, in moving the second reading of the Lord's Day Observance Bill, said it was one upon which a strong and growing feeling existed in the country. It was a subject beset with difficulties, to which he could not consider himself fully equal, but he felt bound to say, that he would not be diverted by any taunts or sneers from pursuing the course on this subject which he should think right. The subject of this Bill had been before a Select Committee in 1832, to the evidence given to which he would refer hon. Members. The evidence of Mr. Chambers, the magistrate of Union-Hall, of this metropolis, was most important. He said, that much of the crime committed in the district in which he acted as magistrate arose from the non-observance of the Lord's Day. The chief violators of the Sabbath were the bakers and the keepers of alehouses and beer-shops. Since 1832, up to the present time, the observance of Sundays, he was sorry to say, was not much better. He held a report of a society established in the metropolis for the better observance of the Lord's Day, and in it he found, that in one of the principal streets visited on a Sunday 219 shops were found shut and fifty open; in the next, thirty-four were shut and nineteen open; in another, thirty-two were shut and fifty-six open; and in another, seventy-two were shut and ninety-seven open. This was not, he regretted to have to add, confined to the metropolis. There was a growing feeling in the country for some measure on this subject; and although during the present Session there were not a great number of petitions presented on the subject, a large number, numerously signed, were presented in the last Session. In the Session before last 280,000 persons prayed to the House for the same measure. Societies were forming in different parts of the country, and amongst the clergy the strongest desire was evinced for legislation on the subject. In stating briefly the nature of the Bill he would say, that it was by no means so extensive in its operation as former Bills. It was a Bill for suppressing trading on the Lord's Day. It prevented the doing, or hiring, or employing persons to do, unnecessary work on that day. It compelled shops to be kept shut, prevented the holding of fairs and markets, the receiving and delivering of goods, and the performing of those transactions of a general nature which were designated by the word "business." The buying and selling of milk, the dressing of victuals in houses for the use of travellers, and other indispensable necessaries were provided for and allowed. If the Bill were permitted to go into Committee he should be happy to give the details all that calm discussion which they so well merited. He would not trouble the House with the other points. There were at least 100,000 persons engaged upon the canals and navigable rivers of this country who had sent forward most urgent petitions for relief from the present labour they are subjected to on the Lord's Day. They who had protected the negroes should protect these petitioners. He should have been glad had the Government brought in a Bill on the subject, as he considered it a matter of the greatest importance; for the happiness and prosperity of this country were closely connected with a practical attention to the precepts of Christianity.

was anxious to express his opinion in opposing the motion of the hon. Gentleman, lest his reason for doing so might be misinterpreted. He was aware that public opinion was greatly excited on the question, and public opinion was, in his opinion, doing more than anything the hon. Gentleman could effect in the way of legislation. A class of persons came forward to ask for protection. Protection was a fair and plausible pretext, but it was sometimes very insidious; and no protection should be granted which would cause any unjust sacrifice. By preventing the baking-houses from being open the poor man and his wife would be prevented from going to church, in order to stay at home and prepare their victuals. He had no objection to any law compelling shops to be closed during divine service, but he would not support any Bill which prevented the poor man from obtaining the necessaries of life. Besides, the Bill could not be brought into operation without occupying a large body of persons in preventing a profitable trade from being exercised, who would themselves be breaking the Sabbath as much as those they were interfering with. He should oppose the motion.

most cordially supported the second reading. He did not do so from any idea that they would make men more religious, or instil into their minds a greater love of Christianity by any human legislation, but because he wished to preserve from positive loss those who did venerate the Sabbath, and abstained from worldly affairs on that day, and because he desired to take from any persons the power of compelling others to work for them. He thought the Bill of the hon. Member went that far and no farther; and therefore he gave him his best support.

thought, when the hon. Member (Mr. Milnes) rose, that he was about to second the Bill, instead of opposing it. The question had been so frequently under discussion, and he had so often expressed his opinion upon it, that he thought it unnecessary to delay the House, particularly, as he saw by hon. Members, that they were more anxious to divide than to debate upon it. But he was ready at any time to enter into the full discussion of the subject, and into a defence of the general proposition. He would give his support to the Bill of his hon. Friend, not binding himself to any single clause, but concurring in the general principle on which it was based.

intended to vote for the second reading, but if the Bill did not receive many alterations would certainly oppose it in Committee. The first part prohibited the employment of any, or hire of any person to do work or labour. According to that no man could employ his own servant; but what he particularly objected to was, that it did not provide for those necessary accommodations which the poor man was justly entitled to on the Sabbath day. A man labouring all the week could not go in a stage coach for a few miles out of town or take a little refreshment.

