in moving that this Bill be committed, observed, that it had undergone material alterations in its passage through the Select Committee which had been appointed to consider it. These alterations he would explain in detail when the Speaker had left the chair.

complained that he had not heard one single word that had fallen from the hon. Baronet, and he believed he was justified in asserting that none of his hon. Friends around him had been more fortunate than himself. The rumour in his immediate vicinity, however, was, that the hon. Baronet had moved that the Bill be committed; and to that Motion he should like to propose an Amendment if the Speaker should rule that it was competent for him to do so.

said, it was quite competent for the hon. and gallant Member to move an Amendment on the Motion of the hon. Baronet.

said, that, being the case, he should not hesitate to move that the further consideration of the Bill be postponed for six months. He had frequently taken occasion to express his deep detestation of measures of this kind. Many Bills similar to the present had been introduced; but he was happy to say that they had been most effectively "burked" one after the other. The present measure was the worst of all, and he hoped that an ignominious end awaited it. They were going from absurdum ad absurdius. He was as much opposed to bribery and corruption as any man in that House could possibly be, and he defied any man to prove that he had been guilty of either offence; but the reason why he resisted the present Bill was, that he knew that it would belie its title, and be wholly inoperative in preventing bribery and corruption. It would, moreover, discourage the practice of hospitality, and of those friendly offices which neighbours ought to interchange, and which were rendered imperative by local feelings, and, it might be, by local obligations. It would also compel a Member to be guilty of many mean, dirty, and contemptible transactions. If it was intended for the injury of the resident gentlemen who might aspire to the honour of a seat in that House, and for the protection of scamps and adventurers who dropped from the hustings as if from the clouds on the day of election, why was not a measure introduced to prevent the practice of bribery and corruption by the hon. Gentlemen who sat on the Treasury bench? No men indulged more largely in such practices. Every one knew that, when a dissolution of Parliament was expected, or had taken place, it was a thing of common occurrence for a Minister to tell one of his quondam supporters to go down to Portsmouth, Greenwich, or any other place, and to get himself returned; accompanying the advice with a promise that, in the event of his success, he should be made a Baronet. What was that but bribery and corruption? In spite of all their Bribery Bills, he would continue to discharge the duties of hospitality and good fellowship, as he had done within the last week. There were many ways of bribing besides slipping a 5l. note into the hand of an elector. This Bill would discourage the 5l. practice; but did they not all know that a wink was as good as a nod, and that a candidate might not be the less acceptable because it was known that he could procure a situation for the son or cousin of an elector? It would be degrading for any gentleman to stand on the hustings and take such an oath as was required by this Bill. What would Pitt or Fox have said to such a measure? They would have spurned it from them in a moment, as he hoped the House would now do.

seconded the Motion.

said, he was sorry that the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite should oppose the House going into Committee on the Bill, as he thought this was only due to the hon. Baronet, the framer of the Bill, in common fairness. The House would remember that he opposed the principle of the Bill on the second reading; and he said then that the declaration exacted by the Bill from Members, that they had not been guilty of bribery, would be a snare to the conscience. He objected to its principle, and he thought it aimed at what was utterly impracticable. The House, after a full discussion, however, decided against the view which he took; and he must say that he was surprised when he found that he could not number amongst the opponents of the Bill on that occasion the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln, who, he believed, left the House before the division took place. As the principle of the Bill was then fully discussed, he would not now oppose its going into Committee; but he begged to be understood, in assenting to the Committee, that he still retained his objections to the principle of the measure, which he would take occasion again to bring forward at a future stage of the Bill, which would be, he thought, a more fitting opportunity.

said, that it was a most unusual practice to discuss the principle of a Bill on the question that the Speaker do leave the chair; and he would not now detain the House longer than to advert to one remark of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Lincoln. That hon. Member asked what Mr. Pitt or Mr. Fox would have said to this Bill? Now, he was prepared with an answer, such as perhaps the hon. and gallant Member did not anticipate; he found that in 1809, a Bill was introduced by Mr. Curwen for the same object, and on similar principles as the one before the House. He was not aware at the time the present Bill was read a second time, that an oath had been introduced into Mr. Curwen's Bill of a nature precisely similar; and he found that among those who voted for the Bill on that occasion were the names of Wilberforce, Canning, Tierney, and Mr. Speaker Abbot. His answer, therefore, to the hon. and gallant Gentleman was, that he could not tell what might have been the opinion of Pitt or Fox; but he could tell the hon. and gallant Member that such men as Wilberforce, and Canning, and Tierney, men of opposite sides, upheld a Bill founded on the principles for which he was contending; he could tell him that Mr. Speaker Abbot, taking an unusual course, addressed the House in favour of the Bill after leaving the chair.

That's not what Pitt or Fox would have said.

was surprised at the course pursued by the hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich, who, when the House were about to go into Committee, got up and introduced a discussion on the principles of his Bill. He said he was sorry to see another course now too frequently pursued, that of getting a Bill sent before a Special Committee, and then of coming back to the House with the decision of the Special Committee, announcing it in favour of the Bill, as though to influence the free opinion of the House. He thought the course was most prejudicial. It was, in his opinion, an objectionable practice first to introduce Bills, and then refer them to a Select Committee; and he considered that this was one which ought not to have been so referred. But, independent of this consideration, the Bill was objectionable, because it would tend to smooth over the offences of bribery and corruption. He should, therefore, give his decided opposition to it, and particularly to the first clause.

suggested that the discussion should be taken in Committee; and intimated, that if it were, he should reserve until then the observations which he desired to make.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

moved the omission of the declaration contained in the clause.

said, that he had voted for the second reading of the Bill, but had then carefully guarded himself on the clauses respecting the declaration, on which be had reserved his opinion. Having since been appointed a Member of the Select Committee to which this Bill had been referred, he had given the most deliberate attention in his power to the subject of the declaration. The provisions of it were attended, in his opinion, with insuperable objections; and therefore it was his intention to vote against them. If they looked back to the general subject of declarations, it would be found that they furnished no very encouraging examples to proceed further in the same direction. In the case of commissions in the Army, a declaration had been framed with the utmost care in order to provide that no more than a fixed sum should be paid for their purchase. Had that declaration been found effectual in any one case? Had it not, on the contrary, been found so ineffective that the War Office had been obliged to abandon it scarcely one year ago? His hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich had alluded to the debates in 1809 upon the subject of declarations. That year, however, was by no means the first time the question had been before Parliament; for in 1768 a Motion of the same kind as the present was made by Mr. Alderman Beckford. The difference was only that, in 1768, an oath was proposed instead of a declaration; and, if authorities were to be quoted, he would mention that no less an authority than Mr. Burke took part against the proposal in that year. But even with regard to Parliamentary oaths, the means of evasion had not been wanting. Look at a neighbouring country on this subject. In France, men, who in the transactions of life would be trusted with implicit confidence, had taken the oath of allegiance to Louis Philippe, whilst they were avowedly and without disguise in correspondence with the exiled royal family. Similar instances occurred in this country when there was a Pretender to the British Crown. From these facts, he came to the conclusion, not that oaths and declarations were useless, hut that great care should be taken before fresh ones were adopted or sanctioned by the Legislature. The present declaration, moreover, was liable to very great objections, which no change in the details would overcome. It purported to be as follows:—

"I, A B, do solemnly and sincerely declare, that I have not by myself, or with my personal knowledge or consent, by any agent or person employed by me, or acting on my behalf, by any gift, loan, or reward, or by any promise, agreement, bargain, or security for any gift, loan, or reward, procured or induced, or endeavoured to procure or induce any person to give his vote for me."

