said, that having promised some days ago to give a general notice of the course he proposed to take on Friday next, upon the motion, that the House resolve into Committee on the Irish Corporation Bill, he rose for the purpose of stating, that he should, on the motion being made for the Speaker leaving the chair, enter into a general statement of his views of the present position of Irish affairs, and give a general indication of the course he meant to pursue with respect to them. Whether there was any great prospect of the adjustment of those questions it was not for him to say, but he did not mean to take any course on Friday next which would obscure any prospect of their satisfactory adjustment which might at present exist. He did not mean to make any preliminary objection to the motion, that the Speaker leave the chair, and if he rightly understood the noble Lord, that after having gone through the Irish Corporation Bill in Committee, the House would have an opportunity of considering the tithe question, he should not raise any discussion on the mere order of proceeding. Trusting, therefore, that after the Committee on the Corporation Bill, and before the further progress of that measure, the House would have an opportunity of discussing the tithe question, he should then be prepared to state his general views on that subject. He should, as he had just stated, take an opportunity on Friday next of explaining his views with respect to these matters; yet, preliminary to the Speaker leaving the chair, there would be no necessity, as far as he could judge, for a division. Of course, he could give no assurance as to what might take place in committee. He, and he believed several of his Friends, meant to make proposals in Committee, and he hoped this general statement would, whenever a division occurred in Committee, relieve him from the imputation of having taken the House by surprise. He deeply regretted, that from unavoidable circumstances they were called upon to consider these questions at this period of the Session, when so many other matters of importance remained to be discussed; but he should not urge any proposition for further delay.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had rightly understood his intentions with respect to the Tithe Bill; and he would only further state, what he had mentioned the other day, that he saw no necessity for setting forth the particular amount of the rent-charge in the first resolution. He thought it better to adopt a general resolution, and leave the particular proportion to be settled in Committee. With respect to the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, he conceived, that at that period of the Session it would be desirable, without further delay, to consider the Corporation Bill in Committee, and he should look upon the announcement made by the right hon. Gentleman before the Speaker left the chair as a sufficient notice of the questions he meant to discuss. He would only further say, that he was exceedingly glad to hear, that the right hon. Gentleman was not disposed to take a course which might mar the prospect of an adjustment of the questions to which he had adverted.

moved the order of the day for the House to go into Committee on the Lord's Day Bill.

On the 1st Clause,

said, it was a most preposterous clause, for its tendency was to prevent any work whatever from being done on the Lord's day. A person could not even get his breakfast, or have his bed made, without violating the provisions of this clause.

said, he thought that the hon. and learned Member must admit, that there was a feeling in the country that something should be done in this matter. He was most desirous to obviate the objections of the hon. Member, and he thought that might be effected by the omission of a few words. His only object was to suppress trading on the Sunday, and in order to carry that into effect he would be glad to receive any suggestion that was offered him. He was asked, if his bill went to affect travelling? It was not his intention to affect it in any way, and if it was thought a proviso could make his intention clearer, he would not object to it.

said, the words of the clause went so much further than the intention of the hon. Gentleman, that the Committee could not proceed with it, he would, therefore, move that the clause be postponed.

said, if the bill were allowed to remain as it at present stood he should vote against it, because he was not prepared to put restraints upon the poor on Sundays. He should vote against it, unless it was confined strictly to barter and trade. He had struck out certain parts of the clause, which he would show the hon. Member, and as it then stood it would apply strictly to what was in common parlance called trading on a Sunday. If his hon. Friend was prepared now to propose such alterations and additions to the bill as would so limit its operation, then probably the Committee might adjourn, and those amendments could be discussed at the next sitting. If that was not the case he should suggest that the measure should be postponed.

said, that it was impossible to alter the Bill so that it should not interfere with the innocent enjoyments of the working classes. The word "trading" would extend, of course, to trading in horses, omnibuses, and steam boats.

