Lords Sitting of 1 June 1893

Preamble
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
SAT FIRST.
The Marquess Camden, after the death of his father.
WILD BIRDS PROTECTION BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  *LORD BALFOUR: My Lords, I do not think I need detain your Lordships very long in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. The object of the promoters of the Bill is a very simple one, and one which will, I think, when stated, command the respect and support of the great majority of the House. The object of the Bill is to afford better means of protection by law than exists at the present time for certain species of wild birds which, from various causes, particularly require protection. My Lords, if I were asked to state what test I would apply in order to see whether any species of wild bird required protection or not, I should say you could determine the question by the test whether or not that species of bird was or was not largely decreasing in numbers. The necessity for the Bill arises from the increase of a certain class of persons who make a business, mainly for profit, of collecting birds' eggs in places where they are more or loss easily got, and of species which are somewhat rare. I do not know whether any of your Lordships noticed in the Spring of last year that some of those to whom I have referred went so far as to ask for subscriptions to a sort of Syndicate or Company in the Midland Counties for the purpose of employing persons in their interest to go to places in the North of Scotland, where some of the rarer kinds of wild birds' eggs are found, and to collect them wholesale. I do not think I am using too strong a term, from the contents of a circular which has been sent to me, when
  1694
  I say it really amounts to a wholesale depredation of the eggs of certain kinds of birds which are not by any means too plentiful. There are other places all over the country where birds congregate in considerable numbers and where they breed, and the scale of prices at which the eggs can be sold is held out as a temptation for taking them during those times of the year when they can be obtained. And not only do the eggs require protection, but certainly during the breeding-season the adult birds ought also to be protected. My Lords, it is said that the Bill as it stands is open to various objections. Noble Lords opposite and others have pointed out to mo that as the Bill stands a County Council and the Home Secretary, working together, could, if they chose, pass a bye-law which would, in fact, prohibit all shooting of game in the administrative county under their control. Of course, such a result as that, I need hardly say, is very far from the wishes or desires of the promoters. Again, it is objected that as the Bill stands it would be theoretically possible to punish schoolboys for taking the nest of blackbirds or sparrows. Of course, no such result as that is desired, either by myself or by those who have been most active in promoting the Bill. My Lords, I am not responsible for the drafting of the Bill. The Bill was introduced into, and has passed through, the other House of Parliament. If it was not introduced into the other House, in the shape in which it now comes to your Lordships, it has at any rate passed through the other House of Parliament in the shape in which it now stands; and until your Lordships have read the Bill a second time—if you will be so good as to read it a second time—there are no means of making known the Amendments which I dare say more than one noble Lord will be anxious to see introduced into it. I may say that I am prepared to move some Amendments myself, and I have knowledge that some of your Lordships are desirous of putting down Amendments with the view to making the Bill more useful and practical than it is at the present time. There is one point to which I ought, perhaps, to call attention. It may be thought desirable not to protect all species of birds, and not to give the Home Secretary and County

  1695
  Councils the power to shut up all places where birds are found. If it is the wish of the House to protect certain species of birds and their eggs by putting them in a Schedule, or, on the other hand, to protect certain places in particular, those are all matters for consideration; and I can only say that I shall be most anxious to accept help in the matter from all quarters of the House, keeping only in view the purpose of making the Bill efficient for the main objects which I have stated. I should be prepared to delay the Committee stage of the Bill for a few days so as to give plenty of time for consideration. I have only to say, in conclusion, that this is a subject which can, I think, he thoroughly well considered in this House. There are many noble Lords who have a thorough knowledge of country life, and who are well aware of the necessity for such a Bill as this; and I am quite certain that after this Second Reading, when we got to the Committee stage, help will be obtained from all quarters of the House for the purpose of making this an efficient and proper measure.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Balfour.)
  *THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: My Lords, I do not rise for the purpose of opposing this Bill on Second Reading. No doubt the object of the Bill is one which will commend itself to all noble Lords in this House; but it seems to me to give an additional proof, if one was wanting, of the great advantage which the country derives from the existence of your Lordships' House, because if the measure had not to pass the ordeal of this House we should have had a Bill passed through the other House of Parliament under which not one of your Lordships could shoot a single head of game if the County Council, having the control in that part of the country, with the assistance of the Home Secretary, chose to say so. I see many noble Lords around me who are very fond of shooting, and I think they would be much astonished if they found that the County Councils and the Home Secretary together were to have power to prevent them shooting a single head of game on their own estates during the whole breeding season, that game being their own property just as much as the
  1696
  timber which is grown on their laud. With regard to the protection for eggs, that, I know, is a somewhat difficult question, because it has been held by some Magistrates, or by some Judges, that they cannot accept the suggestion that a particular kind of egg belongs to a particular species of bird; and unless the bird has been seen to lay the egg, they deny the possibility of its being proved to be the egg of any particular bird which may be put in a Schedule. I am glad to hear from my noble Friend that the measure he proposes will be referred to a Select Committee, and that he will be prepared to accept various Amendments which may be proposed to it——
  *LORD BALFOUR: I did not propose that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee; I said I should be prepared to allow some time to elapse before the Committee stage.
  *THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: Then it will be considered in Committee of this House, which will be much better able to deal with it. But, my Lords, the question of protecting the eggs of wild birds might, I think, be dealt with by giving power to the County Councils to declare a certain close time for certain districts in the country. That would not apply to the whole country, but they would only be districts to which the birds usually resort. The fact that for a certain period this would be considered a close time, should be well-known throughout the district, and published beforehand, so that anyone going into that part of the country at that time for the purpose of collecting eggs would know that he was liable to punishment. But I entirely agree with my noble Friend that it would be quite impossible to put an end to the popular amusement of birds'-nesting among the younger members of the community; and I think if the Act was put into force very strenuously, a strong feeling would be aroused against it throughout the country; while, on the other hand, if the Act was very seldom put into force, or only with a slight punishment, it would become a dead letter, and you might just as well not pass it at all. My Lords, I think my noble Friend will do well, as he has said, to got opinions from various part of the House upon the Bill, and I have

