moved the further consideration of the report on the Small Debts (Scotland) Bill.

wished to make some material alterations in the bill and with this view moved, that it be recommitted.

said, that it was impossible to accede to the motion of his right hon. Friend, because if he did he should not be able at this period of the session to get the measure passed.

would vote for the amendment proposed by the Lord-Advocate, or for any other which would have the effect of defeating the bill.

The House divided—Ayes 111; Noes 111.

The Speaker gave his casting vote in favour of the recommitment of the bill and the House went into Committee.

Upon Clause 2 the Lord Advocate moved as an amendment to the clause, that the words "100l. Scots" be omitted, and 5l. "sterling" inserted in their stead.

supported the original clause.

The House divided on the original question—Ayes 119; Noes 110; Majority 9.

Bill went through the Committee and the House resumed.

[The Members who divided were in both cases so much the same that it does not seem necessary to repeat the lists.]

(Thetford) moved the second reading of the New Zealand Bill. The hon. Member entered into a statement of the circumstances under which an Association had been formed for the purpose of colo- nizing New Zealand, and stated, that the object of that association was the improvement of the colony. He also vindicated the association from various accusations, and complained that her Majesty's Government had refused them the advantages of a charter. It might be said the Government should establish a colony themselves, but was the House prepared to vote 200,000l. for that purpose? Whatever might be the fate of this bill, it would be impossible to stop emigration to New Zealand. The hon. Member concluded by moving the second reading of the bill.

should certainly vote against the second reading of the bill. He must express his regret that his noble Friend the Secretary-at-War was not in his place, because he knew his noble Friend did not consider himself in the slightest degree bound by the statement which had been made elsewhere, that he had ever given his assent to the principle of the bill, accompanied by the details now printed and published to the world. His noble Friend certainly did last year suggest certain alterations with respect to the appropriation of the money to be derived from the sale of lands, &c., but he had this authority to state, that he had never given on the part of Government any assent to the bill, or any pledge to that effect. This bill comprised within itself every objection which it was intended to exclude from the charter proposed to be granted by her Majesty's Government.

was glad to find, that Ministers were determined to oppose this bill. We had no more right to colonize New Zealand by an act of the Imperial Legislature, than we had to colonize France. New Zealand was an independent state. We had already diplomatic relations with that country, and our cruisers had orders to respect its flag. The real point at issue was this—whether by a bill not brought in by her Majesty's Government any body of private gentlemen should be permitted, first to purchase and exercise the rights of sovereignty in a foreign country, and then to form laws at their pleasure for the country so acquired. He hoped that, by the concurrent opposition of both sides of the House, that small section of it of which his noble Friend, the Member for Thetford, was the representative, would be utterly defeated in their scheme of transferring to themselves one of the prerogatives of the British Crown.

considered the opposition which her Majesty's Government was offering to this bill to be not only ill-timed, but also inconsistent, or at least scarcely consistent with good faith. If her Majesty's Government were determined to oppose this measure, they ought to be prepared to bring forward another in lieu of it, for ameliorating the condition of the people of New Zealand, and for putting an end to those evils which now pressed upon them, and with which the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had been made acquainted by frequent representations. Had not the people of that country had their rights seriously infringed on by the missionaries, who had for some time past been converting themselves into traders and holders of land? It had been said, that New Zealand was an independent state, and that we were not entitled to purchase the sovereignty of it by treaty. Now, in his opinion, there could be no harm in passing a bill enabling a society to hold lands in France, provided those lands were fairly purchased by treaty from the legal holders of them; and that was all that was proposed by this bill. He asserted, that the noble Secretary at War had said to a deputation which waited upon him that he would not throw cold water upon this project, and from that expression he had supposed that the noble Secretary had given it some sanction. He was, therefore, very much surprised at the opposition with which the Government now met the bill which was to carry that project into execution. He earnestly hoped the House would allow the bill to pass the second reading.