And further—

"That I will not hereafter give, pay, or lend, or knowingly repay or discharge, any money or security for money, to induce any person to give, or to forbear giving his vote."

He wished the House to consider whether there were not cases in which evasions might be effected of the obligations of this declaration. Take the case of an eldest son, the heir to, but not the possessor of, an estate. A candidate in that position seldom paid any part of the expenses of his election. They were generally defrayed by his family. The candidate might not have committed bribery; but it might happen that bribery had been committed in his behalf, though without his knowledge, and that the payment of such bribery would never be required of himself. This was not a rare case; and the words of the declaration, as now framed, were not sufficient to guard against such a case as this. Take again the case of the leader of a party, or the "patron," as it used to be termed of a borough, willing to bring in a friend at his own expense, and for his own objects. In such a case, the candidate might not know anything about bribery; yet bribery might have been committed by his party upon his account. When cases like these had been suggested to the hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich, he had replied, "I admit these are difficulties, but if we cannot provide against bribery in all cases, it is no reason why we should not deal with it in as many cases as we can." But the House should consider that this answer did not in the smallest degree bear upon the real difficulty. There was nothing more important than that all candidates at an election should be upon an equal footing. Suppose some borough to be won by bribery. It would be ridiculous to debar one man, and not the other from that bribery, to tie up the hands of the one, and let the hands of the other slip into his pocket, and from his own pocket to the voter's. If this declaration would not apply to a Peer's eldest son, or to the candidate of a political party, what position would the other candidate be put in? Why, the two could not compete upon equal terms: bribery was facilitated in one case, and prevented in the other. This, as between two great evils, was actually worse than leaving both the parties to bribe or treat alike. Then, different interpretations might be put upon the declaration. It would bind a sensitive mind so far, while a callous mind would not be bound by it at all. One Member of the Select Committee had, with great force, stated in that Committee that it was not always easy to say that the promise to give a particular vote might not be a stronger inducement to support a particular candidate than direct acts of bribery. Suppose a man of the Jewish persuasion, eager for his own admission by law into the Legislature, or suppose a town interested in a railway or canal: might not a promise to take an active and favourable part in those matters influence the votes at an election? It was, in such cases, very difficult to say where corrupt inducements began or ended; and these were points which the House would do well to consider. He was not putting the case of a candidate holding one opinion against a candidate holding another; but of a candidate surrendering his own opinion for the sake of obtaining particular votes at an election. On the whole, the subject was fraught with so much difficulty, that, anxious as he was to put an end to corrupt practices, he must oppose this declaration; but he hoped his hon. Friend would not, on that account, relinquish the remaining clauses of the Bill, to some of which he (Lord Mahon) attached considerable value.

said, when his attention was first called to the proposed declaration to be made by candidates at the hustings, and by Members at the table, very great objections occurred to his mind. If persons, for example, were disposed to violate the law, they would not hesitate to take the declaration; whilst, on the other hand, timid and scrupulous persons might be deterred from taking it from an apprehension that there had been conduct in the election which might be involved in the declaration. But, after considering the whole subject, and particularly the form of the declaration, he had arrived at the conviction that it was absolutely necessary they should endeavour, at least, to make an experiment, and to try, by means of a new law, to reach in some degree the source of the mischief. The House had expressed itself, in the most sincere terms, anxious to repress bribery and corruption; but they had not followed the right course in their legislation. Their acts had not carried out their intentions. Undoubtedly Election Committees had been armed with very great powers for the purpose of investigating charges of bribery; but the House had regarded the detection and punishment of the offence much more than the prevention and repression of it. Having, then, signally failed in all their endeavours to prevent the evil, it was worthy of serious consideration whether the proposed declaration was not likely to strike at the very source of corruption. Some persons might feel their honour affected by being compelled to make the declaration at the table; but when it was considered that it was to be exacted from every Member, he thought a person must be peculiarly sensitive who, under such circumstances, could object to it. Was there anything in the declaration itself to deter any conscientious man from taking it, either at the hustings or at the table? It consisted of two parts. First, the candidate was to delare he had not—

"by myself, or with my personal knowledge or consent, by any agent or person employed by me or acting on my behalf, by any gift, loan, or reward, or by any promise, agreement, bargain, or security for any gift, loan, or reward, procured or induced, or endeavoured to procure or induce, any person to give his vote for me, or to forbear giving his vote to any other person."

Could any person hesitate to make that declaration? [Sir G. GREY: I certainly should.] He hoped the right hon. Baronet would give his reasons for it. He (Sir F. Thesiger) could see no ground for not making a declaration of this kind; and, so far as he was concerned, he should not hesitate. The other part of the declaration was intended to prevent a practice which was too common at elections. In many cases a gentleman went down to a borough a stranger to the constituency, and he was compelled to employ the services of some person who possessed local knowledge. That person acted as his agent, conducted the whole proceedings, the candidate interfering no further than going round with his friends canvassing. When the Member had taken his seat, and the time for petitioning had expired, the agent sent in a bill, containing very considerable charges for the expenses of the election. As the law stood, it was quite impossible for a candidate to investigate the charges, or to inquire into their propriety; he was compelled to adopt them, and pay the amount. The rule, in fact, was, "All charges paid, and no questions asked." Now, if every candidate were obliged to make these declarations, every hon. Gentleman would wish to know what the charges were which his agent proposed to make, and unless there were such proper and legal charges as would enable him to subscribe the declaration, he would refuse to pay them; and, on the other hand, the agent would know that, as the law existed, it would be impossible for him to obtain payment of charges which would not be considered absolutely legal. As to the objection, that hon. Gentlemen would feel repugnance to the taking of the declaration, was there any one who could object to say that he would not pay any sums advanced, or perform any promise made by persons acting on his behalf, for the purpose of corrupting any voter, or inducing him to give his vote in his favour? Surely his noble Friend the Member for Hertford, if he carried such a doctrine to its full extent, should object to any oaths whatsoever being taken. He should object to the oath of allegiance, as an insult, also. He (Sir F. Thesiger) was not aware before that leaders of parties went such lengths as to be disposed to take upon themselves the cost of the election of candidates to support their views, and that the candidates themselves were such mere cyphers. But, in fact, all the cases put by his noble Friend were of such rare occurrence that it would be quite sufficient if words were inserted to meet those that were at all likely to occur. The declaration might be made more comprehensive; but surely it was no valid objection to its enactment, that it did not at once meet all the cases that could possibly be met with. There were certain cases, such as those where railroads through certain districts were contemplated, and where various local interests were concerned, which no declaration or oath that could be framed could reach. He did not mean to say, for he did not think, that these declarations would totally prevent all bribery at elections. If persons were morally corrupt, or were not disposed to obey the law, they would always find means to evade it. But, as all their legislation upon the subject had hitherto failed—as they had not as yet succeeded in reaching the source of corruption by their previous legislation—he thought they ought to try another experiment, which went at once to the fountain-head, and tried the consciences of the persons most deeply interested. They had hitherto directed their legislation chiefly against the voter; let them now try what could be done with the candidate. He hoped the Committee would accede to the principle of the declaration being enacted, and that they would try to make it, by such alterations as should be deemed expedient, as efficient as possible.