  1697
  no doubt he would do well in striking out that part of it which would prevent those who are fond of shooting from indulging in that sport; and with regard to the question of collecting eggs, I think we should be in a hotter position by having power in the County Councils to declare a certain close time for particular districts in the country.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY): My Lords, I wish to say a few words on this Bill, in which I may say I take great interest. I entirely agree that the principle of it is one of which we should probably all approve; but with regard to the mode in which it is carried into effect, I agree with the noble Duke that it would be impossible to carry it into effect in its present form. I will not touch upon the proposals under which game might be prohibited from being shot; but with regard to the protection of eggs, I was very glad to hear what was said by the noble Duke opposite. I do not profess myself to have any experience in these matters, but it has been brought to my notice that if you simply prohibit the taking of the eggs of particular birds, you will probably altogether fail in the object you have in view. What is wanted is to prevent the destruction of certain species of wild birds which are rapidly diminishing, and which, if not protected, will probably vanish out of the country altogether. The eggs of some species of rare birds are to be found in certain limited localities, and I believe, from what I am told, that it would be possible to define those localities, and to prevent the taking there, during a certain season, of all eggs, and in that way to preserve the eggs of particular birds. They are not localities which are frequented largely by other kinds of birds than those whose eggs it is desired to preserve, and you could, therefore, punish persons who are found in those districts with eggs. Those who are acquainted with the subject say that it is almost impossible to distinguish between the eggs of certain rare birds and those of other birds, and it would, therefore, be impossible to prove before a Court that the eggs taken belonged to the particular species of bird which you wish to preserve. If the taking of the
  1698
  eggs of certain birds alone were prohibited, it would be almost impossible to prove that in any particular case. The Amendment suggested by the noble Duke deserves, I think, careful consideration, and I hope that, as well as many other points connected with the Bill, will be carefully considered in Committee.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL.): My Lords, there can be no doubt that this Bill has excited a good deal of interest, and also some alarm, even among those who desire to protect the species of wild birds whose protection is the object of it. I have been favoured with a communication from a very high authority on the subject— Professor Newman, of Cambridge. He has called my attention to the provisions of this Bill, and he is afraid that it will not attain the object desired, whilst it may, on the other hand, lead undesirably, in a considerable number of cases, to the infliction of punishment on those who are merely pursuing the pastime of birds'-nesting. They might suffer in a way which is very undesirable. In fact, when the matter was considered some years ago by a Committee of the British Association, of which Professor Newman was Chairman, one of the conclusions at which they arrived was that the practice of birds'-nesting has been so much followed in England that no Act of Parliament—except one of the most severe character—would stop it, and that such a measure would, by filling the gaols with boys, excite great opposition even among many of those who are at present favourably disposed towards legislation on the subject. There can be no doubt, I think, that any attempt to protect these wild birds by such means would excite hostility, and would lead to results which would tend to defeat the object in view. There is also a considerable amount of opinion in favour of the view that the birds which are decreasing most rapidly in numbers are precisely those the preservation of which is not largely affected by birds'-nesting; and, therefore, the diminution which is so much regretted would not be arrested to any material extent, and would certainly not be got rid of by the prohibition of birds'-nesting. My attention has been called also to the impossibility of dealing with this question in