remarked, that charges had been brought against the Church Missionary Society, that they had countenanced undue acquisitions of land. Undoubtedly, British subjects had entered into extensive relations with the aborigines of New Zealand. If they had become occupants of large tracts of land, it was impossible that great complexity of relations should not ensue. If the number of British settlers increased, it would be found necessary to provide means of adjusting those disputed questions which must arise out of the transactions of intercourse and traffic. This question appeared to him to lie in a small compass. Neither those who opposed the measure nor those who supported it seemed to him to make out a complete case. He thought, that more was required to regulate our relations with the people of New Zealand than was thought necessary by the Church Missionary Society; but, on the other hand, whatever was done should be done under the strictest and most direct responsibility, by instruments under the immediate control of the executive and of Parliament, and not by any intermediate body, removed from their superintendence and control. With regard to the relations of the new settlers with the native inhabitants, the lands distributed to them were not occupied by the aborigines to nearly the same extent as those proposed to be colonized in New Zealand. There was no evidence that the chiefs of New Zealand had parted with any of their rights of sovereignty, and it behoved the House to be extremely cautious how they consented to any scheme for dispossessing them by underhand means. How was it possible for the House to proceed to lay the foundation of a new state while her Majesty's Government was hostile to the plan? He should wish Government to initiate some measure for the regulation of our concerns in New Zealand, but it was obvious that it was impossible to force the present bill on Government, or to carry it without the assent and approbation of Government. There was no one subject that could engage the attention of the Legislature that demanded more circumspection. There was no exception to the unvarying and melancholy story of colonization. Whenever settlers from a people in an advanced stage of civilization came into contact with the aborigines of a barbarous country, the result was always prejudicial to both parties, and most dishonourable to the superior. Before establishing a system founded on principles similar to those advocated by the supporters of this bill—before endeavouring to meet the necessities of the case, which he admitted to exist—before instituting a plan of superintendence and control such as was to a certain extent required, they had a most difficult task to perform, a work of labour which would require much examination and inquiry, and which it was totally hopeless to go into at this period of the Session.

said, that the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken seemed to rest his objection to the bill on the ground of the insufficiency of the materials for legislation on this question. Now, it was perfectly well known, that Government had the most ample means of collecting information on the subject, and that a large stock of information as to emigration had actually been collected by former Governments, of which the present Administration had shown little anxiety to avail itself. Why should Government allow a fund of 200,000l. to accumulate in Australia, a burden to the colony, and conferring no advantage whatever on the mother country? The success of the system established by the South Australian Act had already proved the benefits resulting from the principle of making emigration to support itself. That colony was advancing rapidly in the career of success, and it was incredible that Government, with such an example before their eyes, could remain blind to the advantages which would result from an extention of the system to other colonies. The hon. Gentleman opposite admitted, that it might be advisable to establish a system of superintendence in New Zealand. He (Mr. Ward) would go further, and say, that as Christian legislators they ought not for a moment to delay interference. The European visitors of New Zealand had entailed on it all the curses of civilization without its benefits. It was overrun with the very scum and refuse of our seamen; 2,000 lawless men had planted themselves in the country, constantly fomenting broils and disturbances, and committing outrages which the Government of this country could not control. The Church Missionary Society had no power to repress these crimes; they might invoke the name of religion and justice, and denounce the guilt of the offenders, but such efforts were vain. The object of the bill was to give protection to all living within the circle over which its provisions extended. The hon. Member opposite said, that we had no right to establish our sovereignty in New Zealand; but would he show him what right they had to do so in Australia? The New Zealanders might be an inferior race; but their rights as the inhabitants of an independent territory were the same. He must say, that from the interviews he had had with Members of her Majesty's Government, he was surprised at the course now taken by them. The noble Lord, the Secretary at War, was present at an inter- view of the most encouraging nature which he (Mr. Ward) had had with the noble Lord at the head of the Government. On that occasion the principle on which the colonization of New Zealand was to be conducted had been explained to the noble Lords, who expressed their concurrence. He (Mr. Ward) was requested to arrange with the noble Secretary at War the details of a satisfactory plan, and the suggestions of that noble Lord had been incorporated in the proposed scheme. Most certainly the principle on which the negotiation had been broken off was never mentioned by the noble Lord at all, nor had it ever been hinted that the supporters of the plan should become a joint-stock company, having a pecuniary interest in the success of the undertaking. It was not until great sacrifice of time, labour, and money had been made by those who had embarked in the undertaking that the wish of Government to that effect was notified to those concerned. The last persons who ought to oppose the bill were the Members of the Administration. During the whole of his experience in public life, he had never known so much uncertainty, vacillation, or change of purpose displayed by the Ministry towards those connected with the undertaking, whom he himself, relying on the faith of Government, and their professions of good-will, had been a party to deluding.