explained. He would not agree to any measure that would deprive the people of innocent recreation on the Sabbath. He believed, that such enjoyments, which were always shared with their families, made men better husbands and fathers than they could be made by any law of this kind.

wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite, how far the exceptions were to go. He held, that a tradesman of London ought, after the toils of the week, to be allowed the privilege of riding or walking out on the Sunday, after the morning service, for the purpose of enjoying innocent recreation in the country. Was he to be prevented from hiring a horse or carriage, and to be confined to the town or to his house, on the Sabbath? But suppose there was to be an exception as far as regarded travelling. When the tradesman got to the end of his journey, he believed it was the custom to go into some place of public entertainment to obtain necessary refreshment and to enjoy what he considered the best of all beverages—tea. But how would it be possible for the traveller to obtain that or any other necessary if the bill before the Committee became law? That bill prevented the possibility of obtaining the most simple necessaries, and as it stood it might even be doubted whether a traveller could obtain milk without a violation of the law. Taking, therefore, the gravest view of the subject, and considering the difficulties with which it was surrounded, and the impolicy of throwing any obstacles in the way of the poor enjoying innocent recreation, he did earnestly recommend the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his bill for the present.

wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether an exception was to be made in relation to the British fisheries? Boats with mackerel frequently came into port on Sunday; and if they were not permitted to unload on that day, very great loss to the fishermen would be the consequence. He hoped, too, the Attorney-General would stand up in defence of the rights of the Crown; for if this bill were to pass, none of her Majesty's ships would be able to leave port on Sunday. As regarded private vessels, they would be unable so much as to take off their hatches on Sunday, and the greatest inconvenience would result in consequence. He would, however, leave these matters to the Attorney-General; but in respect to the fisheries, he would not leave the House without an explicit answer whether or not they were to be excepted from the operation of the bill.

said, he wished it distinctly to be understood, that he had no connexion whatever with the bill under consideration by the Committee. Entertaining great respect for the object of his hon. Friend, whose views he believed were most pure and upright, all he wished to do was to point out to his hon. Friend the best mode of obviating those objections which had been raised against the bill. If the measure were confined to the prevention of Sunday trading, then they would get clear of the objection of the hon. Member for Brighton in regard to the fisheries, and to vessels leaving port on Sunday. He wished to impress upon his hon. Friend, that unless he was now prepared to propose the necessary amendments on the bill, it would be the better course to postpone it for the present, or to go through the Committee pro formâ, with a view to obtain time for more mature consideration.

, as a private Member of the House, entreated the hon. Gentleman not to press forward his bill at the present moment and in its present shape. He deprecated discussions like the present in a public assembly, and thought the hon. Member had better withdraw his present measure; and if he brought forward a bill for the purpose of preventing Sunday trading, and if that measure did not trench on the innocent amusements of the people, he should be ready to give it his best consideration, and to render every assistance in his power to make it as perfect and beneficial as possible. He doubted, however, whether it would not be better to leave the whole matter to be regulated by the sentiments of the people, and fully agreed in the opinion that there was no country where the Sabbath was better observed than in the British empire.

wished to say, that it was not pleasant for him, a private Member of the House, to have charge of a measure like the present; and if the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer was sincere in the wish which he had last year expressed, to see Sunday-trading suppressed, and if the Attorney-General was sincere in what he had that night stated, then he thought that the Government ought to take the measure into their own hands. If any hope was given him, that Government would bring forward a measure of their own on this subject, even in the next Session, he should be ready to withdraw the bill before the Committee. He felt it would be useless to go against the general sense of the House, although he thought some of those who had spoken against the measure did not understand it. His object was, to put a stop to shopmen and boys being sent out on Sundays by bakers, butchers, and others. These individuals were sent out in the way of trade, and were in consequence subjected to great hardships, while an unnecessary profanation of the Sabbath was the consequence.

