this scheme and see how it will succeed. Perhaps noble Lords will say then, Why do you not vote for this Bill? My answer is that this Bill does not allow for a trial of the experiment, it allows no locus pœnitentiœ, and that when it has been found that this repression leads to numberless journies to secret clubs, they will not be able to go back to the state of things which now exists. I have before ventured to express an opinion that the proper way of dealing with this question is to hand it over to the Local Authorities, and to allow them to decide for their particular locality whether this measure shall be carried out or not, and to give them the power of going back when they find the experiment does not answer. I believe that that is especially necessary, because I have no faith in the permanence of this most unfortunate and unreasonable movement

  719
  I believe it is merely a temporary craze, which will pass away, as similar crazes have passed before. It was in the nature of man to try to use the authority of Parliament to force others to become moral or theological according to their own standard. Two or three centuries ago such a measure as this would have taken the form of forcing people to go to church, or to assent to some particular article of religion, and the right rev. Prelate would have used such means of compulsion as were in his power to give it Parliamentary force. But now he wants to force them to adopt that particular mode of ethics which he himself believes in, in order to force them to abstain from drunkenness or intoxicating liquors. Such persons as the right rev. Prelate will always exist among the earnest teachers of religion, and his is a weakness to which the teachers of religion have always been exposed; but that is not a view which they will be able, for any length of time, to impress upon their lay brethren. Though for a time, in view of some great scandal, they might carry the community with them, the public, in the long run, would cease to follow them. I look for a revulsion of feeling on this question, and I believe that, in the long run, we shall leave men to determine what they shall eat and what they shall drink, and that this paroxysm of paternal legislation will pass by. While, therefore, I recognize the necessity for giving effect to a certain section of dominant public opinion on this matter, I am anxious that the way shall be left open for retreat. I believe that this subject can best be dealt with in a general Local Government Bill, in which the Local Authority shall have power to do what it thinks fit; and it is because I believe that to be the only sound solution of the question that I shall follow the noble and learned Lord who has moved the rejection of this Bill.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY)said, he was not going to trouble the House at any length; but he wished to make one observation on the particular part of the noble Marquess's remarks as to leaving it to the Local Authorities to make regulations. That was what they wished to enact under the Local Government Bill; but their great Local Government Bills never passed. Now, the
  720
  present outlook in political affairs was not particularly calm, and it was somewhat hard that these particular localities like Durham should have to wait until this great principle was adopted before they could give effect to their desires. He would suggest, as a perfectly easy way to meet the difficulty of the noble Marquess, that they should pass the second reading, and limit the operation of the Bill to three years.
  On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 47; Not-Contents 41: Majority 6.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Archp.

  Truro, L. Bp.

  Herschell, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Aberdare, L. [Teller.]

  Spencer, E. (L. President.)

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Westminster, D.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Northampton, M.

  Coleridge, L.

  Ripon, M.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Crofton, L.

  Camperdown, E. [Teller.]

  Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  Feversham, E.

  Herries, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Houghton, L.

  Morley, E.

  Howth, L. (E. Howth.)

  Onslow, E.

  Kensington, L.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Selborne, E.

  Lingen, L.

  Tankerville, E.

  Monson, L.

  Northbourne, L.

  Halifax, V.

  Ramsay, L. (E Dalhousie.)

  Bangor, L. Bp.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Chichester, L. Bp.

  Durham, L. Bp.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Hereford, L. Bp.

  Sudeley, L.

  London, L. Bp.

  Thurlow, L.

  Oxford, L. Bp.

  Winmarleigh, L.

  St. Albans, L. Bp.

  Wolverton, L.

  St. Asaph, L. Bp.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Hawarden, V.

  Powerscourt, V.

  Grafton, D.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Richmond, D.

  Bramwell, L. [Teller.]

  Bristol, M.

  Colchester, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Dinevor, L.

  Egerton, L.

  Ashburnham, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Elphinstone, L.

  Iddesleigh, E.

  FitzGerald, L.

  Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.)

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerich.)

  Lovelace, E.

  Halsbury, L.

  Manvers, E.

  Harris, L.

  Mar, E.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Milltown, E.

  Northesk, E.

  Leigh, L. [Teller.]

  Ravensworth, E.

  Lovat, L.

  721

  Lyveden, L.

  Tredegar, L.

  Norton, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Poltimore, L.

  Sinclair, L.

  Wigan, L. (E. Crawford and Balcarres.)

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Windsor, L.

  Teynham, L.

  Resolved in the affirmative.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (BIRMINGHAM) BILL [H.L.] (NO. 96).
  A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Education Department under the Elementary Education Act, 1870, to enable the School Board for Birmingham to put in force the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, and the Acts amending the same; And

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [H.L.] (NO. 97).
  A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Education Department under the Elementary Education Act, 1870, to enable the School Board for London to put in force the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, and the Acts amending the same;
  Were presented by The Lord President; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.