  1699
  the manner proposed in reference to the eggs. As has been said already by my noble Friend, the eggs of many birds are so much alike that it is often impossible, even for experts, to distinguish the eggs of rare species of birds from those of others which are more common. There is, therefore, a feeling in some directions that if there is to be legislation on the subject, it should be legislation dealing with places rather than with species of birds. But, of course, when you come to deal with places you are met with this difficulty, which I find mentioned in an interesting article written by Mr. Digby Pigott, when a Bill of this kind was first introduced, calling attention to the fact that the Great Stena one of the species of rare birds, which are decreasing in numbers, is found in districts in the Northern Islands, in Shetland, for example, where birds' eggs are largely used as an article of food—gulls' eggs—that it is difficult to distinguish between them, and they would probably be found not far from each other. If, therefore, you were to prohibit the taking of eggs in any place of considerable extent for the purpose of protecting the eggs of birds of this description, you would, at the same time, be preventing people collecting eggs which are to them a valuable source of food. If you were to limit the operation of this Bill to places, you would, therefore, have to see that while the districts were made large enough for the purpose of protecting the particular eggs you desire to protect, you wore not, at the same time, making them so large as to deprive the people of the locality of an article of food, where they are accustomed to collect eggs for that purpose, and so cut off a valuable source of food supply. On those grounds I think it is necessary, in the first place, to pay attention to the selection of places; and, secondly, that great care should be taken not to make those districts too large in extent, but to confine them to the absolute necessities of the case. Another question which will have to be considered is that of giving notice of a change in the law— whether the Act ought not to provide for some form of publication which will make it certain that it will come to the knowledge of those who will come under the prohibition with regard to taking
  1700
  eggs from birds' nests. At present the only provision is that such notices are to be published in newspapers circulating in the country, or by such other means as the County Councils shall determine. The only objection is that the notices must be published in newspapers, and that boys who are in the habit of going birds'-nesting would probably not be likely to read advertisements in the newspapers. It has been suggested, therefore, that publication should be made also by putting up notices in the local schools. Those are matters which it will, I think, be very desirable should be considered in Committee; but I thought it necessary to call attention to them at the present time with the view of showing the great care which will have to be exercised in order that the Bill may accomplish the object desired, and may not do considerable mischief.
  LORD WALSINGHAM: My Lords, I entirely agree with what the noble and learned Lord has said as to the desirability of protecting places rather than species. As the places where rare birds breed are well known, and are generally of limited extent, I quite agree that the best way of protecting those birds is to deal with the places in which they breed rather than to extend protection to birds' eggs in general. The vast number of wild birds really need no protection at all. I think that was the conclusion that was arrived at by the Committee to which the noble and learned Lord referred, that there are certainly a number of species of birds which need no such protection. Then, with regard to advertising the change in the law, I think more notice, and very clear notice, should be given, so that it should be thoroughly made known to the people in the district from what places they are prohibited taking eggs. That I think will not be made known by advertisements in newspapers as thoroughly as it should be; but I think the necessary publicity would be given if notices were exhibited on houses or in schools as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has suggested. If in Committee that Amendment were made I think it would meet the difficulty, and would be sufficient to carry out the views of those who wish to protect wild birds. I hope your Lordships will give a Second Reading to this Bill, of which, I believe, many noble Lords have already expressed approval.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday the 13th instant.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION) BILL [H.L.]— (NO. 52.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."
  LORD SANDHURSTdesired to interpose a few remarks upon the Bill before the Committee stage. Lord Colchester, who, like himself, was a member of the London School Board, made a speech the other night in which he seemed to infer that the Bill was very generally desired by that Body. He was not at all convinced that the Bill was desired by those forming the majority of the London School Board who followed the lead of the Chairman. It was true that a small section was extremely anxious to see it passed into law; but, on the other hand, a large number wore strongly opposed to the policy of the Bill. He objected to the Bill because he believed it would be found to be unworkable, and would tend to accelerate the strides now being made towards secular education. There were many denominations, and if all were to give distinctive religious teaching, even in a large school, the school building would have to be enlarged for the purpose of affording the accommodation that would be required. The interference with the ordinary work of the school would necessitate a re-arrangement of the time table; and the managers would be tempted to recommend the appointment of teachers, not for their qualifications as such, but because of the denominational views they might hold. He took his stand in opposing the Bill upon the compromise proposed by the late Mr. Smith and supported by the late Mr. Samuel Morley and by Professor Huxley. That compromise he regarded as a settlement of the controversy.
  *LORD COLCHESTERsaid, what he stated on the previous occasion referred to by his noble Friend was that there was a feeling of dissatisfaction in some respects with the present position of things. It could hardly be denied that there were
  1702
  large numbers of people of various religious denominations who were desirous that their children should receive religious instruction of their own denomination in the schools. At the same time, he did not think the inconvenience from the number of different sects to be provided for would be as great as supposed. Many Dissenting Bodies did not attach so much value to religious teaching in day schools, though it was greatly desired by the Church of England, the Wesleyans, and others, who, as ratepayers, were as much entitled to consideration as those who differed from them.
  *LORD SHANDregretted he had been unable to be present at the Second Reading, or he would then have supported the Bill. He thought it was scarcely possible to exaggerate the importance of the measure. In London at the present moment there was a considerable agitation on the subject; and as soon as the existence of the Bill and the discussions upon it became known, there was not a School Board in the country that would not be deeply interested, and there were a great many families that would take the deepest interest in its progress and results. Many years ago he came to the conclusion that the only satisfactory solution of the religious difficulty would be in carrying out some such national system as was now proposed in this Bill— namely, that there should be combined secular education supported from the rates and opportunities for separate religious instruction in every school allowed to the different religious denominations as a matter of voluntary action on their part. Much had been said as to the compromise arrived at in 1870 which was embodied in the Cowper-Temple Clause in the Education Act; but, in his opinion, too much weight had been attached to that compromise. With the advance of time the bitterness of the controversy on religious education, which made compromise necessary, had become abated; more of the spirit of tolerance prevailed now, and he submitted that the compromise of 23 years ago was not in any degree to be held binding now. And there was this further advantage, in reviewing the question at the present time, that experience had shown, as he contended, that the provision made for religious

  1703
  education in 1870 had not brought out satisfactory results. The total absence of all religious education in schools was a great injury to the country. What was the system now pursued? All that was done was that for a short time in each school there was a portion of Scripture read. That was not anything like a provision for religious education. Some noble Lords maintained that this was well supplemented by home training. Could anyone seriously say, with any knowledge of the homes of this country, especially of the working classes, where the parents had but little time for such duties, that there was anything like adequate home religious education given to children? It was idle to represent that there could be time for such instruction in the vast majority of working-class homes. He did not deny that without such instruction children might be brought up to speak truthfully, and to act honourably in accordance with the principles of morality; but in the view of those who supported the Bill it would add greatly to the strength of the moral lessons inculcated if they were supported by reference to the sanctions and the motives supplied by the teaching of Christian doctrines. It could not be suggested that the objection which was made to the scheme of 1870 applied to this scheme at all, because here, for the first time, the proposal was that while secular teaching alone should be thrown upon the rates, religious education should be supplied by the different religious bodies themselves. With regard to the objection that such a system was impracticable, he might mention that shortly before 1847 there was a school opened in Edinburgh by a well-known clergyman of the Free Church; but he made it a condition of admission that the children who came to the school should receive religious teaching according to the Presbyterian doctrines. The result was that a great many Roman Catholic children were left in the streets. That was considered by many as a very great injustice, and it was resolved that another school should be established, which should be conducted on quite different principles. Accordingly the United Industrial School was founded in 1847, and ever since, for nearly half-a-century, it had been successfully conducted. By
  1704
  the constitution of that school the subscribers generally were to pay for the secular education of the children; but the religious education which might be given was to be kept distinct, and was to be paid for by those who were interested in the particular denomination whose doctrines were to be taught. The school had subscribers among those who were regarded as extreme Liberals in politics. The late Mr. Adam Black, who was one of the staunchest Liberals in Scotland, was one of the main supporters of the school, and the noble Lord (the Earl of Rosebery), who conducted the foreign affairs of this country, had been, and was still, its President, and took the deepest interest in its welfare. Mr. Donald Crawford, the Member for North-East Lanarkshire, and Mr. Wallace, the Member for East Edinburgh, were also supporters of the school. The various Reports showed again and again, from the day on which the school was founded until the present time, that its Chairman and Directors had expressed the strongest conviction that in the principle of securing for the children common secular and separate religious education, if fairly carried out, would be found the ultimate solution of the educational difficulty. This was no small or recent experiment: the matter had gone beyond the region of experiment. There were 54 schools in Birmingham also, in almost every one of which religious instruction had been carried on for a period of 20 years precisely in the way which was proposed by the Bill, and with general satisfaction. With regard to the objections that had been urged against the Bill, not one of the noble Lords who had spoken against it had denied, so far as he understood, that the measure would be a desirable one if it could be practically carried out. It had been suggested that it would be likely to stir up religious animosity, and thus hinder the work of education; but he believed the tendency of the measure would be in quite the other direction. As long as this whole question was left undetermined there would be contention and agitation about it. But if, by a measure like that before their Lordships, the different denominations obtained the absolute right to have religious teaching in the schools on their own suggestion and at their own expense, an end would be put to the present unsettled and unsatisfactory state of things.