thought the proposition of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was one which it would be both for the interest of the House and of the hon. Member to adopt. He would be the last to interpose any difficulty in the way of the reprinting of the bill, and the bringing it forward again in a shape in which it could with greater advantage be discussed. If it were possible (of which he must confess he entertained considerable doubt) so to frame the bill as to limit it to those questions of trading to which the hon. Member had himself adverted, he should be disposed to give it every consideration. At the same time he begged that he might not be understood as intimating, either on his own part or on the part of others, a willingness to undertake the responsibility of bringing on any such measure. His reason was this;—that whilst he was ready hereafter to go into Committee with the hon. Member in order to try whether a bill satisfactory to the country could be produced on this subject, yet he felt so very doubtful with respect to the practicability of effecting what they all, he believed, wished, without at the same time doing something of a very opposite character, that he was very reluctant, unless he could see his way very distinctly, to take upon himself the burthen of legislating at all upon the subject. Besides, there was another consideration which he would with great deference submit to the hon. Gentleman. He believed that the object which the hon. Gentleman had in view was one which was rather to be attained by moral effects than by legislation. He believed, that the progress of public opinion at the present moment was strongly in favour of all the practical objects which the hon. Gentleman sought to attain by this Bill; and he was therefore unwilling to disturb the progress of that opinion, when he saw it flowing in a proper direction; and especially when he felt that it was impossible for any Gentleman in the House or out of it, either in his own private circle or in his wider intercourse with the world, to deny the fact, that on the part of all classes of the community and of all Christian sects in this country—Dissenters as well as Members of the Church of England—there was a growing and increasing feeling of respect for and desire to observe the Sabbath. If that were the real state of things, it was his firm opinion that they would be running a very great hazard of disturbing the feeling which was now tending to accomplish the object they all desired if they were to endeavour to force that feeling into particular channels by any legislative enactments. Nay, further, he had never approached the discussion of this question without feeling an apprehension that they might really do mischief to the cause which it was the wish of every one rather to forward than retard. On these grounds he thought the House ought to allow the hon. Gentleman to propose that the Chairman report progress with a view to his bringing in another bill in a more definite shape. He would suggest to the hon. Gentleman, that in order to do justice to his own measure, this would be a better course than even going through the Committee at the present moment pro formâ. Having prepared his bill in a shape fit to be committed, the hon. Gentleman could then go into Committee pro formâ, in order that it might be reprinted.