had some right to complain of the manner in which his hon. Friend, the Member for Sheffield, had brought forward the part he had taken on this subject. It had never struck him as being possible that any gentleman could have conceived, that in anything he had ever said on the subject, he had ever given encouragement to this bill in any way whatever. If he had thought that possible, he should have brought down to the House the letters which had passed between himself and the hon. Gentleman about twelve months ago. Not having anticipated anything of this sort, he had not brought down those letters, nor had he referred to them, and he must speak, therefore, entirely from memory in the account which he was about to give of the part he took relative to this subject. He must say, however, that he very much wished that the hon. Gentleman, as he thought he ought to have done, had brought down those letters, and from them stated to the House the part which he had really taken in the affair. Speaking from memory, then, of what passed about twelve months ago, he had to state to the House, that Lord Melbourne, and the noble Secretary of State for the Colonies, had appointed to meet the hon. Member for Thetford, and other promoters of this measure on a given day; but, on the day of meeting, the noble Secretary was unable to attend. He had never heard of the matter before, but Lord Melbourne sent to him, requesting him, as having had some connexion with colonial affairs, and taking interest on the subject of colonization, to attend in the place of Lord Glenelg. He accordingly attended. The Gentlemen of the deputation took the opportunity to state their views to Lord Melbourne, but he must say, the statement they made was of the most vague and general kind; and no Gentleman could have thought of giving a decided opinion, on the moment, upon such a statement. What the Members of Government said, was, that, upon the statement, they did not see any objection to founding a colony in New Zealand; but it was added, that on two points it was indispensable that the Government should receive satisfaction previous to giving their consent to any measure of colonization—first, that the subjects of the Crown should not be inveigled into embarking in any scheme by which their lives and property should be wantonly risked; and, second, that security should be provided for doing full justice to the aborigines. These points, it was absolutely essential should be established before even the scheme could be suggested to the Government. He had, moreover, taken the trouble to point out to the parties certain particulars, in regard to which the scheme, on the first design of it, was obviously deficient. His hon. Friend, the Member for Sheffield, had written to him on the subject, and he, in reply, stated what were the views of Government, and what the securities and checks they thought absolutely essential. His hon. Friend said, "I am willing to make the bill just what you like." His answer was, "I never undertook to make a bill, or to concoct a measure which should be unobjectionable. I only say, that having taken much interest in the affairs of the colonies, I should be very glad to see a measure of a satisfactory nature." Till, within a very short time, he had invariably refused to take any part whatever in the affair. He had only pointed out what were the original deficiencies of the plan, which must be removed before it could be brought forward with any chance of success. This was the utmost limit of encouragement which he had ever given to the scheme, and the House would not be surprised at his present opposition to it, when he mentioned that those original defects were still in the bill at this moment. In the course of his communications with his hon. Friend he had stated, that it was necessary that the Queen's Government should have the fullest control over the commissioners to be appointed by the bill, and he asked Gentlemen to look into it, and say, whether any control was attempted to be given. By the bill, those commissioners would be totally irresponsible, and irremovable also, except by means of an Act of Parliament. He had understood, that the parties were prepared with a large sum of their own, and not borrowed from others, for the purposes of the plan. It was so stated in Lord Melbourne's room. And when he had first heard of a loan, which was about two or three months ago, he said, that it was totally inadmissible. The hon. Member had stated, that the idea of a joint-stock company was out of the question. The moment he heard of the proposal of a loan, his answer was, that Government, in justice to the numerous individuals who had money to invest, and who did not know what species of investment to choose, and to the numerous classes of orphans, widows, and others, who derived their living from funded property, could not think of giving encouragement to a measure which was supported almost exclusively by loans. If the parties interested in the measure thought proper to advance their own funds, they might do so; but it was a totally different question when the Government were called upon to countenance and sanction, by an Act of Parliament, a measure of this kind, in which it was provided that the scheme might be carried on by means of a borrowed capital, bearing interest of 10l. per cent. The House knew how very easy it was to induce persons who had small sums left them to embark in speculations of this kind, and he did say, that Government would not have done its duty in giving its sanction to a measure of this description. The hon. Gentleman said, that Parlia- ment had already sanctioned hat principle with respect to the colony of South Australia, and that the colony was doing so well, that they would be justified in continuing the adoption of that principle. Now, he must say, he very greatly doubted whether the South Australian plan had arrived at such a stage of its existence that you could take credit for its success. He did not believe, that the interest of the South Australian loan had been paid by funds derived from the colony, and not from new loans. If it were so, he should say, that the case of New Zealand was quite different from that of South Australia. So much for the encouragement he was said to have given to this plan; and what he said for himself he could say for the Government—that they had never held out any thing that could be called encouragement to the measure. The Government was not unwilling to consider, and, if possible, support a measure for colonizing New Zealand, which should have incorporated in it the two principles—first, of security against inveiglement of her Majesty's subjects; and, secondly, security for the observance of justice towards the aborigines. This was the extent of the promise given by Government. But this bill answered neither of these conditions; it afforded security neither to the subjects of the Crown nor to the natives of New Zealand. On these grounds, therefore, and looking at the present state of business, he should cordially vote against the second reading. The Colonial-office had not been wholly idle with respect to encouragement to emigration. The noble Viscount read a statement, from which it appeared, that the average number of persons emigrating annually to Australia, previous to the adoption of the present system, was 800; that the number last year reached three times that amount; and that about four times as many were to be sent out within the first half of the present year. He thought this statement completely disposed of the objection of his hon. Friend, that the fund of which he spoke, had not been made a due use of for the encouragement of emigration. In fact, emigration was going on as fast as the amount of funds available would admit of; and he thought that, in justice to his noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Department, it must be admitted by the hon. Member that this charge against the Government was not well founded. The noble Viscount concluded by repeating his determination to vote against the second reading of the bill.