was bound to say, that after having listened with the utmost care and attention to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Abingdon, and having considered the arguments which he had adduced, the objections which he had made to the second reading of the Bill remained still unshaken. He thought the enactment of such a measure would be a very dangerous step; and he entirely concurred in the views taken of it by his right hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, and the noble Viscount the Member for Hertford, and in their objections to the declaration. He objected, first, to the principle of any declaration at all; and, secondly, to a declaration on the grounds upon which the proposed declaration stood. He thought it was rather an extraordinary course to adopt to present a Bill to that House to do away with the oath to be administered to the voter, and to substitute a declaration to be made by the candidate. The hon. Member for Droitwich said that Mr. Speaker Abbott's opinion was in his favour; but he (Sir G. Grey) believed that Speaker Abbott thought that so long as they imposed oaths upon the voters, they should impose oaths against bribery upon the Members also. But this was a now proposition to do away with the bribery oath, as taken by the voter, and to substitute two declarations, one to be taken by the candidate at the hustings, the other by the successful Member upon taking his scat in that House. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Abingdon also said there would not be the slightest difficulty, with any honest man, about taking the declaration, and that one of the consequences would be, that the candidates would scrutinise the charges of their election agents. But surely the hon. and learned Gentleman should remember that the declaration was not to be enacted for the righteous man, but for the unrighteous. The hon. and learned Gentleman assumed that, if hon. Members were honest and conscientious men, they would not hesitate to take the declaration. But he (Sir G. Grey) said, if they were such honest and conscientious men, they would not hesitate to abstain from bribery, and they would take the most effectual means for preventing their agents from doing anything that could be construed into bribery. But he believed that men honestly and sincerely desirous to abstain from bribery, might not be aware of the steps taken by their agents to secure their election; and they would hesitate about taking a declaration that they had done nothing either themselves or by their agents to obtain votes corruptly, when the discovery of any such acts upon a scrutiny before a Committee, after they had subscribed the declaration, would for ever incapacitate them from being elected again, He himself should certainly hesitate in making such a declaration; and he spoke of himself only as representing a class. He had had some experience in county elections. He did not believe the hon. Member for Droitwich had had much knowledge of the proceedings in county elections; but, from his own experience, he should say there was no use in blinking the question at all; it was almost the unanimous practice in counties to give tickets for refreshments, and he had known it adopted with a very safe conscience. The two committees of the candidates agreed, in order that no voter should have an advantage over another, that to parties coming a long distance tickets to the value of half-a-crown or three shillings should be given. Now he did not know how that might be considered by some hon. Gentlemen. It was a matter that would be viewed in different lights by different persons. Some would consider it a certain inducement to electors to come and give their votes; for, if the tickets were not given, the voters living at a distance would not come in to the polling-places, whilst for the candidate who gave them, the electors would come crowding to his poll. And the fair ground that existed for a difference of opinion upon that question was an illustration of the differences that might arise upon other subjects connected with it, and of how some men would regard the construction which they might put upon its meaning. Some of the most conscientious men might be prevented thereby from taking their seats. But he should also object to the Bill upon the ground of its total inefficacy. What was the most general species of corruption? Why, head-money. And he defied any hon. Gentleman to say what there was in that Bill to prevent any hon. Member from making the declaration, and then going from the House, and giving what was generally expected, and what was commonly called "the old thing." For the promise in the declaration was not to abstain from giving what it was the general expectation would be given, but only not to pay what was promised by agents for the purpose of corruptly obtaining votes. As to the declaration to be made in the first instance by the candidates, he saw nothing to prevent either of them, the moment a poll was demanded, from adopting such practices as he might think desirable. Neither could he agree in the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Abingdon, that the declaration would be an inducement to hon. Gentlemen to examine their agents' bills. He believed that the result would be directly the contrary. He believed an hon. Gentleman would merely say to his agent, "Don't let me see what the expense is—don't let me know what you do. You will take the opinion of counsel upon the law of the case for your guidance, and in order that counsel may tell me whether the course I am pursuing is legal." As he said before, he thought such a Bill would lead to a great deal of prevarication and deception; and it would be easily evaded by those who wished to evade it; and, at all events, there would be still a good deal to be said upon many subjects involved in it. He thought the Bill, especially in that part relating to the declaration, was attempting to do that which was utterly impossible; and he did not think, with the hon and learned Gentleman the Member for Abingdon, that they had failed in putting a check upon bribery by their past legislation. He did not think their recent legislation had been wholly inoperative.

said, that this Bill had been supported by very high authority, and he was sanctioned by a recent majority in the House in his attempt to put a check to evils the magnitude of which no man could attempt to deny. His right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had thrown upon him a charge of inconsistency in proposing a declaration to be taken by Members, instead of the oath administered to electors. For that proposition, however, he had the high authority of Judge Black-stone, who said that the oath should be imposed upon the Member, rather than on the elector. He repeated, also, that he was sanctioned by the opinion of Mr. Speaker Abbott. Under what circumstances did they call upon an elector to take the bribery oath? He took the bribe offered him by the agent of the candidate at a time when it was very uncertain whether he would ever be called upon to take the bribery oath, and when no witness was present. At the last moment, before a crowd of his assembled neighbours he was called upon to swear that he had never taken any bribe. Why, it was almost vain to expect from a voter such an amount of moral courage as could enable him to undergo the ordeal of confessing his having taken the bribe. And the consequence was, that perjury was added to the bribery. Now, he thought that calling upon the candidate at the hustings, or at the table of the House, to sign such a declaration as he proposed, and making it perfectly certain that it would have to be signed, would be a very far preferable mode, and much better calculated to put a stop to corruption. His right hon. Friend said that laws were not made for righteous men. But surely it was on behalf of honest men that laws were made against the dishonest; and it was on behalf of the honest candidate that he called upon the House to pass that Bill. He had been told, in perfect confidence, by hon. Members, that if they had had such a declaration before them to sign, they would never have been obliged to submit to the charges which they had had to pay. If oaths and declarations were only for the dishonest, how could they manage with the present system? Had they not heard, during the debate upon the Jew Bill, enough to point out a parallel case? How did they keep out the infidel and the atheist from the House, but by the oaths that had to be taken by all? As to the objection of the right hon. Gentleman that hon. Members might pay head-money, after taking the declaration, because head-money was not distinctly set forth, he begged to remind him that the declaration was against bribery of every description, and by the Act 4 and 5 Victoria, c. 20, head-money was made distinctly bribery.

said, the difficulty would be to specify the thing done.

said, that, with great respect for his right hon. Friend, it appeared to him that, according to the plainest form of language, the declaration was against bribery and corruption of all descriptions, and the Act of Parliament having made the giving of head-money bribery, it would be impossible for any man to think that it was not absolutely included. As to bonâ fide arrangements between candidates at county elections for the giving of tickets for half-a-crown or 3s. for refreshments to voters coming from long distances, he did not understand how it would be possible for any man to think for a moment that such tickets could come under the head of bribery, or obtaining votes by corrupt practices. His noble Friend the Member for Hertford had alluded to the declaration formerly made by officers of the Army. That—which had been given up for some time—was only a sort of private declaration in a letter to the Horse Guards; but the present proposition was for a public declaration at the table of the House of Commons. He had alluded before to all the cases that had been adduced against him; but he could not admit that it was any argument against his Bill, that, because there were difficulties in applying the test to all cases, the test should not be applied at all. Those frightful cases of corruption which he had stated before to the House, demanded the adoption of some stringent measure of prevention. He had mentioned one case that occurred at the general election of 1847, where 13,000l. had been expended in the direct purchase of votes; that, at the same election, in another county, 8,000l. had been similarly expended; and that in a third case, which occurred within his own knowledge, 7,000l. had been spent in the same manner. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Abingdon had said, with great truth and justice, that our legislation hitherto had been only directed to the punishment of those found guilty of bribery. Was it not time that they should attempt to prevent its commission? He would repeat to the House what he had before stated, that the only way in which they could hope successfully to put an end to wholesale bribery, was by exciting in the minds of men who went down to stand as candidates at elections a feeling that their own honour, and their own characters, were involved in the result as to whether they sanctioned such corrupt procceedings or not.