said, that his hon. Friend must be aware that the advice which he had now publicly received from the Chancellor of the Exchequer was precisely in conformity with that which he had previously received from him (Sir R. Peel). The best course for his hon. Friend to pursue was that which had been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, namely, that he should move, that the Chairman report progress, and after considering the possibility of making the enactments more definite, he should be allowed the opportunity of again submitting his measure to the House. With respect to the question itself, he was ready to admit, that public evils had arisen from the previous discussions of this subject in the House of Commons; but he thought that those evils mainly depended upon the tone and temper in which these discussions had been carried on. He knew of no further objection to the discussion of such a subject in that House, than the liability that existed of its being treated in an improper and unbecoming spirit. On the contrary, if discussed with a temper suited to the serious nature of the question itself, he thought it by no means an unfit topic for consideration, particularly when persons most eminent for piety, and most entitled to respect for the religious opinions they entertained, were pressing for some legislative enactment concerning it. At all events, it appeared to him, that the most respectful course the House could adopt towards those excellent individuals was to give them an opportunity to bring forward their propositions, in order that the merits of them might be canvassed, and the objections to them, if possible, be answered. He must, however, guard himself against the supposition that he was prepared, without much consideration and caution, to legislate upon this subject. He had always avowed that he saw great difficulties in the way of such a proceeding. Because it was absolutely necessary that he should be cautious while seeking to obtain any one particular object by legislation, he did not give rise to a system of vexatious litigation, and establish an unjust distinction between different classes in society. If he did one, or the other; if he gave an opportunity, under the pretence of religious feelings, to one neighbour exercising a vexatious control over another; or if he established a legal distinction as to Sunday recreations between different classes of the community, he should not be leaving the matter where he found it, but should be enlisting other feelings with regard to the observance of the Sabbath, which would have an inevitable tendency to defeat the very object he had been aiming to effect. His sincere advice to his hon. Friend, therefore, was, entertaining as he (Sir R. Peel) did the highest respect for his intentions, and believing that any legislation upon this subject would have a better chance of success in his hands than in those of any other person, from the moderation of his views and principles,—his advice was, that in attempting to legislate upon it he should make his enactments as definite and precise as possible. He thought there was a great objection in making a general enactment, and afterwards making numerous exceptions. He objected to it on this ground, that every exception they made would appear to be a legislative sanction for the non-observance of the Sabbath—a legislative sanction for every exception to the general rule. With respect to Sunday-trading, supposing he could attain that object without giving rise to other evils counterbalancing the advantages arising from it, he thought it a perfectly fit subject for legislation. Because openly and publicly exposing goods for sale in markets and fairs he considered had a tendency to shock the religious feelings of a great portion of the community; and no person for the sake of individual gain had a right to offend the general feeling. The general feeling of traders might be to resist this practice, but if a certain portion of that body should say "We are not governed by such feelings; we will open our shops and will encourage the sale of goods for the sake of our own profit," they might make it very difficult for the trade at large to abide by any general rule. If, therefore, it were possible, without incurring other general evils, that legislation should prohibit Sunday-trading, with perfect fairness to all classes, he should not object to legislate on the subject. But he was convinced of the evil of throwing any legal obstruction in the way of the recreation of the poorer classes, who stood more in need of that recreation than any other class of the community, which obstruction the Members of the Legislature did not apply to themselves. By taking that course, they would rouse a feeling of resentment at their partiality in legislation which would have a tendency to thwart and obstruct the very ends of those whose benevolent and religious feelings disposed them to legislate upon this subject. He thought it would be intrinsically unjust to throw impediments in the way of the recreations of one class of the community which were not equally applied to all. With that feeling, and having stated fairly the difficulty which he entertained on the subject, and having stated to what extent he thought legislation might go, he would again advise his hon. Friend to withdraw his bill for the present, and after conferring with others, make its provisions as definite and precise as possible.

was ready to accede to the suggestions made by both sides of the House, and would move that the Chairman report progress.

The House resumed and the Chairman reported progress accordingly.

moved the second reading of the Spirit Licences (Scotland) Bill.

objected to the bill. It proposed to alter the law affecting the granting of licences for the sale of spirits, which was the same now as the English law, by taking away the power of the magistrates, and making the renewal of a licence dependent on a certificate of good behaviour from the Excise-office. There could be no doubt that any House which had offended against the Excise laws would lose its licence under the present system. He should move that the bill be read a second time that day six months.

was surprised that the hon. Gentleman should oppose a bill so just and moderate as this was. At present the spirit retailer in Scotland was obliged to submit to the annual degradation of going about to solicit testimonials of good conduct, and was thus put to considerable trouble and inconvenience in travelling from place to place, and in going to attend the licensing court. Besides, gross injustice was frequently done to individuals under the present system, owing to the caprice of the licensing magistrates; and it not unfrequently happened that a man would be refused his licence merely because some one of the magistrates on the bench was the owner of another public-house in the same neighbourhood in which the applicant lived. The principle of his bill was one which would remove all the present unnecessary trouble and annoy- ances to which the parties whom the bill was intended to relieve were exposed. He hoped the House would concur with him, and allow this bill to be read a second time.

thought the bill not only unnecessary and uncalled for, but no case had been at all made out to warrant legislation on the subject. The bill took away from the local magistracy their police superintendence over public-houses—a superintendence which had hitherto worked beneficially in Scotland, and he, therefore, should most cordially support the amendment.

