opposed the motion. The Bill was another encroachment on the few remaining rights and privileges of the poor. He thought it was that of which no well-wisher of the poor could approve. Those who had property in the neighbourhood of these enclosures obtained compensation, but the poor, who had only privileges, procured little, often nothing. It was a very general opinion, and he feared it was too well founded, that these privileges of the poor were, and long had been, too little considered. With respect to the present Bill, he was authorised to say, that the poor and labouring classes in the neighbourhood of the proposed enclosure were unanimously against it; and that it was supported only by a few of the aristocracy of the neighbourhood. He should therefore move as an amendment, that the Bill be read a third time that day six months.

seconded the amendment. He believed that the poor had been most unmercifully used by such Bills as the present. Some small sums had been given for their privileges on commons, &c; and then those invaluable rights were extinguished for ever. After all that had passed, the House ought to look with extreme jealousy on all such measures, especially as the poor had now so few of these privileges remaining, and the more particularly after the passing of the Poor Laws Amendment Act, which threw the poor on their own resources more strictly than ever.

entirely concurred in the propriety of this amendment, and in the correctness of the sentiments of the hon. Member for Kent. If he thought it could be requisite, he could read to the House a most touching appeal against this Bill, signed by 130 individuals, whose privileges of common would be sacrificed by this measure, and their means of existence materially diminished. He thought the House ought most anxiously to desire, not to deprive the poor of the slender privileges and means that still remained to them, especially after the passing of the Poor Laws Amendment Act.

said, that the Bill would deprive the poor of the right of feeding their cattle and sheep. It was a downright robbery.

defended the Bill, and said that the explanations made in the Committee had satisfied those who were originally opposed to the measure.

said, that a few rich persons, who originally opposed the Bill, were, it is true, satisfied, and then the attorney employed against the measure threw his poorer clients overboard.

protested against the decision to which the House had come. There was no objection urged against the Bill which did not apply to all Enclosure Bills. It was not true that the poor were deprived of their rights by the Bill; on the contrary, allotments of land were set apart for them, which would be enclosed for them gratuitously. He believed that few of the Members who had taken part in the division, were acquainted with the merits of the question; and, in order to afford them an opportunity of reading the evidence which was given in the Committee upon the Bill, he would move, as an amendment, "that the Bill be read a third time that day fortnight."

hoped the House would not depart from its usual practice, in a case where the rights of the poor were concerned. The Bill was lost to all intents and purposes.

said, that the amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman appeared to him to be quite unprecedented. He hoped that those who before voted in favour of the Bill would now vote against it, in order to maintain the regularity of the proceedings of the House.

supported the amendment, and contended that allotments of land under enclosures were much more beneficial to the poor than a common right of pasture. Not one inhabitant in ten of a parish made use of a common for purposes of pasturage; but when allotments were made, every inhabitant participated in the benefit.

said, that if the amendment should be agreed to, he would then propose, as an amendment, that the Bill should be read a third time that day nine months; and if that should be defeated, other hon. Members would move amendments which would have for their object the getting rid of the Bill.

said, that he had carefully attended to the proceedings in the Committee on the Bill, and he saw no reason whatever for objecting to the measure. Indeed, the only opposition to the measure proceeded from two cattle-jobbers, who were in the habit of turning 200 or 300 cattle on the common at a time, to the injury of the poor inhabitants. Allotments were more valuable to the poor man than common rights.

seconded the motion. Every class of the community had expressed their wish that the House would afford them protection on the Lord's Day, and enable them to rest from their fatiguing labours. But this was the lowest ground on which the principle of the Bill could be defended. In legislating for the West-India slaves they preserved for their use part of Saturday and the whole of Sunday. There were other considerations necessary to be acted on than those involved in the authority of the fourth commandment. Other commandments had additional influence imparted to them by the force of human laws. Legislators did not suffer the murderer to escape unpunished. His hon. Friend had evinced his zeal, his sincerity, and great perseverance in his efforts for the protection of the trading classes, and the public might feel assured that he would bring the subject again and again before the House till he obtained protection for the people on the Lord's Day.

said, that he had presented some petitions praying for the better. observance of the Sabbath, and was anxious to support some legislative measure on the subject. He found it impossible, however, to give his vote in favour of the Bill before the House, because it was quite impossible to modify it so as to make it a tolerable measure. From most of the fishing ports the fishing boats sailed on Sunday afternoon, the fishermen coming in on the Saturday, to enable them to perform their religious duties. The hon. Baronet's Bill would put a stop to the whole of the fisheries of this country.

would oppose the Bill on a broader ground than any that had been stated yet. He would assert roundly, that there was no basis in the Christian Scriptures for the attempt to enforce the Judaical observance of the Sabbath; and, if Members on the other side thought differently, he challenged them to produce their proofs. If the Catholic Members in that House were to bring in a Bill, the preamble of which declared, that the sacrifice of the mass was a principal part of the true service of God, it would be considered as an indecent and unjustifiable attempt to force their own religious opinions on those who denied their authenticity. It was equally indecent and unjustifiable for Members on the other side to attempt to force their own opinions upon those who totally denied the existence of any authority for them in the Scripture, from which they were professed to be deduced.