  1705
  He saw nothing whatever in the measure calculated to foment or raise religious animosity. Another objection urged against, the Bill was that, if passed, it would lead to some question or difficulty with denominational schools. He ventured to think that no such question would arise; but, even were it probable, this objection was not a good reason for rejecting a measure good in itself, and any such point could be dealt with when it arose. He appealed to noble Lords who had opposed the Bill to re-consider the matter. He believed it was possible to effectively carry out the scheme proposed, and he thought he had shown this by the illustrations he had given. If this measure was passed they would strengthen the hands of the Education Department in resisting demands for founding denominational schools in future. It might now be said in support of such demands that children could not get the religious teaching they required within the particular district or parish. That plea would be at once taken away by the adoption of this Bill. Public opinion had been maturing for a long time in the direction of the measure. Reference was made on the last occasion when the Bill was before their Lordships to a passage written by Dr. Martineau, in which he stated that he was willing to accept a Bill of this kind, and would hail it; and allusion had also been made to Mr. Huxley's views. It might be interesting to their Lordships to know that his esteemed friend Mr. Huxley, who was opposed to the proposal then before the London School Board, thoroughly approved the scheme of the Bill. It was substantially a Liberal measure, and was supported, as he had shown, by many eminent Liberals. The Bill would confer on Roman Catholics benefits to which they were justly entitled. In due course he presumed the Bill would go to the other House; and it was hardly to be supposed that the Roman Catholic Members, especially the Representatives from Ireland, would refuse on any grounds to support a measure which would give their Church equal privileges with the Church of England and other Churches in the United Kingdom. He earnestly hoped that, for the various reasons he had given, the Bill would be passed. He felt he ought not, in justice to himself, having so long
  1706
  held the views he had now stated, to remain silent in the discussion of so important a subject.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, that, so far from this being a new system or an experiment, it had been carried on, at all events as far as Ireland was concerned, and to a great degree successfully, for more than 50 years. Lord Stanley then established there a National system of education which was founded on the principle of separate religious and united secular teaching, and there seemed no reason why a measure of the kind should not be applied to England. In Ireland it had certainly had the most excellent effect, though, no doubt, some of the most intolerant had refused to accept it. It was extraordinary, with the noble Earl's great knowledge of this question, that he should not have been aware how long this system had existed in Ireland. No doubt the Roman Catholic clergy would like to have no religious teaching but their own; the system had, however, down to this time, been more or loss carried out by the School Boards in Ireland; and he hoped their Lordships would adopt it for this country.
  Motion agreed to: House in Committee accordingly.
  Clauses 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 5.
  *LORD LINGENwished to make a few remarks on this and the previous clause. He said the scope of the Bill appeared to have been misapprehended by some of the noble Lords who had spoken in support of it. It was merely with reference to Board Schools, and no others, to provide for religious instruction being given in them. The distinction should be borne in mind between the object of providing for denominational religious instruction under certain conditions and the means prescribed for effecting that object. Those means he could not but regard as unfortunate, and he believed that the Bill would be received in another place as a challenge. Whatever might be the merits or demerits of the Cowper-Temple Clause, it had produced, on the whole for 23 years religious peace, though he did not desire to stand up as a very ardent advocate of it. In 1870 it was

  1707
  considered that the field was already mainly occupied by denominational schools; and, in the first instance, the Board schools were represented to Parliament as a supplement to the general system. Accordingly, the Cowper-Temple Clause was adopted as a compromise rather than that the schools should provide for united secular education and separate religious instruction. The Report of Lord Cross's Commission on the provision for religious instruction in Boards Schools was, on the whole, favourable. This Bill did not deal, as it might be possible to deal, with the difficulties attending denominational education, which should, as far as possible, he thought, be met by separate schools. He deprecated the interference with the management of Board schools, which would be sanctioned by the clause, and suggested that provision for the religious teaching which the right rev. Prelate in charge of the measure desired to promote should be made in some different way. For instance, the position of denominational schools, as compared with that of Board schools, might be improved, and in that way the extension of religious teaching might be promoted.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): My Lords, I cannot help saying that I do not recognise, in the instances which have been cited, anything like precedents for the provisions of this Bill. A case has been referred to in which two Committees were appointed, one Protestant and the other Roman Catholic, to see that the children received religious teaching according to which religion they belonged; but, as I gather, there was no provision for separate Presbyterian teaching, and children of that denomination received teaching of a general Protestant character. In the first place, I would point out that this is not a Bill dealing with all schools. It is, if I may say so without offence, an extremely partisan Bill. It insists upon provision being made for religious teaching at the instance of parents of a few children attending at the Board schools, but it makes no such provision as regards the vast number of denominational schools, which in many parts of the country are the only schools to which it is possible for parents to send their children. I venture to say the Bill is a partisan
  1708
  measure, because it deals with Board schools only and does not apply to voluntary denominational schools, which are partly supported out of rates, and in many of which there might be a demand made for religious instruction of a different kind than is supplied. The right rev. Prelate is apparently only alive to injustice when it affects those who belong to the Church to which he belongs himself; he sees no injustice in the fact that in localities where there are no Board schools children whose parents belong to one denomination have often to attend schools where the religious instruction of a different denomination is given. I should not be surprised if the ultimate result of the proposal in the clause were to diminish the amount of religious teaching imparted in Board schools, and make the education secular only. A large number of schools in this country teach, I believe simply and briefly, the truths which are held in common by Churchmen and Nonconformists alike. That instruction is given to all the children. Would it be a gain to religious teaching for many of them that you substitute special religious teaching for those who are not of that denomination, but who, if the parents care enough about it, can receive that teaching at home or on Sundays? While this system might secure to a limited number of children a little more Church-teaching, it would, I think, result in leaving a vast number of children who most need it without religious teaching at all. The children who most need some kind of religious instruction in the schools are those whose parents, as a general rule, care nothing about the character of such instruction. In a vast number of the Board Schools there is, as I have said, religious teaching given, which, though it may not be the religious teaching of any particular denomination, is religious teaching to which a vast majority of laymen, whether Churchmen or Nonconformists, could take no exception. That teaching simply consists of the truths which are held in common by Churchmen and the great mass of Nonconformists alike. The instruction is given to all the children alike, and I ask whether it would be a gain if you were to substitute teaching of the special tenets of any sect. My belief is, as I have said, that in the case