was induced to support the principle of the bill which had been introduced by his hon. Friend, the Member for Falkirk, and he could not but think that the opposition which had been raised against it originated in a misapprehension by hon. Members opposite of the provisions of the bill. As a general principle he would say, that the licensing system was one purely of revenue, except in respect of licences for the sale of spirituous liquors. In those cases a mere licence was not held to be sufficient, for before the original granting of the licence, the magistrates had the power, which this bill continued to them, to ascertain the character of the applicant, and on that inquiry to refuse or allow the original licence. Now, as the bill proposed in that respect to retain the law in its present condition, and to give magistrates the full power and prerogative of continuing the original licence or not, he could not think that any disrespect was shown to that valuable body. The bill, however, made the renewal of the licence dependent on the good conduct of the holder, but it dispensed with the necessity of his annually producing certificates to that effect. He must say, that as the law at present stood it was a great hardship on this class of traders, that they should be called every year from perhaps a distant part of the country to the principal county town to obtain a renewal year by year (by proving the affirmative of their good conduct) of a licence to carry on their business. Without pledging himself to the details of the bill, he should certainly vote for its second reading.

said, that though the bill was entitled the Spirit Licences (Scotland) Bill, he trusted hon. Members who were magistrates in England would not fail to observe, that it provided in effect that it should no longer be necessary for the holders of a licence to apply to the magistrates for a renewal, unless in the interim he had been convicted of keeping a disorderly house. Why should this change be proposed in Scotland when it was not ventured to attempt it in this country? He trusted English Members who took an active part in magisterial affairs would not be led away with the idea that there was anything peculiar to Scotland, but that equal justice was desired. So far from any difficulty being thrown in the way of obtaining spirit licences in Scotland, he believed a return of the number of licensed houses and of the paucity of convictions would be received with astonishment. On the whole, he hoped the House would not be induced by what had fallen from the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make an exception as to Scotland in the general law of the whole country.

denied, that this bill proposed to make an invidious change in the law as to Scotland, for the bill adopted the same provisions as four years ago had been applied to Ireland, and there had been found to work well. He trusted the House would allow the bill to be read a second time, and reserve the consideration of its details for the Committee.

supported the amendment, as he knew the measure to be generally objected to in Scotland.

from his own experience could say, that there was sufficient security in the mode of granting the original licence for the good character of the party licensed, and he would not leave in the hands of magistrates a power upon which political bias might operate.

The House divided on the original question: Ayes 56; Noes 45; Majority 11.

Bill read a second time.

moved the second reading of the Spirituous Liquors Sale Bill.

expressed a hope that hon. Members opposite would join with those on his (Sir G. Clerk's) side of the House in opposing this bill, which was not confined to Scotland, but was intended to extend to all parts of the kingdom. The bill proposed to repeal a law of a most salutary character—a law which prevented persons incurring debts in alehouses or public-houses from being sued in the courts of law for debts so incurred. He had never heard any argument used in support of the bill, and he was convinced that, if carried, it would be very injurious to the morals of the population. He therefore moved as an amendment that the bill be read a second time that day six months.

said, that the hon. Member for Elgin, the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, was absent from illness, but he could state, that the Government would certainly have opposed the Bill, if they had not had every reason to suppose, that it would have been withdrawn. He should certainly vote in favour of the amendment, as he did not think that there was any measure which could be proposed which was more likely to injure the morality of the people of this country.

said, that the intention of the act of George 2nd, which this bill proposed to repeal, was to prevent tippling in public-houses, but the effect of it had been more extensive than had been originally contemplated, and it now affected a very respectable class of persons, the retail dealers in spirits. He should like to know of what culpability they had been guilty that they should be put beyond the pale of the law. As the law stood they could not recover for small quantities of spirituous liquors supplied to customers who dealt with them from day to day, and thus the law gave them encouragement to add swindling to intoxication. If the House would consent to the bill being read a second time, he would introduce a provision by which the operation of the act of George 2nd, would be restricted to spirits consumed on the premises.

said, that it had been proved by the sheriff of Lanarkshire before the Combination Committee, that the workmen were in the habit of taking their ready money to the publicans, and running in debt for necessaries for their families. The consequence was, that they were supplied with provisions of the worst quality, and this was attributable to the operation of the existing law.

hoped, that the House would not try to make men honest and virtuous by legislation as they used to do. The existing law was a remnant of this mistaken policy, and he therefore thought it ought to be altered.

remarked, that the fact stated by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin was very well as far as it went, but it did not show, that men would not drink for ready money and for credit also.