thought, that the plan of this bill was entitled to support, if they referred to what had been done in the colonization of South Australia. Within the space of a year and a half the colony established there had become most flourishing, and with the prospect of daily increasing prosperity. It was thriving on its own resources. It was true, that a debt had been contracted for the colony of South Australia, but it should be recollected that it was impossible to convey a considerable number of emigrants across 15,000 miles of ocean without expense. The sum thus borrowed, would, however, be repaid. He thought the bill entitled to support, and that the conduct of the Colonial Government, with respect to it, was anything but what its promoters had a right to expect.

would oppose the bill, because, he did not like, by such an experiment, to interfere with what was being done by the missionaries, but chiefly because it would compromise the character and good faith of this country, which had declared the independence of New Zealand.

said, he would rest his objection to the bill on the grounds urged by his hon. Friend the Member for Oxford—namely, that if they wished to colonize a country inhabited by a barbarous people, it should be undertaken by the Government, and placed under the authority of parties amenable to Government and under its control. He should decidedly object to giving to private individuals such powers as this bill would confer without having them under sufficient control. Knowing the political opinions of many of those hon. Members who supported the bill, he presumed they would not have asked such powers unless they thought them necessary to carry out the objects of the bill. Now, what were those powers? One was that the commissioners should have an unlimited right of taxation. This coming from men who set so high a value on the liberty of the subject, and who naturally objected to taxation without representation, was going not a little out of their ordinary political course. The next power was that of importing timber from New Zealand into this country duty free. This, from Gentlemen who were the warm opponents of discriminating duties between Canada timber and that from the Baltic, was not more consistent than the former. The next power given was that of raising a military force to an unlimited extent; and to sum up the whole, those friends of the liberties of the people would give the commissioners the power to frame articles of war, and order trials by courts-martial at their discretion. These certainly were advantages of colonization which it would be difficult to persuade the people of England to admit. If those gentlemen who were to be commissioners were to reside at New Zealand, or if the noble Earl whose name had been mentioned were to be removed thither from Canada, he should have less objection to grant those powers, because he would be disposed to place much reliance on his education and good sense; but it did not appear, that the commissioners were bound to reside on the island. They were empowered to send out an officer, who of course would be greatly removed from their control. Such powers as those ought not to be left to the discretion of private individuals.

defended the bill, and contended that the commissioners would not have under it any power over an acre or a foot of ground which had not been regularly purchased from the natives. A commissioner would be sent out to see, that the native chiefs, who had not the education of civilization, were not overreached in the bargains they made of their lands. It should also be borne in mind, that all the regulations of the commissioners should be sanctioned by her Majesty in Council. New Zealand produced a large quantity of timber, flax, and oil, which would have a tendency to render Great Britain independent of the exports of Russia. The late Mr. Huskisson, although it was not generally known, was a great advocate for the colonization of New Zealand.

felt himself bound to point out one palpable inconsistency in the bill. The 33rd Clause prevented any transfer of property by natives, after the proclamation had been read by the commissioners, whilst another clause prevented the commissioners from exercising any control over land not voluntarily ceded. Another fault in the bill was, that it did not afford the least guarantee for the protection of property to British emigrants.

said, that although originally favourable to the colonization of New Zea- land, he could not, after having perused the bill, support the present motion.