  1709
  of children whose parents care enough about the matter special religious teaching is secured to them by giving it on Sundays rather than on week days. This Bill, therefore, if carried into law would, I believe, strike a vital blow at the religious teaching in schools for the children who most need such instruction.
  *THE BISHOP OF SALISBURYexpressed surprise that the Bill had been spoken of by the noble and learned Lord as a partisan measure. If it had been drawn specially in the interests of the Church of England, he would have put in "twenty children" instead of "five children" us the number for whom separate provision might be made. But he considered that his position as Bishop required him to be true to the first principles of religion rather than to the special tenets of the Church with which he was connected—that was to say, in this case to freedom of conscience. The noble and learned Lord, in speaking of voluntary schools, said they were supported out of the public rates. That was not the case.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Then I withdraw "rates" and substitute "grants." I believe that 74 per cent. of the cost is defrayed by grants.
  THE BISHOP OF SALISBURYsaid, that those schools had been built at enormous cost, and were kept up at great expense—a burden which fell entirely on the shoulders of the promoters of the voluntary schools, who did not possess the privilege of borrowing capital like the Board schools, when improvements were suddenly demanded.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXthought that the noble and learned Lord could hardly have made himself acquainted with what had recently taken place in the London School Board when he spoke of this measure being extremely injurious to the cause of religious education in Board schools throughout the country. The religious teaching which was given under the London School Board was founded on the compromise arranged by the late Mr. W. H. Smith and Mr. Samuel Morley on the basis of the Cowper-Temple Clause, which was intended to secure the teaching of the Christian religion in Board schools. What was the fact at present? In the case of a very large number of children compelled to go to the London Board schools, it was found that the elementary truths of the Christian religion were neglected in
  1710
  a manner which would surprise the noble and learned Lord. But when, in view of this state of things, certain gentlemen, who believed that the teaching of religion in the schools of the country was a matter of vital importance, asked that the provisions of the Cowper-Temple Clause should be honestly carried out, that the doctrines of the Atonement and the Divinity of our Lord should be taught in the Board schools, they were met by an outcry that it would inflict an injustice on a large number of ratepayers—Jews, Unitarians, and persons of other denominations. It had been conclusively proved, however, that the compromise established as between the members of the Church and the Nonconformists had now drifted into a supposed compromise between Christians and non-Christians. The School Boards throughout the country were professing to give instruction in the Christian religion, but they were doing nothing of the kind. Take the case of Wales, for example; the great majority of the schools there gave no religions teaching whatever, or very little, and we ought not now to refuse to provide that necessary religious teaching should be given under our great national system of education.
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNEintimated his intention to vote for Clause 5, if it was opposed, though he very much regretted that any occasion had arisen for the revival of this controversy. The existence of dangers had been referred to, but the dangers wore not all on one side. Unless something was done to satisfy the religious feelings of the community in the matter of education their Lordships might depend upon it that their whole system of public education, sooner or later, would be endangered. It seemed to him that, as far as it went, the Bill would give relief from this danger. It would relieve the Board schools from what otherwise might be great difficulties in their way. The principle of the Bill seemed to him to be absolutely just. He regretted that this question had arisen; but as it had been raised, he should vote for the Bill, especially as their Lordships had already affirmed the principle of the Bill, LORD SHAND moved, in page 2, line 13, to leave out from ("teach") to the end of the sub-section. Their Lordships would understand that the Amendments he proposed were of a friendly character,

  1711
  with the view to improve the Bill and not to injure it in any way. The result of the clause as it stood would be to invite inquiry into the competency of the teacher to be a religious instructor, and he was afraid that implied examining him as to his religious belief. That would be objectionable, and would injure the Bill when it got to the other House of Parliament.
  Amendment moved, in page 2, line 13, to leave out from ("teach") to the end of the sub-section.—(The Lord Shand.)
  THE BISHOP OF SALISBURYaccepted the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SHAND LORD SHAND moved, in line 18, after ("incompetence"), to insert
  ("(d.) No part of the expense rendered necessary by any arrangement for giving separate religious instruction shall be paid from the funds of the School Board, but such expense shall be provided for to the satisfaction of the Board by the persons making application to have such arrangement made.")
  As provision was made in the Bill that the religious instruction might he given either within or outside the school-house, it might be necessary to pay for separate rooms, and such expense must not fall on the rates; and it seemed only right and proper, also, that where the schoolrooms were used for that purpose, it should be in the power of the School Board to make a charge.
  THE BISHOP OF SALISBURYasked whether it was really necessary to discuss this point, as it seemed a small matter?
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid that, if rooms had to be hired, it would be against principle for the expense to be thrown on the School Board, but the Amendment would not apply where the schoolroom was used, unless some extra expense was incurred.
  LORD SHANDagreed that the noble and learned Lord had expressed the meaning of the clause, and that the question of payment would only arise if any extra cost was incurred. No injustice must be done to the ratepayers. With regard to the difficulty which had been suggested of getting the children to attend the religious instruction, his information from Birmingham was that all the children in the schools there did attend it. They certainly did
  1712
  not absent themselves by their parents' desire.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I venture to suggest that we are not discussing here the position of the Birmingham schools or School Board. The Birmingham School Board will be in precisely the same position after this Bill has passed, if it does pass, as it is in now.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE BISHOP OF SALISBURY THE BISHOP OF SALISBURY moved the following words as a new subsection (e):—
  ("No teacher already employed in the school by the Board shall give religious instruction under this section without the consent of the Board or the managers.")
  It had been thought that perhaps as a religious teacher there might be nominated, by parents, the master of a school. That appeared to be a serious objection, and it was thought better, therefore, to propose this sub-section to avoid any strain being put on the relations between the managers and the staff. It would serve as an interpretation upon the provision in Section A that the religious teacher might be a teacher in the school provided the Board approved.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It seems to me by implication to say that you may employ one of the teachers in the Board school for this purpose provided he is not already appointed at the time of the passing of this Act as manager.
  THE BISHOP OF SALISBURYthought it conveyed exactly the opposite.
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, this was intended to meet the objection that there would otherwise be an unlimited power of appointing persons who were teachers in the school; which ought to be subject to the consent of the Board or managers. It seemed to him that this was a distinct improvement.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7.
  LORD SHAND LORD SHAND moved, in page 2, line 36, after ("board") to insert—
  ("On payment of a charge sufficient to meet the expense of printing such forms, where the same shall be printed.")
  This was a trifling matter, no doubt, but it was just one of those trifles which sometimes aroused people.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Verbal Amendments.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee: and to he printed as amended. (No. 122.)