, amidst general cries of "Question," read a letter, which he had received from the Secretary of the Mechanics' Institution at Cockermouth, thanking him for the opposition he offered to the Sunday Bills. He thought that letter was a proof that the statement of the hon. Baronet, that the poorer classes were all in favour of the Bill before the House was not correct.

would support the second reading of the Bill, although he could not approve of all its details. He felt, with the many petitions that had addressed the House on the subject, in petitions presented by himself and other Members, that some enactment to enforce the better observance of the Lord's day was imperatively required, and he thought the proper mode of dealing with the measure then before them was to go into Committee upon it, and there to retain what was good, and to strike out what was objectionable in its provisions. He concurred in the statements of the preamble, that it was the bounden duty of Parliament to protect every class of society against being required to sacrifice their comfort and religious privileges on the Sabbath day, and that the laws now in existence were found practically insufficient for that purpose. He should like to see the various and nearly obsolete statutes bearing on the question repealed, and one simple and efficacious enactment substituted for them. Such an act, he thought, ought to provide against hiring, trading, drunkenness, gaming, sporting, and everything which was inconsistent with public decorum—in all these respects, then, he approved of the present Bill—but he did not conceive it possible in a great commercial country, such as this, to retain the clauses against vessels sailing, or matters being transmitted by public conveyances on the Sab- bath day—neither would he support the 9th and 10th clauses, which he felt would bear unevenly upon the humbler classes in prohibiting them from the use of hired carriages and horses on the Sunday, unless at the same time it were possible to prevent the higher and wealthier classes from using their own. He entirely concurred in the sentiment which had been quoted at the other side of the House, that it was impossible to make man religious by Act of Parliament. He was aware that the Sabbath could only be kept truly holy by means above the reach of human legislation—but still he considered it was the duty of a Christian legislature to promote the outward observances of morality, to suppress everything which offended against the public morals, and to prevent, as far as possible, the desecration of that day which was set apart as well by the law as by religion for sacred purposes. He would, therefore, gladly vote for the second reading of the Bill, believing that in Committee the great object he had in view might be promoted, while in other respects the measure could be rendered more reasonable, due regard being had to the existing circumstances of society.

expressed his determination to vote in favour of the second reading, for the same reason as that stated by the preceding speaker.

had voted for former Bills introduced by the hon. Baronet, in the hope the severity of their enactments might be mitigated in Committee; but perceiving that the present measure went even further than any of the preceding Bills on the same subject, he could not consent to vote for the second reading.

, though he could not acquiesce in all the enactments of the Bill, would vote for the second reading, because he thought it the duty of that House and of every Christian Government to sanction, as far as possible, by human enactments, the due observance of the Lord's day.

rose to remind the hon. Member for Cambridge, who had expressed his intention to vote against the present Bill, that the Bill was the identical measure, word for word, to which that hon. Member had, on former occasions, given his support. He did not mean to follow the example of the hon. Member for Cambridge, and should certainly vote for the second reading of the Bill.

was favourable to the principle of the Bill, but he was anxious to guard himself against the supposition that he was ready to go the whole length of its details. Considering that the subject was one of great importance, considering also the number of petitions which had been presented with respect to it, and the different quarters from which they came, he thought it would be more becoming in the House to allow the Bill to go to a Committee, there to be altered, than to throw it out at the present stage.

should not feel indisposed to vote for the second reading if he thought it possible that the Bill could be amended in Committee, but the whole Bill was, in his opinion, so defective, that not a single clause could be adopted with advantage. He therefore objected to proceeding any further with the measure, because it was calculated to cast ridicule upon every future attempt at legislation on the subject.

was rendered almost wholly inaudible by the impatience of the House to divide. He was understood to express his regret that the noble Lord did not give his sanction to the Bill, and to recommend the hon. Baronet (Sir Andrew Agnew), in deference to the feeling of the House, to make his measure less extensive in its operation.