must confess that of late his mind had very much changed on the subject of bribery at elections, and he must acknowledge too that every attempt which they had hitherto made to put an end to it had failed. The very declaration which the hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich now proposed, he (Mr. Hume) had himself proposed nearly two and twenty years ago; but now, after reflection and more experience, he feared that he could regard it in no other light than as a trap to catch the conscientious man who might himself be innocent, yet was involved by the acts of his agent. He entirely agreed that the time had come when some effectual measure ought to be tried, and he thought that he was in a position to mention to the Committee a complete and perfect cure. His remedy consisted of two parts: first, he recommended an extension of the suffrage; and, secondly, the vote by ballot. He ventured to say, after all the experience he had had, that those two things, very simple in themselves, and very reasonable, would prove to be a perfect cure. Hon. Gentlemen adopted the ballot system in the club-houses, and in their own affairs. Why should they not then extend it to voting for Members of Parliament? Besides, his opinion in favour of the ballot had been fortified by what had taken place in Europe within the last two years. Hitherto hon. Gentlemen had objected to the ballot, because they said that it had only been tried in one country—the United States. But now he had authority for saying that it had put an end to every thing like bribery and disturbance on the Continent, and that under it the great election in France had been most decorously and properly conducted. He said also, that the same result would follow its adoption in this country. All the riots, debauchery, bribery, and corruption which had disgraced our elections would be effectually put an end to, as they had been on the Continent, if they would but extend the suffrage, and allow the electors to vote by ballot. That was the remedy which he recommended, and he should now vote against the present Bill, although similar Bills he had formerly supported. ["Hear, hear!"] He admitted that his opinion had changed, but what was the good of experience if it did not mature the judgment?

wished to put upon record his solemn objection to the multiplication of declarations and oaths by Members of that House. The proposed declaration would, he was convinced, be found inefficient. It might easily be evaded, and would be merely regarded as so much waste paper by the immoral and irreligious man, while conscientious men might be deterred from taking it. He believed that many hon. Gentlemen who had originally supported the hon. Baronet were opposed to this Bill. The Members of his own Committee, that had been selected by himself, were now found abandoning him; and even the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, whose name was on the back of the Bill, was of opinion that there should be no declaration. Under these circumstances, he was determined to take the sense of the House on the clause.

begged entirely to deny the charge that the Committee had been selected from Members partial to the objects of the Bill. The Committee had been chosen in the most impartial manner.

said, that the hon. Baronet proposed to make an experimental declaration, and the opinion of the majority of the House evidently was, that the experiment would fail, and that the declaration would fall into contempt. He would wish to know how the hon. Baronet would meet this case, which was not an improbable one: a Member might be returned by the influence of an association that advanced money as loans to indigent electors, on the understanding that if these electors voted against the candidate of the association the loans would be called in, but not otherwise? The Bill would not meet such a case as that, while it was made criminal to give a voter coming from a great distance a refreshment ticket to the value of a few shillings.

Before the House goes to a division, I wish to state two points which induce me to give my vote against the clause now under consideration. I could not make up my mind to give a vote silently against this clause, because I thought I should be doing an injustice to the hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich if I did not bear my humble testimony to the credit he deserves for the attention he has given to this subject, and the labour he has bestowed upon it. I would call the attention of the Committee to a declaration which the hon. Baronet proposes in the 8th Clause of his Bill, with respect to oaths taken by electors, where, having recited what the Acts of Parliament are, he says that "Whereas the oath of affirmation prescribed by the said recited Act has been found by experience to be ineffectual for the purposes aforesaid." I do not differ from the hon. Baronet in that respect, but I think the oath against bribery by an elector is far more effectual than any oath you can put to the candidate. Generally a voter has a full knowledge of the circumstances under which he voted. He has received or will receive a bribe for voting; therefore, he is conscientiously declaring the truth, or he is perjuring himself. So far there does not seem a difficulty in obtaining a correct declaration by the voter whether he is bribed, or expects to receive a bribe. You have found that ineffectual, and the hon. Baronet declares it is found to be ineffectual, and yet he proposes that which is far more difficult, namely, that the candidate who has not had a communication with a great number of voters, and who has trusted to agents, should make a declaration that no bribery has been committed on his behalf, and no promise or offer made. Therefore, having found that ineffectual which it is in the competency of a man to declare, you think to make that effectual which it is not competent for a man to know. The hon. Baronet himself says that the allowance for their expenses of county electors coming to vote, and the obtaining of some refreshment at the places of election, the small sum of half-a-crown, would not really amount to bribery. Others would think that a larger sum for a man travelling a greater distance, and who had been in the habit of receiving five or six shillings a day for his labour, would not amount to bribery. The voter would be tempted to go to the candidate who would give the largest sum. [Sir J. PAKINGTON: It might be done by mutual agreement.] The hon. Baronet says that might be done by mutual agreement. Another man might think that what one candidate gave was insufficient, and they might agree to give a very lage sum, and in that way the candidate would be unable to say whether it came within the compasss of this declaration. You would have to rely upon one set of; men being specially scrupulous, and refusing to take the oath for fear of its being interpreted into a false declaration; and another set, whoso consciences were of a more robust nature, willing to take this oath on taking their seats in Parliament. The other point to which I would call the attention of the House, is the penalty you will inflict. When I considered the subject, it seemed impossible that an oath could be proposed without saying that any person who perjured himself, and acted contrary to the oath, should be unable to sit in Parliament. The hon. Baronet has fairly met that objection, and does disqualify the person who has committed bribery. But then consider what the consequences may be. I have an instance which occurred very recently, and which I shall not be afraid of mentioning, because I believe it is an instance of a gentleman who acted with perfect honesty on this subject. It is the instance of Mr. Strutt, who was found by a Committee to have been guilty of bribery. He assured me, as a man of integrity and honour, after the decision was come to, that nothing could have surprised him more than the evidence before the Committee. He had not the least idea that any bribery had been committed. He said this without finding any fault with the decision of the Committee. Now, Mr. Strutt, and a person in the situation of Mr. Strutt, on the first day of the meeting of Parliament, would come up to the table and take the oath and declaration, and do it conscientiously. It might afterwards be proved in a court of justice that bribery had been committed by the agents, and the penalty upon the man, who might be one of the most distinguished and one of the most able of your Members of Parliament, would be to be disqualified for ever. The hon. Baronet has met the objection fairly by putting in the disqualification, and I do not think it would be possible, after having imposed an oath, to inflict a less penalty; but it is a penalty so great, so severe, and, I must say, so undeserved, that I could not vote for this oath with the penalty attached.