IRELAND (COUNTY LIMERICK).

  QUESTION OBSERVATION'S.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYcalled attention to the condition of County Limerick; and asked Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take to deal with the unsatisfactory state of that county? He said their Lordships would remember throe months ago he brought under the notice of the House the serious condition of the County of Clare, and called upon Her Majesty's Government to say what steps they proposed to take with reference to the appalling condition of that county. On that occasion Her Majesty's Government did not attempt to soar into the higher regions of anything approaching statesmanship; but they contented themselves with responding to his arguments by the crude and schoolboy retort, the well-known tu quoque. They said the county was not in a more unsatisfactory condition than it had been under the former Government. On this occasion, with reference to the County Limerick, such a to quoque was absolutely impossible. He defied anyone to say that Limerick was in an unsatisfactory condition when Mr. Morley undertook the government of the country. On that point he would make a quotation from a Charge delivered by Mr. Justice O'Brien at Limerick Assizes on the 11th of July, 1892, a short time before Mr. Gladstone came into power. The learned Judge said—
  "Almost all forms of exception to the ordinary state of society in the County Limerick in reference to the violation of the law have. I may say, entirely disappeared. Life is more secure, not only against violence, but against the menace or the apprehension of violence; property is more secure from all forms of invasion or interference; and all forms of social relations are relieved from the burden of that intolerable restraint upon personal liberty with which, unhappily, we have been too long familiar in this country."
  It was, therefore, no exaggeration to say that when Mr. Morley undertook the government of Ireland the county was in a satisfactory condition; now it was
  1714
  not in a satisfactory condition, but it was in a state of absolute lawlessness. He read with some surprise a statement made by Mr. Morley in the House of Commons a few days ago. The right hon. Gentleman said—
  "Excepting in two bad areas I should regard the state of the Counties of Clare, Kerry, and Limerick as not any more serious, but as less serious at the present moment than it was when the present Government acceded to Office."
  With that statement he joined issue; he gave it the flattest contradiction; and he hoped he should, from Mr. Morley's own mouth, make out his case that Limerick was in a most unsatisfactory condition compared with what it was when the present Government came into power. It ought ever to be remembered that Mr. Morley possessed the aid and support of very powerful auxiliaries in his endeavour to maintain law and order in Ireland. He had at his back the priests and both sections of the Nationalist Party, and their Lordships could at once discern where the fault lay when there existed the present state of lawlessness. The machinery was there, but it was not used. The Government were responsible, because, in defiance of warnings and in defiance of the fact that there had been the most palpable miscarriage of justice, they utterly refused to apply the remedy. In proof of his statement that Limerick was at present in an unsatisfactory and lawless condition he quoted from the Charge of Mr. Justice Gibson delivered in March last. Mr. Justice Gibson stated that—
  "Although there was no form of the worst crime, such as murder, or attempt, to murder, nevertheless there is in the Police Returns evidence of crime, and of a very formidable state of affairs. There has been an increase of specially reported crime of a very substantial character. The number this year was 81, as against 54 last year. His Lordship was by no means an alarmist, and he trusted that the apprehensions he might be induced to feel from reading these colourless Reports might be perhaps shown not to be warranted by the result in the future."
  He would deal with the future later. At the time he delivered that Charge the learned Judge was referring to the following crimes committed in the county:—Twenty cases of arson, ten of moonlighting, two of firing at the person, ten of malicious injuries to property, nine of killing, cutting, and maiming cattle, and two cases of intimidation. Since that

  1715
  Charge there had been one murder, seven cases of arson, one of attempted arson, seven cases of moonlighting, including the case of Quirke, whom they beat about the head; his son, whom they shot in the legs; and Brosnan, whom they beat about the head. He found that Mr. Morley stated that—
  "The number of moonlighting outrages committed in Limerick between August 22, 1892— that was when Mr. Gladstone assumed the reins of Government—and April 30th, 1893, was 17, of which nine were agrarian and eight non-agrarian. In the corresponding months of 1891–2 there was but one case of moonlighting in the county."
  He wished to know—and here he was addressing himself specially to the noble Earl opposite (Earl Spencer), who on two occasions had represented Her Majesty in Ireland—how many of the men who were concerned in the 17 cases of moonlighting had been laid by the heels; and what was the course the Government proposed to take with them? Also, what was meant by "agrarian" and what by "non-agrarian" moonlighting? He had no doubt non-agrarian moonlighting meant raiding for arms or attacking houses; but, having looked with considerable care through the Returns in regard to agrarian outrages when he (Earl Spencer) was responsible as Viceroy for the government of Ireland, he found that raiding for arms and attacks on houses were included in agrarian outrages. But whether they were called agrarian or non-agrarian, these attacks on houses showed a condition of lawlessness very different to the condition which prevailed when Mr. Morley undertook the government of the country. To say that this lawlessness was confined to one small area was no excuse whatever; because, in that case, if the proper machinery were used, the perpetrators ought to be all the more easily detected and arrested. He knew well that in 1887 the condition of Limerick was very nearly as bad as that with which the Government now had to deal. And here he would again quote a Judge of Assize. Mr. Justice Johnson, on March 4, 1887, said—
  "It is quite idle for us to shut our eyes and say there is peace where there is no peace while these things are going on throughout the country. In these nine cases no single person has been made amenable. … This state of things is disorder of the worst possible character. I hope it is not sympathy. I believe it is vastly
  1716
  more terror than sympathy, for people whose peaceful homes are invaded in the darkness of the night are probably greatly apprehensive that the next visit may not leave them as it left them before. It is my duty to remark this, not to point out any remedy. I can only say that the lawless state of the county shows no improvement."
  That was about the time when that politician, Sir G. Trevelyan, who, however able he might be, had not shown he possessed the gift either of consistency or perspicuity, enunciated the idea that the game of law and order was up in Ireland. All he could say was—Thank God they had Mr. Arthur Balfour and not Sir G. Trevelyan in power! Mr. Balfour lost no time in introducing a Crimes Act, with the result which he had already described. It was perfectly possible, by judging the statistics of crime alone, to know whether a Crimes Act was in force or not, for the simple reason that when it was not crime increased almost with the regularity of a barometer. In 1880 there were 123 cases of agrarian crime in the County of Limerick; in 1881 there were 190. That was the year of Mr. Gladstone's famous Suspects' Act. In the next year—1882—when Mr. Gladstone brought in his famous Crimes Act, they fell to 126. In 1883 there were 54 cases; 1884, 49; in 1885 they rose to 61, for the simple reason that the Crimes Act lapsed; in 1886 they rose to 67. In 1887 Mr. Balfour introduced his Crimes Act, with the result, although it was the latter part of the year, that crimes dropped to 57 cases; in 1888, to 34; in 1889, to 25; in 1890, to 26; in 1891, to 17; while in 1892 they rose to 26. In the first half of that year, when Lord Salisbury's Government was responsible, the number was less than in the latter half. The reason of that was that convictions were obtained in the Crimes Courts in the county. He did not know why the noble Earl (Earl Spencer), who administered the law with so much courage and impartiality, did not now insist on the law being administered in the same spirit which he formerly displayed. In 1887 he found there were 18 convictions; in 1888, 94; in 1889 there were 33; in 1890 they were 7; while in the last two years of the Marquess of Salisbury's administration of English and Irish affairs not a single Crimes Court was held, for there was no necessity for them, and there was, consequently, not a