The House divided on the original motion:—Ayes 16; Noes 59: Majority 43.

Bill thrown out.

moved, that the Custody of Infants Bill be read a third time.

, in opposing the motion, said, he believed, that few bills of a public nature had been more canvassed for than the passing of this bill, and that might account for the small minority, as compared with the majority, on the last division on the question. However, as this was not, and could not be, a party matter, he would state to the House why he objected to this measure. The law of England, whether wisely or unwisely, had put all the marital and parental power in the hands of the father. A woman's strength lay in her submissiveness, and if they found, that the law as it stood did by its operation establish over the mother a great moral power by means of her children, he called on them to beware how by altering the law they relaxed and weakened, that bond by which domestic morality was cherished and preserved. If this bill were suffered to pass, the proper title to designate it by, would be "a bill to facilitate separation and divorce between husbands and wives." The subsisting marriage law proceeded upon totally different grounds. It vested the whole power in the connubial state, both over wife and children, in the husband. He did not believe, that they would benefit women as a class by this enactment, however applicable it might be to individual cases of hardship. Separate the mother wholly from her children, and you wholly remove the facilities for reunion. The existing law was by no means so cruel as was represented. In the vast proportion of cases where separations took place in consequence of disagreement of temper, he had never heard of an instance in which reasonable allowance was not made for the access of the mother to her children. Unless the woman's conduct have been of a flagrant nature, unless the husband have a strong case to justify him in estranging the mother from her offspring, he will not be received into society, if he be known to have obstinately refused this access. He did not believe, that the children would be benefitted by the proposed measure; on the contrary, he believed, that it would be productive of injury to them. The father and mother are at variance at the period of separation, and in numerous cases, that variance is afterwards increased to the extent of bitter animosity. If the wife have access to her children, and his (Sir E. Sugden's) opinion was, that she ought to have that access, but they could not reach it by legislative means, the adoption of which would produce a great deal more mischief in the general principle than of good in particular cases—if the wife, he said, were ordered access to her children, the husband, he would suppose having retired with his children to the North, and placed them there at school, how was the wife to act in order to obtain the benefit of the rule of court which ordered her the access? Was she to take a cottage in the neighbourhood of her husband's residence in order to have the opportunity of visiting them once in each week? When access was denied by the husband, and permitted by the judge, it was natural, that the wife should conceive herself as greatly aggrieved by her husband—she will consider his conduct to be, perhaps, still harsher than it really has been, and will do her best to impress her own views on the minds of her children. The children will be brought up in that unnatural and most deplorable state of want of love or confidence in their parents. The father will do his best to blacken the mother in their eyes, the mother will do her best to blacken the father, and the children will be reluctantly compelled to admit the sad conviction, that neither father nor mother is entitled to their esteem; or, if this effect be not wholly produced, the children will be at least utterly and unduly estranged from one of their parents. He, therefore, believed, that on the one hand the proposed change would be anything but beneficial to the children, and, on the other hand, that it would tend to make that separation eternal which was now only temporal. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving, that the bill be read a third time that day six months.