had often given his support to policy which had for its object the suppression of the offence of bribery; but he feared that the House had only been increasing the evil by taking delusive securities against it. Every effectual security they ought to have; but if they adopted delusive securities, they would be giving to the dishonest, to those who were inclined to disregard the obligations of an oath, a decided advantage. He most cordially joined with the noble Lord at the head of the Government, in giving the fullest credit to the motives and to the ability of the hon. promoter of the Bill; but he feared that much of it was not well adapted to further the end which they all had in view. In the early part of the discussion they had been talking of two classes of men. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department observed, that laws were not intended for the control of the virtuous and the honest, but for the control and the punishment of those who were dishonest. Now, said his Friend, the promoter of the Bill, there was another class of men who wanted to have the aid of a declaration to be made at the table—many virtuous men who could not resist the temptations which were sometimes offered at elections. Suppose an agent to approach one of these men, and to say, "The true way for securing this election is by being liberal"—if in such a case, argued the hon. Baronet, you would allow the gentleman in question to say, "That there is a declaration which I must take at the table of the House, which alarms me, and I cannot, therefore, yield to this temptation," then—so reasoned the hon. Gentleman—you would be conferring a great public advantage, and promoting the cause of public morality. Why, what sort of a man was this supposed personage? He found a law prohibiting an offence, and he did not defer to it. On the contrary, he committed the offence notwithstanding; and it was now proposed to restrain him by the imposition of such a declaration as the one in question. He (Sir R. Peel) had no respect for this class of persons—persons who had not virtue enough to do what they believed to be right; and he was not content to legislate for them. But the fact was, that bribery prevailed in so many forms, that it was difficult to exclude it by a declaration. He had been reading the declaration now proposed, and he begged to ask its hon. promoter what he would do in a case of this kind? Suppose a solicitor—of course, a highly respectable solicitor—a solicitor having great influence in a small borough, with some 300 or 400 voters. He is the leading man—in fact, has great influence—and of course abhors bribery. Well, there are two candidates for this borough. To one of them comes the honest and respectable solicitor, and to him he says—"There are offices in the gift of the Crown—these offices are the objects of honourable competition. There is no bribery involved in taking one of them. Somebody must fill it. It is, or it ought to be, a reward for the virtuous and the intelligent—I have some influence here. I think myself qualified to fill one of the situations in question—nay, I believe you will do good service to the public by getting me appointed to it. Now, here are two of you candidates, both very intelligent and respectable men—I must vote for one—a great deal of interest will follow my vote, and it shall be given to whichever of you promises me a public situation of 500l. a year. "Now, is this bribery? But the hon. candidate says—" I really do not see how I can reconcile my compliance with your request to the declaration which I shall have to make." "Oh," but, says the agent, "I shall soon settle that. A late Act, Sir John Pakington's Act, reduced the penalties for certain offences from 500l. to 100l. Now, one of these offences is that of taking any office or employment under the circumstanees in which we now treat. Well, I am willing to stand the brunt of the penalty. But there is actually nothing in the Act which subjects you to any inconvenience for giving me the office; for although the words office or employment' are mentioned in the Act, they are omitted in the declaration which you will have to make. That only speaks of reward, and reward means of course pecuniary reward, and has nothing to do with an office or employment." [Sir J. PAKINGTON: Reward is mentioned in the declaration.] In the enacting part of the Bill, the words "office or employment" are added to that of "reward." The agent may well enough, therefore, persuade the candidate that he can make the declaration. But all these checks are, after all, delusive. They give an advantage to the dishonest above the honest man. Again, what will you do in the case of a man representing a county, where, without anything like corrupt motives, it has long been the practice to give 2s. or a 2s. 6d. ticket for refreshment to voters? Really there can be no corrupt motive in the majority of such cases; but at the same time the existence of such practices do give facilities and opportunities for bribery. Now, if a gentleman adheres to this custom, and is very scrupulous, he will find it difficult to make the declaration. Others who take a looser view of the matter, will find no difficulty in the affair at all. In fact, the result will be, in all probability, the exclusion of men of scrupulous feelings and strict sense of honour. On the whole, then, I am inclined to think that the course which this Bill contemplates, is more likely to encourage bribery than to put it down; and I therefore, giving full credit to the motives of its supporter, cannot undertake to support it.

would first ask the House whether they were really desirous of putting down bribery? He thought that where there was a will there was a way. It appeared to him that Gentlemen wished to continue the system of bribery, and yet retain a character for honour and purity. The hon. Member for Montrose had proposed the ballot as an effectual check to bribery, but that measure the House would not adopt. He certainly admitted that it was difficult to make men honest by Act of Parliament. If they were determined to break the law, they would find means of evading any enactment; but the declaration proposed in the present Bill, appeared to him to be one means which would have a beneficial influence, both with regard to the candidate and the electors. Constituencies got it into their head that the candidates had some particular interest in being elected, and that the voters did them a service by sending them to Parliament. Now he wanted the electors to understand that it was the interest of the voters to have good representatives, who, if they did their duty, imposed on themselves a great deal of labour and expense. An hon. Member said that this Bill was calculated only to catch the scrupulous, and let the unscrupulous go free. He did not think it could have that effect. Although not a perfect measure it was in the right direction. He knew a Member for a small borough who said to him, "I can truly say that I have committed no bribery, and yet my election cost me 4,000?." He (Mr. Brotherton) wanted the country to believe that the House of Commons were desirous of putting down bribery. If that was their desire, let them exhibit it by passing this Bill. If they did not approve of this measure, had they any other to propose? If one measure could not be adopted, let another be substituted. But, at all events, let them show the country that they were determined to put an end to the evil. He had not changed his opinions on the subject, and, believing this to be a move in the right direction, he should give it his cordial support.

maintained that the declaration should be imposed on the candidate, and that it was most cruel to impose it on the poor voter; and gave cordial support to the principle of the Bill in requiring a declaration.

said, that he had formerly stated that this Bill would be inoperative, and that only the ballot and extension of the suffrage would produce the intended effect; but if the Bill did not answer fully, he believed it would answer partially, and he would vote for it to get what he could.

replied: After the opinions which had been expressed by the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, he thought it very unlikely that the Bill, in its present form, would become the law of the land; and, therefore, he left it entirely with those who supported the declaration to say whether they would put the House to the trouble of dividing. He was willing to take what course was thought desirable by those who supported the views which he entertained.

wished a division to take place.

moved that the Committee report progress. There were several clauses of the Bill so connected with that which had just been rejected, that he would require some time to consider the future course to be taken with I the Bill.