The House divided;—Ayes 32; Noes 92: Majority 60.

moved the recommittal of the Lord's Day Bill.

suggested to the hon. Member that it would be desirable for him to follow the advice of the hon. Member for Stamford, and withdraw the bill. There were certain restrictions which applied almost exclusively to the poorer classes of society. He, therefore, should object to a recommittal of it, and should take the sense of the House on the question.

said, that he intended in Committee to propose several amendments, which would do away with many of the objections of the hon. Member for Sheffield.

concurred in the observations of the hon. Member for Sheffield. The bill would only be a re-enactment of what had now been in desuetude for a century and a half, and he should therefore object to its recommittal.

also concurred in the suggestion of the hon. Member for Sheffield. He understood club-houses were not to be shut up as well as public-houses; and he wished to know why should a gentleman be permitted to go to his club on a Sunday and drink his wine, whilst a poor man was prohibited from a similar enjoyment at a public-house?

said, at present the same law was not applicable to club-houses and public-houses; and why should the hon. Member think that the hon. Member for Kent was introducing a new principle in this bill?

must express his hostility to the bill unless the hon. Gentleman would declare his intention of not objecting to fishing-boats landing their cargoes on the Lord's-day. It might so happen that they had a cargo worth 2,000l., the greater part of which would be lost unless they were exempted from the operation of this bill.

then moved that the bill be recommitted that day three months.

, in seconding the amendment, said, that no doubt the House was desirous that some measure of this kind should be passed, and he admitted that no man was more fitted to undertake it than the hon. Member for East Kent, for nobody could doubt the sincerity of his intentions. But every word in the present bill was already to be found in the statute books, and he certainly thought it could not be carried, since public opinion was so much against it. Did the prohibitions of this bill apply to furnaces or to the steam engines in the mining districts of Cheshire, Wales, and other parts? If the fires were put out for one day, the proper working of the furnaces would be suspended for weeks. No, said the hon. Member for Kent, there was no prohibition for this, but was it from necessity or from piety? In his opinion, it was most impolitic to make provisions against one class, and not against all. He admitted, that there was a difference in the police of society, between clubhouses and public-houses—but why should there be so in law? If cards were allowed at clubs on Sunday nights ["No, No,"]—No! Was it not lately proved in the Court of Queen's Bench to have been the case, and that many leading members of the aristocracy were present? Was that legal? Was there any penalty imposed for doing it? Could they compel witnesses to attend and prove it? Was it not unjust, then, to prevent the poor man from going to a public-house on a Sunday to enjoy his glass of beer and the society of his humble fellow workmen, whilst gentlemen might go to their clubs to drink their wine and carry on any system of debauchery they pleased without any restriction whatever? What would be the effect of this bill?—that no bakers would work on Sunday, and that the poor man could not get his dinner baked on that day; and what would be the consequence?—that one man would be saved from working at the bakehouse, whilst it would prevent the wives or superintendents of twenty families from dressing their children and going to church on that day by having to prepare their dinners at home. Was it just to throw such an enormous disadvantage on one class of society? No measure in this form would satisfy the wishes of the House.

said, that his hon. Friend the Member for Kent proposed to make certain amendments to the bill in the Committee, to make it more acceptable to those who were desirous that some measure of the kind should be passed, and he did not see any reason why he should be prevented. His learned Friend the Member for Chester had asked why the prohibitory clauses should not refer to specific cases; but he must be aware that enactments of that kind must be general, and could not well be specific. With respect to baking on Sunday, he should say it was allowed by the bill. At the same time, although he would agree to sacrifice the case of the few to the ease of the many, yet there was a large body of workmen who felt themselves hardly dealt by in having to work on a Sunday. There was another case which ought to be included in the exempting clause, viz.—that of a poor man ordering malt liquor from a public-house to be drunk by him at his own house on a Sunday. His hon. Friend had attended to a suggestion which he had thrown out, but by striking out the clause prohibiting a man from employing his servants or using his horse on a Sunday, his hon. Friend had confined the operation of his bill to the lower classes.