said, there was something very extraordinary in the opposition of his right hon. Friend after the result of former divisions, after a majority of four to one in a House that was certainly not canvassed. He did not complain of this resistance to the measure, but he must state, as a matter of fact, that he was not prepared for it. The sense of the House had been three times expressed upon the measure, and he confessed it did occasion him no small surprise to perceive that his right hon. Friend now thought fit to divide upon the third reading. He could only account for this opposition by supposing, that his right hon. Friend regarded the evils against which the bill was directed as the mere bugbears of the imagination of the mover, and as having no substantial existence. The opponents of the bill talked about the unsoundness of that legislation which was directed against particular cases—surely all laws were made to meet particular cases. They asked the House to continue to inflict torture, in order, as they said, that the integrity of the marriage tie might be maintained, while, as he would contend, the con- tinuance of the present practice was, in an especial degree, calculated to defeat that purpose. It had been said, that great inconvenience resulted from the mass of affidavits to which disputes between married persons gave rise—he denied that the fact was so, and, at all events, the bill then before the House would tend much more to diminish than to increase the evil; besides, that the proceedings would come before, not a private but a public tribunal, and the judges, though beyond the time of life at which passion has much influence, would still feel as men and as fathers, and they would know how to deal with eliminatory affidavits against women unconvicted of adultery; they would know how to deal with husbands who denied to their innocent wives the last happiness which a woman so circumstanced could enjoy—a sight of her child. The mother of an illegitimate child could not be refused access; and that which he demanded was not even to place the innocent matron on a footing of equality with her who, in surrendering her chastity, gave up the best safeguard of her other virtues; but he merely required, that the matron should be placed on a footing something like that of which the mother of an illegitimate child enjoyed the advantage. That was what he asked, and what his right hon. Friend denied. He begged further to say, that this was a question on which the House had not been canvassed.—Indeed, the state of the House at that moment placed that assertion beyond a shadow of doubt; but he hoped, nevertheless, that the feelings of our common nature, and the plain principles of justice would triumph over those of artificial law.

opposed the measure, on the ground that it would do injury to the sex for whose advantage it was intended; he thought, moreover, that it would aid in dissolving the marriage tie, in addition to inflicting injury upon the children, who were of necessity innocent. He never read a bill more fallacious in its principle. In his opinion, the present state of the law favoured reconciliation between husband and wife, who might for a time have separated, while the bill would promote separation and litigation. There was at least one satisfactory feature in the proceeding—that however it might favour the vices of the rich, it would not much interfere with the morals of the poor.

supported the bill, because he did not anticipate any of the evil consequences which the last speaker appeared to apprehend; so far from favouring, he thought it would prevent divorce; neither did he think that it would oppose any obstacle to reunion between husband and wife.

said, that although the right hon. Gentleman opposite had taken the unpopular side of this question, and although it could not be denied that the hon. and learned Gentleman who had brought it forward, had succeeded in enlisting in its favour the majority of Members in that House, and the majority of persons out of that House, who had thought upon the subject, yet he (Mr. Warburton) felt it his duty to support the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir E. Sugden), agreeing, as he did, in the opinion he had expressed as to the probable effects of the bill. It was their duty to look to the general effect of every law, and his decided opinion respecting this bill was, that it would operate unfavourably for the offspring. Giving to a mother the power of unrestrained intercourse with her children, would be giving her an opportunity of enlisting their support and feelings against an injured husband, where it so happened that the husband was the aggrieved party; and, although unpopular to do so, he should vote against the third reading of this bill.

was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Bridport say he opposed the bill, on the ground that he wished to protect the interests of the children. Surely those interests were not protected under the present law. On the contrary, they, as well as the interests and feelings of the mother, were, by the present law, totally overlooked, as might be observed from a petition lately presented to the House from a lady named Green, stating that she had separated from her husband, in consequence of his living with another woman, under a fictitious name; that he would not allow her to have access to her children; and that, nevertheless, the Court, on application, refused to interfere in her behalf. He could not conceive, therefore, how the hon. Member could refuse his sanction to this measure, or how any one could think for a moment of advocating the continuance of the present law.

The House divided:—Ayes 60; Noes 14:—Majority 46.

Bill read a third time and passed.