rose to move that the Bill be now read a second time. He felt that in ordinary circumstances he might have placed the Bill on the table, and appealed to the common sense of the House in support of it, as a measure that simply proposed to attach a few passenger carriages to the mail trains that were already running on Sundays under the authority of the law; but the character of the opposition, as evinced by the petitions laid on the table, was such as to induce him to offer a few observations in reference to the objections urged to Sunday travelling. The House would bear in mind that it was not contemplated by the Bill to enforce the running of any additional trains whatever, but only to oblige railway companies to attach passenger carriages to those trains they were already compelled to run for Post Office services. By the Act 1 and 2 Vic. c. 91, the Postmaster General was authorised, on any day, and at any hour, to require railways to carry mail trains; there were companies that had voluntarily attached passenger carriages on Sundays to those trains, and even increased the number of trains; whilst, on the other hand, there were companies that refused to attach such passenger carriages, and there were others again who, not having been required to carry the mails, had closed their railways altogether on Sundays. This want of uniformity had led to serious inconveniences; and as he was persuaded Parliament never intended to permit railway companies to determine on what days they might altogether prevent the public from availing themselves of railway communication, he had felt it to be his duty to bring the subject before the House. The cases of individual hardship and annoyance were numerous; but he would only refer to a few. One of them was already too well known to the House and the country—the melancholy case of the Duchess of Sutherland. That noble lady posted on Sunday morning to Perth, having despatched a messenger the day before to secure a place in the mail train for Carlisle, near which her parent was lying dangerously ill. The regulations of the company did not admit the public to travel on Sunday; and, notwithstanding the entreaties of this afflicted lady, she was refused a place, the train was despatched without her, and she was left in the deepest distress weeping on the platform. The Duchess was compelled to proceed through Fife, sending messengers to order post-horses and to prepare a special steam-ferry, in order to reach Edinburgh and arrive at some other railway where less stringent rules were adopted. He would add nothing to this recital. The Sabbath Alliance had its triumph; but he regretted that their victim should have been a woman in the discharge of a duty so sacred as ought to have secured for her universal sympathy. On the same day a gentleman who had posted a long distance, from the Highlands, was disappointed in not getting the evening mail, though he had most important business in London. At the time of the October tryste at Falkirk, a number of cattledealers arrived from the south by the Caledonian Railway at Greenhill, the junction with the Scottish Central, and they were obliged to turn out and find their way through the moors as they best could. This was precisely what happened to all persons going north on Sunday, excepting those who, by means of a bribe, seduced the company's servants to allow them to ride in the guard's van. This, he was informed, had been often done, and he mentioned it to show the consequences of attempting to impose unreasonable restrictions on the fair and ordinary requirements of life. There was another case of an eminent medical practitioner in Glasgow, which he thought it right to read to the House:—

"Late on a Saturday night, two or three years ago, I was taken by a special train to Morning-side, to see a lady who had been hurt by the overturning of a carriage. In returning, the engine-driver stopped on reaching Holytown, and said he could go no further, as it was now Sunday morning, and it was contrary to the rules of the Garnkirk line to travel on Sunday. At Holytown I found that no post-horses were kept since the opening of the railway, and it was only after some delay and difficulty that I succeeded in getting a person to convey me to Glasgow in a gig. On another occasion I was taken to Ayr on Saturday afternoon, when, after my visit was made, I found I was too late for the last train; I had, therefore, the pleasing alternative of either remaining till Monday or posting back to Glasgow. On a third occasion, I was visiting a gentleman who had typhus fever, near Greenock, and was seeing him every day. When I saw him as usual on a Saturday, his friends regretted that I could not possibly visit him on Sunday, both the river and the railway being closed on that day, but requested that I would visit him by the first train on Monday morning, which I accordingly proceeded to do, but found, on my arrival at Greenock, that he had died on the Sunday forenoon. An intimation had of course been sent me by post, but was not delivered till after the starting of the train by which I left for Greenock."

The next case was that of an hon. Member of that House, who posted last Sunday to Dumfries, in the expectation of getting a train to bring him to town, to enable him to vote in the House on Monday evening. On reaching Dumfries he found that no train left on Sunday, and he had to hire a carriage to reach the Caledonian line at the nearest point. The position who drove the hon. Member said he hoped he was going to oppose this wicked Bill, that would enforce railway travelling on Sunday, and on his being asked why he wished so, his reply was that "Sunday was the only day on which they had any work at all." He trusted the hon. Member, who was a Scotchman, would give him the benefit of his vote on this occasion. He had adduced evidence enough to show the hardship and inconvenience now experienced by the want of railway accommodation on Sunday; and he would now show that that accomodation could properly be given. Every line on which mail trains were run, required as much superintendence as if passenger carriages were attached. Every gatekeeper, pointsman, policeman, or switchman must be in attendance on a train whether it contained passengers or not, and the locomotive superintendence was equally essential. The agents at the stations, and who generally resided there, must attend personally or by deputy to see that the mail trains were regularly despatched, and these persons could deliver their tickets to passengers, so that few, if any more, persons would be required to attend to a passenger train, than was requisite for the mail trains now running. In order to inform the House thoroughly on this point, he would give a statement of the actual number of men employed on the Caledonian Railway, distinguishing the number employed for the special service of the Post Office, and those required for the mail and passengers together. There were 32 station agents required for the Post-office accommodation; and 42 for passenger accommodation; but, in respect of guards, engineers, firemen, cleaners, and watchmen, the numbers required in either case were the same—so that the addition required for passengers amounted only to 10 men. But he was not content to rest the question on that ground. Mail-coaches, ferries, post-horses, &c., with their train of attendants, had always been employed in Scotland on Sunday, and with a greater amount of manual labour than was now required for railway travelling; and on what principle, then, should the accommodation that Scotland had hitherto enjoyed be taken away? It was very easy to raise a clamour and denounce those who thought as he did as Sabbath desecraters; but let those who made those charges look around them at homo, and see the number of private carriages and hackney cabs engaged every Sunday, and which yet excited no observation whatever. He took the liberty of counting on Easter Sunday the number of carriages and cabs that were attending four kirks or meeting-houses in Lothian-road, Edinburgh; and there were 31 private carriages, 13 one-horse carriages, and 149 public cabs, making a total of 193 vehicles, whilst, the same day, five cabs only were required for the Caledonian train, on its arrival from the south. Why were these glaring inconsistencies overlooked? Was the end to justify the means, or were these rigid sticklers of conscience disposed—

"To excuse those sins they are inclined to,

By damning those they have no mind to?"

It would not be difficult to show that there was a greater amount of labour so employed, by tenfold, than was required to work all the lines that Scotland possessed. With great respect for railway companies, he must say that he thought the public right to travel at reasonable times should be placed in other hands than theirs. The very want of uniformity among them showed the necessity of this; but there were other reasons, and he would state one of them to the House. A circular, signed by Mr. Alexander Campbell, of Monzie, and Mr. G. P. Barbour, containing the following passage, had been circulated in relation to the Scottish Central Railway:—

"There is every probability that a proposal will shortly be made to run mail trains, with passengers, on the Lord's day; and, in order to meet this, and to meet the existing arrangements, whereby there has been no travelling on the line on the Sabbath since it was opened, the friends of the cause would require to redouble their exertions. We would, therefore, particularly request of you to purchase shares in the company, and to use your influence with other supporters of the Sabbath to do the same without loss of time. The stock is at present very low—(23l. per share of 25l.), and therefore offers considerable inducement as an investment, there being every prospect, according to the statement made at the last meeting, of the arrangement being sanctioned which has been completed with the four companies—the London and North-Western, Lancaster and Carlisle, Caledonian, and Edinburgh and Glasgow—securing a guaranteed dividend of 7 per cent. or 35s. per share. 10 shares give 10 votes, and 60 shares 20 votes."