had voted for the first reading of the Bill, because he thought it only right to give the hon. Member an opportunity of introducing his measure. He had since examined the provisions of the Bill, and they were certainly of such a nature that he must oppose them. He thought that those hon. Members who had expressed an intention to vote for the second reading were only practising a delusion on the hon. Baronet (Sir Andrew Agnew), because every one of them had expressed a desire to see the Bill totally changed in Committee. It was not his lot to have travelled abroad, but, from all that he had heard, he believed the Sabbath was far better observed in this country than in any other; and he was of opinion, that no legislative enactment that could be devised would compel individuals to lead a more moral or more religious life. He was unwilling to interfere with the amusements of the lower classes. He liked to see the children in his neighbourhood amusing themselves on a Sunday at a game of cricket, or in taking a walk in the after- noon. He could not bring himself to consent to prevent the lower classes, who were confined at work during six days of the week, from enjoying themselves during a portion of the seventh. For these reasons he should vote against the second reading of the bill.

said, that as his hon. Friend wished for a stringent observance of the Sabbath, others a less stringent observance of it, and another class of persons a very lax observance of it, he thought the only course the House could take was, to permit the Bill to go into Committee, when every Gentleman would have the opportunity of submitting such amendments as appeared to them proper, in order to make the Bill assume the shape of an Act of Parliament.

rose to move, that this together with the following clause be expunged from the Bill. As the law now stood, the tithe-owner had no remedy against the owner of the land: his remedy was against the occupier, and he asked what consideration there was given in this Bill, which would always give the tithe-owner the full and in many cases more than the full value of his tithe, that justified the putting into his hands the additional remedy, provided by these two clauses, against the owner of the land. He (Mr. Pryme) had taken the trouble of looking into several Enclosure bills for commuting the tithes of different parishes into a corn-rent—Bills passed with the consent of the Incumbent, and he had invariably found that the clause of distress gave the tithe-owner only the right to come upon the occupier for his corn-rent; so that if the occupier became bankrupt he lost his tithe, as the landlord did his rent. He had never known any one of those Bills in which any other remedy was given; and it did appear to him, that throughout this Bill as well as on this particular point, everything was done for the benefit of the tithe-owner, and no care was taken of the interests of the tithe-payer.

said, it appeared to him that the hon. Member for the borough of Cambridge should have made his objection at the 69th Clause, which gave the tithe-owner the remedy of distress against the land, the tenant being then entitled to take credit for the amount against his landlord. The object of the Bill was simply to lay the charge upon the land in the same manner as a corn-rent.

observed, that in all Enclosure Bills to which he had looked, when the remedy was given against the goods of the tenant, there was always a restrictive clause limiting the tithe-owner to such crops, utensils, stock, &c, as he found lying upon the premises.

said, that allowing the tithe owner had a right to his remedy against the goods of the tenant, in respect of which the tenant was afterwards to take credit against the landlord, to restrict him to such goods as he found lying upon the land was in fact, to leave him remediless; it was arguing ad absurdum to propose such a limitation, for in that case the tithe-owner would have no control over his remedy; the tenant having merely to remove his goods off the premises, and set him at defiance. He (Mr. Solicitor General) could not sit down without referring to the remark which the hon. Member for Cambridge had made, and which was often heard from some Gentlemen in the House: namely, that the Bill was in fact calculated to produce a unilateral kind of benefit only to the tithe-owner. The Bill should be looked at not in particular and isolated portions, but as a whole, and the inquiry should be not whether they or that part of it were more beneficial to one party or the other, but whether, taking all its parts together, it provided for a fair and equitable commutation. Taking that view of it he did not think it would be considered unfair to give the owner of the rent-charge the remedy which these clauses provided, ousting as they did all remedy against the person.

considered, that as this Bill would render tithes greatly more valuable than they were at present, the objection of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Town), was one of great importance and well worthy of the noble Lord's attention. The noble Lord (John Russell) would by carrying this Bill confer a benefit on the country only equal in extent to that which he had already conferred upon it by the Reform Bills and the Poor-law Bill; but he (Sir H. Verney) did think, that in giving the remedy to the tithe-owner which these clauses provided he would be doing injustice.