was of opinion that all the objections which had been urged to previous Sabbath bills, were applicable to the present one; and it was manifestly a hopeless undertaking to endeavour to force on men either religious observances or religious abstinences by means of legislation. He was opposed to the committal of the bill.

was of opinion that it was the duty of a christian legislature to pass some measure for the purpose of making the Lord's day be observed. At the same time, he was as little desirous as any one to impose restrictions on the lower orders, and to leave the upper classes without restraints of any kind.

protested against the doctrine that it would conduce to the comforts and enjoyment of the poorer classes to give them opportunities of frequenting public-houses and tippling. He knew that the poor considered those their best friends who, by shutting up the public-houses, would render it impossible for them to go to such places on a Sunday.

would vote for the committal of the bill, in the hope that means might be found to make it operate equally.

The House divided on the question:—Ayes 75; Noes 53: 22.

House in Committee.

On Clause 1,

moved that in line 14, after the word "shall," the following words be inserted, "do, or cause to be done, any manner of work or." The object of these words was to extend the operation of the bill to all classes, and to prevent its provisions from being confined to one class only. If they were to have legislation on this subject, and he did not deny that legislation was necessary, then he thought that the bill ought to be made as stringent as possible.

felt himself obliged to oppose the amendment, as contrary to the principle on which the bill was founded.

could not see how the introduction of the words moved could make the bill more stringent than at present.

thought the words ought certainly to be inserted, as they would have the effect of extending the operation of the bill to the rich as well as the poor. It was true that they themselves did no work; but they caused others to work on the Sabbath, and he should insist on such amendments being introduced into the measure as would deprive the higher classes of some part of that power which they at present exercised over their domestics and dependents.

said, when Sir A. Agnew brought in his bill, those who opposed it said, that if a measure were brought forward for the purpose of suppressing Sunday trading, and without any vexatious restrictions being made, then they would support such a measure; and now, that a bill was introduced, carrying into effect their views, they turned round upon the hon. Member who brought forward the measure, and insisted on throwing out his bill, or on inserting words which would prevent it from passing into a law. He trusted, that the Committee would not sanction such a course of proceeding.

was one of those individuals who had always said, that if any measure could be devised for the suppression of Sunday trading, without imposing unnecessary and vexatious restrictions on the people, he would support it, but in opposing the present bill, he did not think that there was anything inconsistent with his previous declaration. He would still say, that if a measure was brought forward to prevent keeping open shop on Sunday, he would be the first to support it; but this bill went much farther, and he, therefore, felt himself obliged to oppose it. Nor could he support the amendment of his hon. Friend, because, bad as the clause was as it stood, the amendment would make it still worse, and it was his intention to oppose both the amendment and the clause. If they referred to the law at present in operation, they would find that the provisions of the Statute of Charles were as stringent as the provisions of the bill under consideration, or as it would be made were the amendment adopted; for it was enacted, that no person should do any work or exercise any calling or profession on the Lord's Day. But was that law enforced? No; for every person knew that it was little better than a dead letter. And what was the conclusion to be drawn from the fact that the law was not enforced? Was it not plain that the feelings of the country were against such laws, and that they had fallen into disuse because they could not be enforced? He would now point out why he could not support the clause independent of the amendment. If the people were told that they could not walk in the parks, purchase an orange, or enjoy any innocent recreation on the Lord's Day (and such would be the effect of the clause), he was convinced that demoralization to a greater extent than now prevailed would be the consequence, for in such a case the gin-shops would be resorted to instead of the parks. But it might be said, "shut up the gin-shops," and he agreed that such a course might be resorted to, but what would be the effect? They might depend upon it, that if deprived of innocent enjoyments, the shutting up the gin-shops would not prevent the people from obtaining ardent spirits. He had lately read that the Sultan of Turkey had ordered all the coffee-shops in Constantinople to be shut on certain days, and what was the effect? It was observed, that the number of barber's shops greatly increased; and it was discovered that the people obtained there clandestinely what was denied them in the usual coffee-shops. They might then enact that the gin-shops should be shut; but if they did so, and if they prevented the people from taking innocent recreation on the Lord's-day, they might depend upon it that they would force them to seek concealed enjoyments—a greater evil than the bill proposed to cure. For those reasons he should, when the question was put "that the clause stand part of the bill," give the motion the most strenuous opposition.