It might be as well to state to those people who were induced, for a religious purpose, to embark their money in this way, that they would receive guaranteed dividends from lines now running railway trains on Sunday. After the Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway was opened, the directors established morning and evening Sunday trains, and, during four years, they accommodated weekly 1,000 persons. The proprietors becoming dissatisfied with the general management, a new set of directors was called for, but it was found that this could not be effected without a union with the Sabbath Alliance party. Accordingly, the union was effected. New directors came in, who closed the railway on Sunday. And thus the Sabbath party, though a small fraction of the entire proprietary, succeeded in their object, and those who obtained power had managed to reduce the dividends below what they were before. He was most unwilling to enter into a theological discussion on the merits of this question; and would only say, that he was not satisfied with the perpetual and exclusive reference made to the Jewish law in favour of the rigid mode of observing the Sabbath insisted on by those who opposed the Bill, for, by the authority of that law, Christ himself was declared a Sabbath-breaker. He (Mr. Locke) believed that rigid observance was not sustained by the early fathers of the Christian Church, nor by Luther, Melancthon, Taylor, Calvin, or Paley. There was another mode of viewing this subject, which was whether this extreme rigour in the observance of the Sabbath really accomplished the object of the Sabbath institution. It was said that education was more generally diffused among the poorer classes of Scotland than of any other country, yet a comparison of the statistical amount of crime as between Scotland and England did not bear out the expectations which might have been formed by the higher state of education in Scotland. On referring to the returns of the year 1846, he found that the convictions in England and Wales were 1 in 876 against 1 in 848 in Scotland, while in 1847 the proportions were in England 1 in 738, and in Scotland 1 in 737. If they compared the three largest counties in England with the three largest in Scotland, in which the great masses of the people were found, the result was that in the Scotch counties the convictions were, in 1846, 1 in 602, and in the English counties 1 in 692; in 1847, 1 in 518, in the Scotch, and 1 in 598 in the English counties. The average of the two years made a difference of 14 per cent in favour of the population of England. If the House looked to the consumption of ardent spirits in Scotland, they would find a much greater proportionate use of spirits than in England; the average consumption in England being 0.72 gallons for each person, and in Scotland 2.32 gallons. It was perfectly true that the consumption of malt by brewers in England was greater than in Scotland; but the fact remained, that in the larger cities of Scotland a state of demoralisation and crime existed which was not to be met with in the larger towns of England. Mr. Miller, inspector of prisons, in the twelfth report on prisons, stated that one great cause of the vice and crime of Glasgow was the want of national amusements and recreation as a substitute for the corrupting and demoralising influence of a large town. Mr. Sheriff Alison stated before the Combination Committee of the House of Commons that 80,000 of the working population of Glasgow never went to church, and that 10,000 persons went to bed drunk every Saturday night. He thanked the House for the attention with which they had heard him on this his first occasion of addressing them. He felt that this Bill was called for by those who wished to put an end to the disagreeable and vexatious discussion of the question—that its principle was sanctioned by the highest Christian authorities—that it was called for by public convenience and necessity, and by the vast mass of hardworking men such as filled the city of Glasgow, and who wished, after working for six days in the week, to be permitted to visit their native homes, and to spend the Sabbath in the bosoms of their families or by the firesides of their relatives and friends. Such facilities as those which he proposed to give those parties would teach them those higher and nobler feelings which were inspired by the contemplation of the beautiful mountains and mighty landmarks of their native soil, and would lead them in that contemplation to

"Look from Nature up to Nature's God."

The hon. Member concluded by moving the second reading of his Bill.

wished to know whether it was the intention of the hon. Member, if this Bill should go into Committee, to restrain any of the trains from running which at present run upon Sundays?

said, that when the Bill reached the Committee, he should be perfectly satisfied with whatever mode the Committee might think fit to deal with it. The Bill did not propose to touch the question of the number of railway trains at all: that was left in the hands of the Postmaster-General; all that was sought was, that to whatever trains which might be ordered to be run by him upon Sundays, passenger carriages might be attached.

said, that it was a well-known saying of Prince Talleyrand, "that language was given to man to disguise his thoughts." He did not know whether the hon. Member who had brought forward this measure, concurred in that opinion. With respect to the present Bill, he certainly should not have thought, judging from its title, that its object was that stated by the hon. Member. He thought that the object of the Bill was to limit the number of trains run upon Sundays. The title of the Bill was a complete misnomer. He felt certain that a more obnoxious measure than that of the hon. Gentleman could not be introduced to the notice of the House. If the Bill were passed, they would be obliged to go a great deal further, and take measures for ensuring the attendance of post-chaises and omnibuses at the various stations along the line. The case of the Duchess of Sutherland had been referred to, and a great deal more had been made of it than was necessary. He would state to the House an explanation of that transaction. It appeared that a rule had been established not to start trains on Sundays, and therefore it was impossible to comply with her Grace's wishes; but she might have availed herself of the facilities which would have been afforded to her for travelling on the previous Saturday. He believed there were 50,000 persons employed on railways, and if they did not give them a day of rest, they could not expect to get the élite of servants on the railways who would perform effectively the important duty of attending to the safety of the passengers. He begged to call the attention of the House to the report of a Select Committee on the observance of the Sabbath, appointed in the year 1832—a report that was entitled to great weight from the House. It recommended a general revision of the law for the regulation of the Sabbath, stating that Sunday labour was generally considered a degradation; that the allowance of the seventh day for rest was the just right of the subject; and as such was considered by a largo portion of the working classes. It appeared that efforts had been in Manchester to place the clerks in the post-office on the same footing with the clerks of the London post-office; and that a petition in support of that project was signed by 11,000 persons. It appeared that petitions had been adopted in Liverpool, Bath, and other places, to the same effect. He implored of the House not to legislate on this question in direct opposition to the wishes of the people. He thanked the House for the attention with which they had heard him, and begged to move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months."

seconded the Amendment. He said that if he opposed the Bill it was because he knew it to be inimical to the religious convictions and general sentiments of the people of Scotland. It was contrary to all their traditional and social views. He would not enter into the religious aspect of the question, believing that that ought to be left to the people of Scotland themselves; but this he would say, that the observance of the Sabbath and the religion of Scotland had formed at all times a part of the education of the Scotch population, and that the House ought to hesitate before they passed a Bill which would cause religious strife in that country. Though the people of Scotland might be called bigoted and intolerant, he was quite willing to leave the question under debate to be determined by their reason and good sense; and, under these circumstances, he would oppose the second reading.