  1717
  single conviction. When a Crimes Act was in force in Ireland and administered with firmness and impartiality crime had invariably decreased. Serious crime between 1887 and 1892 was dealt with in the same firm and fearless manner by the Irish Executive taking advantage of the power to change the venue. In Limerick, according to Mr. Morley himself, the total number of cases in which orders for change of venue and special juries were made in that period was 41. These cases, which all proceeded to trial, affected 65 accused persons, of whom 28 were convicted. The noble Lord who represented the Irish Office in that House said that by change of venue you might get special juries, but how would you get better witnesses? There was not a man who had any experience of Ireland who did not know that the evidence given out of the county in which crime was committed was very different from the evidence which would be given in the county, because out of the county the witness was free from surveillance, espionage, and intimidation. The noble Earl opposite (Earl Spencer) knew that most of the crime in Ireland had been stopped because juries in other counties, to which the venue had been changed, were found willing to convict. He would quote various cases in which convictions had thus been obtained. From Clare, in 1890, cases were tried at Sligo, with the result that fair sentences were passed. Timothy Lalor got penal servitude for life for firing at the person; Denis Cooney, James Cooney, Martin Moloney, John Hurst, and Cornelius Howard, convicted of firing at James Donnelan, got 20 years' penal servitude; John Neylan and Thomas Tudhy got two years for moonlighting; and so on. Then with regard to Kerry cases. In his (Lord Londonderry's) Viceroyalty, Kirby and Conmane were found guilty at Wicklow for the murder of Quirke, May 7, 1888; Hayes and Moriarty wore convicted at Wicklow of the murder of James Fitzmaurice March 29, 1888; Leanlan, found guilty at Maryborough of the murder of Robinson, the schoolmaster, July 18, 1888; while in Earl Spencer's Viceroyalty Patrick Walsh, tried at Dublin before Mr. Justice Lawson, August 21, 1882, for the murder of Martin Lyden, of Lotterfrack, was sentenced to
  1718
  be hanged August 22; his brother, Michael Walsh, was sentenced in Dublin to be hanged for the murder of Constable Kavanagh at Lotterfrack September 29, 1882; and the Lough mask murderers were found guilty of the murder of the Huddys December 13, 1882. He would be glad to know why Mr. Gladstone had gone back from his own words? Mr. Gladstone said on April 8, 1886—
  "In the first place, with certain exceptions, for the case of winter juries, it is impossible to depend upon the finding of a jury in a case of agrarian crime according to the facts as they are viewed by the Government, by the Judges, and by the public, I think, at large."
  He should be glad to know why, therefore, Mr. Gladstone did not insist upon Mr. Morley reviving change of venue? Since the O'Hagan Jury Act there had never been a conviction in any important agrarian case before a common jury, and, consequently, the repeal of the jury and venue sections of the Crimes Act was a declaration of immunity for that class of crime. He had proved beyond doubt that the condition of the County Limerick was unsatisfactory and lawless at present, and he now asked the Government to give the House some definite idea of what they were going to do. To restore law and order nothing but a revival of the clauses enabling the Government to change the venue of trials could be of any avail. He asked, were they going to allow the present state of things to continue? Mr. Morley sail—
  "The only steps I propose to take are to continue those I have already taken—namely, to rely on the vigilance of the police, which has been attended by a decline of agrarian crime in two out of three of the counties mentioned."
  A more miserable answer was never given by a responsible Minister. He had been told in March that police were going to be drafted into the County Clare. But what was the use of the police in Clare? Since March 2 there had been in Clare six cases of moonlighting, four of firing at the person (including the case of Mr. Blood, which was fresh in their Lordships' recollection), one of intimidation, one of attack on the person, one of maiming cattle, and four of incendiary fires. He would read a telegram dated Ennis, just received, which had been put into his hands—
  "About noon to-day Weldon Moloney, solicitor, Dublin, Agent to Moloney trustees in this county, was fired at and wounded near Tullas, close to where Perry was shot."