in giving his support to the Bill, felt called on to observe, that he would not do so if he thought it would weigh heavier upon the poorer than the other classes.

objected to having a subject of so important a nature hurried forward in so precipitate a manner. He trusted that a sufficient time would be given for the consideration of the present measure, which affected important interests in Ireland. He hoped that the noble Lord would not concur in hurrying on the second reading of this Bill.

said, that, having concurred in the first reading of the Bill, he was not disposed to throw any obstruction in the way of the second reading. However, he did not by any means feel pledged to the details of the Bill, and would be happy to concur in any useful alterations that might be suggested in Committee. Were it not that the Government had so many important propositions in their hands, this was a subject which might, perhaps, have been more properly brought forward by a member of the Government.

thought, this was a subject which ought not to be brought forward by a private individual. He thought that the Government were bound to show to the House some grounds for proceeding with this Bill. There was already a charity commission existing in Ireland, and they had heard nothing to show that that commission was not sufficient to do all that was requisite in this respect. The present Bill contained a machinery which would confer new and very extensive powers. Was it intended to establish a new charity commission in Ireland? He was willing to place confidence in her Majesty's Government to this extent, that if they, upon their responsibility, asserted that there ought to be a new commission, he would allow the Bill to be read a second time, reserving to himself the right to examine the provisions when the Bill was in Committee.

said, that in voting for the second reading, and thus supporting the principle of the Bill, he did not feel bound to affirm the mode in which the principle was to be worked out. A Committee had been appointed by a former Government to inquire into the subject, and of which Committee the noble Lord, the Member for South Lancashire (Lord Francis Egerton), was chairman, and that Committee appeared to entertain the opinion, that the present charity com- mission in Ireland, as well as the whole law relating to the subject, required remodelling and amendment. The present charity commission was composed of ex officio members, who had other important duties to perform, and which were sufficient to engross their attention. It was composed of the judges and the bishops, and it seemed to have been generally admitted, on a former occasion, that they ought not to impose the additional labour of these trusts upon individuals so engrossed by their own important duties. The present Bill was, in all respects, similar to one which had already been passed for England, and he, therefore, considering that a similar measure for England had already received the sanction of both Houses of the Legislature, did not think it unreasonable to ask the House to affirm the principle of the present Bill.

was not disposed to obstruct the second reading of the Bill. At the same time, considering the nature of its provisions, he thought it might hereafter have to encounter considerable opposition.

said, that the present commission was composed of all the judges, and bishops, and Protestant rectors in the city of Dublin, and the provost of Trinity College. The commission was exclusively Protestant, and he thought that a commission ought to be so formed as that no religious jealousy could possibly be supposed to exist. When it was considered that the Catholic Church was un-endowed (and he was glad it was so), and when all the charities from which it derived support were administered by a commission of this kind, he thought it important that they should have the most impartial tribunal. He thought the Bill ought to be read a second time, and when it went into Committee its provisions could be fully canvassed, and any alterations effected.

moved the second reading of the Enclosure of Common Fields Bill.

felt bound to oppose the second reading of the Bill. In the recital of the Bill was contained a complete misstatement of the provisions and operation of the 6th and 7th of the late King which had passed both Houses of Parliament with great attention on the part of both Houses in its progress through its several stages. Well, then, this mis-statement of the effect of this Act was made the ground of the legislation which was proposed by the present Bill. He moved that the Bill should be read a second time that day six months.

thought, the Bill entirely uncalled for, and very likely to be injurious.

would not give the House the trouble of dividing.

moved, that the Common Fields Improvement Bill be read a third time. He stated, that the object of the Bill was to provide for the enclosure of patches of waste land in the midst of arable fields, which obstructed the progress of improvement.

said, it appeared to him that the Bill would authorise the enclosure of every common in England, even Hampstead-heath; and he, therefore, would recommend that, like the former, the Bill be withdrawn. The noble Lord's purpose, which he admitted to be a legitimate one, required a bill of a very different kind. It was wrong to attempt to remedy a particular mischief by a general enactment.

observed, that a Committee would be required for the express purpose of investigating the merits of the various enclosure Bills so constantly brought before the House. Proposals were constantly brought before the House, which, if acceded to, would close up every common in England. He was convinced that this was one of that class, and should, therefore, move its postponement until the appointment of some such Committee.