was as sincere as the hon. Gentleman in his desire that any bill which might pass should be as perfect as possible, for no one more sincerely wished than he did that any bill which might be passed should not be liable to the objection which he had stated against this bill, that it drew invidious distinctions between the two classes in the country. He hoped that his hon. Friend had never travelled on Sundays, and that the hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir H. Inglis) had never been on a railway on Sundays. The higher classes made their servants work on a Sunday, and he meant that the bill should apply to them, for what would the poor say if the rich were riding or driving about on a Sunday, whilst they were prevented from taking any recreation? He meant to press his amendment to a division, that he might test the sincerity of the supporters of the bill.

hoped, that the hon. and learned Member would give him credit for sincerity, although he should certainly oppose the hon. Member's motion, for this reason, that he was generally opposed to the bill and to every clause of it. The reason of his opposition was the same as gave rise to the amendment, that the whole bill was levelled against the poorer classes. He would venture to say, that gentlemen might have any entertainment they pleased, that they might pursue any debauchery they pleased, that they might practise any vice they pleased, and that the provisions of the bill would not be brought into operation against them. He would not oppose the bill if he saw reason to believe, that it would be equal in its operation; but he in vain looked for this. The 5th Clause alone was sufficient to throw out the bill. It enacted, that any magistrates, constables, or parish officers, either with or without the authority of a warrant, might seize all articles of goods exposed to sale. There would be no relaxation for the justices or the officers, but Sunday would be to them a day of labour of rather an unpleasant nature. He had no hesitation in saying, that the bill would not only be prejudicial to the interests of society, but also to the interests of religion. The effect of it was entirely and absolutely to check the amusements of the poor; for it was impossible to suppose, that so many persons could on every Sunday quit the smoky atmosphere of London for the more salubrious air of the parks, or even more distant places of recreation, without taking some refreshment.

denied, that the sabbath was a day only for recreation. There were other and better objects to which it ought to be applied, and which ought not to be given up. The bill was not intended to suppress working, as it appeared to be supposed by the hon. Member for Chester, but to suppress trading.

hoped the hon. Member for Kent would say distinctly on what principle it was that he recommended this bill, and he contended, that he had a right to demand this. All parties must be equally bound by the same law, and if it was intended, that the principles of religion would be acted upon, the same enactment must be applied to all.

contended, that the effect of the bill was to protect the lower classes, and he thought, that this was sufficiently shown, because so soon as the principle of working on the sabbath should be introduced the holiness of the day would be forgotten, and they would be compelled to work for seven days for the wages which they hitherto received for six days. He advocated the bill, therefore, as the friend of the poor, and he must say, that it would not operate upon them harshly, because they could meet at each other's houses, as persons in a higher walk of life might.

wished to ask, whether the hon. Member meant to protect domestic servants by its provisions? Did he mean to say, that he would take his coachman to drive him to church on a Sunday, and that in the event of the servant refusing to do so he would discharge him? Was not that servant as much entitled to rest as any of his clerks, or as his baker, or any other tradesman? If such was not the intention which the hon. Member had in view, he must say, that he was not consistent; for he professed to benefit the lower classes, while in reality he intended to confine one very extensive class to their ordinary work as much as they had ever been confined.

must oppose the bill, as he conceived it impossible to legislate on the principle proposed to be introduced; but at all events he must enter his protest against the system proposed, by which one law would be given to the rich and another to the poor.

opposed the bill, and he thought the best mode of trying the question would be, to take the sense of the House upon an amendment which he should move, that the Chairman should report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The Committee divided on Mr. Howard's motion to report progress:—Ayes 34; Noes 84: Majority 50.

The Committee again divided on Mr. Jervis's amendment:—Ayes 39; Noes 68: Majority 29.

moved, that the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 49; Noes 56; Majority 7.

Other similar motions having been submitted, and it having been found impossible to proceed with the bill, the House resumed.

Committee to sit again.

[The Members who voted for and against Mr. Jervis's amendment being also those who in general voted for and against the successive motions for the Chairman to report progress, it seems unnecessary to repeat the list of their names.]