  1719
  Were the Government going to take no steps to put an end to such a state of things? Mr. Morley said the other day—
  "He thought that denouncing in this case pointed an individual out to public disapproval. if it led to overt acts, or if the denunciation was so directed to the individual in question as to intimidate him in the exercise of his legal rights then the Government would interfere."
  Well, he would tell them at once of a case in which they ought to interfere. At a meeting held at Coore, West Clare, a few days ago, the following resolution was passed:—
  "That we again call on all good and earnest Nationalists to assist us in putting down land-grabbing."
  And the newspaper from which the resolution was quoted added—
  "Pat Donnellan, of Dunogan, and Pat Mungovan, of Clounlaheen, were censured —the former for intercourse and intimacy with the grabber Sexton, and the latter for his connection with the aiders and abbettors of the grabber. Other matters of an important nature were discussed, the consideration of which was adjourned to next meeting, when it is expected the parties concerned will be present.—Michael McMahon, Hon. Sec."
  That was published in the newspaper United Ireland, 20th May, 1893. As he came into the House a paper was put into his hand, in which it was stated that if a certain grabber persisted he would be denounced by name, and a circular would be sent out calling upon all patriotic Irishmen to have no dealings with him. Another meeting was also held at which a so-called land-grabber was denounced, and that meeting was presided over by Mr. J. Chines, who had been recently appointed a J.P. for Limerick by Mr. Morley. He wished Mr. Morley joy of his new man. What he wanted to know was this: Was Mr. Morley going to redeem his pledge or not? Was he going to prosecute these people or not? He had a right to demand an answer to that question. There was no use in telling him that, in order to restore peace and order in Limerick, the Government were going to draft in a certain number of policemen. The conduct of Her Majesty's Government would be far more straightforward if they got up and said that they intended to take no steps; that they intended to truckle to the Leaders of the Nationalist Party, in the House of Commons, and that they meant to hand over the loyal inhabitants of
  1720
  Clare, Kerry, and Limerick to the tender mercies of the moonlighters and boycotters, and not go through the farce of pretending to do something when they were doing nothing that could be of any use for protecting either their lives or their property. He addressed himself to the noble Earl opposite (Earl Spencer) more especially, because his Lordship was constantly referred to and quoted in the House as a great authority on Irish matters, and because he knew that nothing would be done in Ireland without the noble Earl's sanction. Still more, he knew that without the noble Earl's approbation the Home Rule Bill could never have been introduced. He called upon the noble Earl to reply, either then or on the following day, to the charges and statements he had made. If Her Majesty's Government were content to remain silent, torpid, apathetic, and indifferent to the misery and crime that prevailed in Limerick; if they refused to avail themselves of the powers they had in their hands and could exercise if they had only the courage to do so for dealing with such a state of things as he had shown to exist, then on them must be the responsibility of every outrage and crime that might yet be perpetrated —on their shoulders must rest the responsibility of the blood of every unfortunate victim who might be assassinated. If they refused, they would undertake a responsibility which no honest man would undertake. He thanked God with all his heart that he could look back to the time when he was in office in Ireland and say—as all his colleagues could say—that no weight of responsibility of so horrible, disastrous, and bloodthirsty a character could ever be laid at their doors.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Are we to expect no reply?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: We are waiting to know whether the Debate is to be adjourned.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Earl wants to know whether the Debate is to be adjourned. The speech of my noble Friend behind me no doubt requires a great deal of digestion, and time must, I suppose, be taken for that purpose. Besides, I understand that a discussion on the subject is going on in the House of Commons, and I dare say

  1721
  noble Lords opposite would find it convenient to ascertain before they reply what Mr. Morley has said, so us to avoid any unpleasant discrepancies. Under those circumstances, if noble Lords opposite will not do so, I am prepared to take upon myself the responsibility of moving the Adjournment of the Debate. That would be a convenient arrangement, for I understand there are several Irish Peers who wish to address the House on the question, and I am quite sure that if the reply of the noble Earl opposite is to be measured by the mass of Papers in his hands, it must occupy a considerable time. I move the Adjournment of the Debate, and I suppose that it may have precedence over the Business for tomorrow.
  Moved, "That the Debate be now adjourned, and that it have precedence over the Business for to-morrow."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My noble Friend is perfectly ready to give the answer now, and we are certainly not open to the remarks of the noble Marquess. Probably, as other Peers wish to address the House, my noble Friend would like to hear more upon the subject. As to the figments of the noble Marquess, they may he very convenient jokes at the moment, but we know that they have no foundation in fact.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I entirely sympathise with the noble Earl, and I think it would be inconvenient that it should become a precedent for one speech to be made and the Debate then adjourned interfering with the business of the next evening. Quite admitting that the practice should not be made a precedent, I think that course would on the present occasion be very convenient.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I do not think the business for to-morrow will throw any obstacle in the way, and I have no objection to the Adjournment of the Debate.
  Motion agreed to.
  Debate further adjourned till To-morrow.

  HIGH SHERIFFS.
  The evidence taken before the Select Committee from time to time to be printed
  1722
  for the use of the Members of this House; but no copies thereof to be delivered, except to Members of the Committee, until further order. (No. 120.)

  MARKING OF FOREIGN MEAT, &c.
  The evidence taken before the Select Committee from time to time to be printed for the use of the Members of this House: but no copies thereof to be delivered, except to Members of the Committee, until further order. (No. 121.)
  MAGISTRATES (COUNTY OF LANCASTER).
  Memorandum respecting: Laid before the House (pursuant to order of the 16th day of May last), and to be printed. (No. 119.)
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 5) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 89.)
  Read 2a, according to Order,
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 6) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 90.)
  Read 2a, according to Order.
  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (NEWENT, &C.) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 84.)
  Read 2a, according to Order.
  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BROMYARD, &c.) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 85.)
  Read 2a, according to Order.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (CHISWICK, &c.) BILL [H.L.]—(No.53.)
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
  METROPOLITAN COMMONS PROVISIONAL ORDER (BANSTEAD) BILL. —(No. 51.)
  House in Committee (according to Order): The Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made: A further Amendment made: The Report of the said Amendments to be received Tomorrow.
  MADRAS AND BOMBAY ARMIES BILL [H.L.]—(No. 66.)
  Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a Tomorrow.

  COUNTY SURVEYORS (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 86.)
  House in Committee (according to Order): Amendments made: Bill recommitted to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended. (No. 123.)
  House adjourned at twenty minutes past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.