The question in my opinion is' not whether the amount of benefit conferred by this Bill on the tithe-owner or the tithe-payer be the greater. The object of this Bill is, that whatever the amount of the rent-charge which it gives the tithe- owner, whether one-third or a-half, or one-quarter more or less than the present amount of his tithe, the tithe-owner should have a sufficient remedy for its recovery. Now I conceive these clauses to provide no more than the sufficient remedy; however, should the House think otherwise, I shall propose another, which I have now in my hand, giving him the power of bringing an action for his rent charge. Some remedy he must have, or the Bill will be inoperative. It was formally agreed that the hon. Member for Cambridge should bring forward his objection at a future stage of the Bill and the clauses were postponed.

admitted, that there was great hardship in these personal tithes; and said, that for his own part, he should be glad to abolish them. At the same time he must observe, that it did not appear to him to be just to abolish in this way, by a single clause, the established claims of the clergy. He thought, that the Commissioners of tithes should be instructed to collect all the information they could as to the nature and amount of the species of tithe which the hon. Member for Finsbury proposed to abolish. They ought to be instructed to ascertain the number of cases in which the clergy had a right to this species of tithes, and then it would be for Parliament to determine what compensation the clergy were entitled to receive before this right was abolished. It was a question which, for the sake of the labourers and fishermen of the country, Parliament ought at no very distant day to take into its serious consideration. It ought not, however, to be forgotten that a great friend of the church—he meant the Bishop of Exeter—had declared in his place in Parliament that the church had of late generally abandoned its right to personal tithe. Still there was some clergymen who were disposed to stand upon their strict right. That being the case, he thought the House ought not to abolish the right without inquiry and without compensation, by a proviso introduced into a clause at the end of an Act of Parliament.

observed, that hon. Gentlemen seemed to have forgotten that this was a Bill for the commutation of tithe. Now, to propose the abolition of tithe under a Bill of which the object was the commutation of tithe, was about as preposterous as to propose to abolish municipal institutions under a Bill of which the object was to amend and reform such institutions. For such a proposition as that made by the hon. Member for Fins-bury he could find no precedent, nor indeed anything analogous, save the proposition to which he had just alluded. Having said thus much, he would only, add, that if the hon. Member would bring in a distinct Bill for the abolition of "all tithe of fish, or of fishing, or of personal tithe," he (the Attorney-General) would pledge himself to support it. But he must oppose any proposition which was likely to clog the present Bill with a clause which was inconsistent both with its title and its spirit.

said, if the House should be of opinion that personal tithes should be abolished, he should be ready to bring in a Bill on the subject, but he did not think it should make part of the present measure.

With reference to the observation of the Attorney-General what he proposed with respect to tithes was as preposterous as the project for getting rid altogether of corporations when proposed as an amendment to the Bill for their regulation, expressed a hope that should any such Bill be brought down to that House, that the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman would not be forgotten.

said, though he should be ready to introduce a Bill to abolish personal tithes, he could not include the tithe on fish; but he should propose to submit to the Commissioners that they should make an inquiry into the circumstances as regarded the coasts of Norfolk, Cornwall, and other places, with a view to some measure being framed on the subject.

rose to move an additional clause, but was very indistinctly heard. He was understood to say, that there was not enough of land to bear the amount of tithe with which it was proposed to burden it by those who sought to put an end to tithe on personal labour, and he decidedly objected to money payments, on account of the fluctuations to which the value of money was at all times subject. He therefore would move a clause to the effect, that "it be enacted, that at any time, and from time to time, after the tithes of any lands shall have been commuted under the hands and seals of the Commissioners, it shall be lawful for the owner of the tithes or rent-charge, or apportioned rent in lieu of the tithes of any such lands respectively, to agree with the owner of the same lands for the sale and extinguishment of any such rent-charge or apportioned rent-charge, either in commutation of any messuages, lands, or other hereditaments, of competent value, or of a gross sum or sums of money of competent amount, such value, of land or amount of money to be, by the means hereafter mentioned, ascertained to be a full and proper consideration or price for such purchase, and the title to the messuages, lands or hereditaments proposed as such consideration, being approved of as hereafter is provided." The clause was brought up. After a short conversation, the clause was withdrawn, the hon. Member intimating that he would take another opportunity of bringing it before the House.

said, that if the Friendly Brothers were to be excluded from the operation of the Bill, he should offer no further opposition to it.

remarked, that the noble Lord had stated the question contended for by the Opposition correctly. It was this—whether an important measure to the public was to pass, or the wishes of a few individuals attended to?

thought it would be much better to decline the Lords' amendment in the case of the Freemason Societies, than to retain it and refuse to extend it to the Friendly Brothers Societies.

wished to call to the recollection of the House, that in many previous Bills an exemption had been made in favour of Freemason Societies, while as yet the Friendly Brothers Societies were comparatively unknown.

observed, that he was well acquainted with the majority of the members of the City of Cork Friendly Brother Societies, and could, without hesitation, state that they were almost to a man persons of Orange politics. There was not a Catholic among them. He therefore hoped the Government would continue to resist the proposition.

said, he would try to meet the difficulty by adopting the suggestion of the learned Recorder for Dublin, and move that the Lords' amendment to Clause 16 be not agreed to, or in other words, that the exemption in favour of Freemason Societies be withdrawn from the clause.