said, that whatever decision the House might be disposed to come to on this question, it was due to the strong feeling which the question itself had originated amongst large and respectable classes of the community, not in Scotland alone, but in this country also, that a debate upon such a subject should be listened to with attention, and that the Scotch Members should be afforded a full opportunity of stating their sentiments upon it. Although from his own connexion with the railway department, he felt that he ought not to give a silent vote, yet he desired to tell the House that in any sentiments he expressed he was speaking for himself, and that he did not wish to be understood as speaking for any other Member of the Government. It was not without considerable doubt and hesitation that he had made up his mind as to the vote he should give on this question. In the first place, he must claim for the House the full right to legislate upon the subject. He could not agree with a Gentleman, whose opinions were entitled to great weight—he meant the right hon. Member for Bute—who stated on a former occasion that a Bill of this kind was an invasion upon private property and the vested rights of railway companies. When he (Mr. Labouchere) considered that railway companies possessed a practical monopoly, he claimed for the House of Commons, upon fit and suitable grounds, the right to deal with the subject. But there were other considerations which he confessed weighed much with him in deciding this question. He had to weigh in different scales the amount and degree of public inconvenience caused by the partial closing of railways on Sunday that existed in a few, and a few only, of the railways in Scotland, and that did not exist in any railway of England or of Ireland—he had to balance the practical inconvenience of that state of things with an evil which he was sure was not inconsiderable, and was well worthy of consideration, he meant the shock the passing of this Bill would give, whether right or wrong, to the conscientious feelings of a large class of the people of Scotland. He did not say a majority of that people, but he would say a class, in number, in character, and in respectability which deserved the consideration of the House. He believed, from the petitions presented and from the communications he had received from Scotland, that these feelings so entertained, and that not lightly and inconsiderately, but deeply, by a large number of the people of that country, were entitled, for all the reasons he had mentioned, to respectful consideration. And, upon the whole, he had come to the conclusion that this interference at present would be impolitic and unadvisable upon the part of the House; and as he was constrained to give a vote, he must give it against the second reading. If the objects his hon. Friend the Member for Honiton had stated as being very beneficial to the public, from not altogether closing railways on Sunday, were really sought to be attained, the Bill went in truth but a very little way towards accomplishing what was intended. He (Mr. Labouchere) agreed with his hon. Friend in thinking that there would be a great advantage in giving to the working population of the great towns the opportunity, after divine service, of enjoying recreation and fresh air; but the Bill of his hon. Friend would not at all attain that object. That would depend upon the time the railway train might leave the large towns. That might be an inconvenient time; but, supposing it to be convenient, there was no provision in the Bill to bring the people back again after they had once been taken out of the town. They went, and there they were left. He admitted that to a certain degree it would meet the objection his hon. Friend had stated, as to the inconveniences of Sunday restrictions, if the parties wanted to travel on business of urgency; but even that, in many cases, could be met by means of special trains instead of mail trains. Third-class trains had not been alluded to in the Bill. His hon. Friend proposed that only first and second-class carriages should be attached to the mail tenders; but surely the House would agree that if first and second-class carriages were to be conveyed, it was but justice that the third-class should also be attached. [Mr. LOCKE: So they are by law.] His hon. Friend said, so they were by law. It was true that in the Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford, there was a provision that any trains carrying passengers on Sundays should be obliged to carry third-class passengers at a very low fare; but he was given to understand that there was some doubt whether that would apply to the Bill of the hon. Member for Honiton, without some further and special provision. At all events, his opinion was, that if the present Bill passed, third-class passengers ought to be carried; and if a defect of this kind existed, of course it would be easy to remedy it in Committee. But there still remained the objection that these third-class passengers would in all probability be carried at times the most inconvenient to themselves. It was quite haphazard work as to what time the mail train would leave any large town, and therefore it was absurd to say that the Bill was calculated to promote the advantage of third-class passengers. He believed that a majority of railways, both in point of number of companies and mileage in Scotland, did allow passengers to be carried on Sundays. He rejoiced that that was the case. If he were a railway proprietor in Scotland, his vote would be given, under proper restrictions, to allow them to be carried on Sundays. He believed that the proportion of railways which allowed it were increasing. He believed the House had better leave the question to the progress of public opinion, than run the risk by this forcible interference of setting that public opinion against them; and this, as he stated before, was the feeling of a large class of the community of Scotland and England. Under these circumstances his vote would be given against the second reading of the Bill.

would oppose this Bill, because it sought to introduce an altogether new feature into our legislation—it wished to oblige the parties to break a law which they bad no inclination to do. When he and his late lamented friend Sir Andrew Agnew wished to establish certain regulations respecting the Sabbath, they were told that they sought to make the people religious by Act of Parliament, when their object, in fact, was only to give the people the Sabbath as a day of rest, and allow them to avail themselves of that privilege in the manner they chose. But the present Bill was really an attempt to make the people irreligious by Act of Parliament. Therefore, he would oppose it as far as he could. It was a most obnoxious measure generally, and particularly so when he considered that it would be doing violence to the feelings of the people of Scotland, in their just and most conscientious respect for the Sabbath-day. He trusted the good sense and good feelings of the House would resist the further progress of this Bill, and not infringe upon the religious liberties of the people, by making men do what they believed to be wrong.

as a representative of Scotland, was bound to state that he had presented petitions from his constituents with regard to this Bill; ten or twelve of these petitions being against, and, he thought, three of them in favour of the measure. But, with every desire to pay attention to the wishes of those whom he represented, he felt he had to consider what was necessary and fit for the community at large for whom they had to legislate; and this was a Bill not for Scotland alone, but for England and Ireland also. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Honiton, who had introduced the measure, had supported it by arguments and facts that could not he controverted, and nobody who had spoken yet had attempted to grapple with them. He (Mr. Hume) was as anxious as any one could be to maintain the proper observance of the Sabbath, which he held to be a day more important to the working classes than to any other section of the public, and on that account he considered the present state of the law most unsatisfactory. It was asserted that the railway establishments were private property, and ought to be allowed to be shut up or opened, just as the directors pleased; but he totally repudiated and denied that principle altogether. Parliament, by its enactments, had taken away the means that formerly existed for communication between different parts of the country; and what were the ordinary words always used in the preambles and applications for Railway Bills? Here was a specimen: "Whereas additional means of communication with Edinburgh, Glasgow, and adjacent parts, have become necessary, and, therefore, it is prayed that the House do grant powers and facilities" for that purpose. No one would have sanctioned these Bills and their preambles if it had been thought that, instead of "providing additional facilities" for the public, what really was sought was the power of taking away all facilities of public communication at the arbitrary decree of any body of directors. He was surprised at the view which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, as a Minister of the Crown, had thought proper to take. He hoped he would have shown himself more alive to the interests of the community at large. All the compulsion involved in this Bill was, the addition of one or two carriages to the mail train, and nothing more. It should be remembered that the railways would prevent the use of labour to men and horses to a large amount on a Sunday, and that when the trains were stopped on that day, a return to the old system of conveyance was resorted to; so that the Sabbath was not any the more respected in consequence of the railways being closed. His hon. Friend the Member for Honiton had shown that in one case 140 persons were now employed in conducting the trains for carrying the post on Sun days, and that this Bill would only cause an addition of ten more individuals to the 140, and these ten persons would be the means of enabling 1,000 passengers to travel backwards and forwards to suit their convenience. The morality among the lower orders in Glasgow was worse than in any other part of Great Britain, and those who sought to promote religion among them often adopted the very best means for thwarting and defeating their own object. He would ask any one who had read the reports containing the evidence of Mr. Hill, and others, what it was that made the humbler classes in Scotland more immoral and irreligious than the corresponding population in England? It was the mistaken mode in which many persons in that country sought to effect an object laudable in itself, by imposing vicious rules and restrictions that tended to deteriorate, instead of to improve, the habits of the people. He would cordially support this Bill, because he thought the additional accommodation it sought to afford the public, ought to have been one of the conditions insisted upon by Parliament, before it granted any Railway Act.

had listened with regret to some of the sentiments of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who seemed to think that the duties of the Sabbath began and ended by going to church, and that after leaving it a man should go out on a pleasure-trip, by railway or steamboat, to enjoy himself for the rest of the day. That was a principle utterly at variance with the divine law, which required a man to make his pleasures subordinate to higher principles. The spirit of the Sabbath ought to pervade the whole day, and dominate over every other consideration; else what was the use of those holding high stations and authority setting the people the example of offering their homage to the Divine Being, and erecting churches and chapels throughout the country, to meet the spiritual wants of the population? This Bill was an attempt to coerce conscience, and not allow the people of Scotland—whose feelings did them the greatest honour, and were such as a Parliament ought to do all it could to foster and cherish, instead of to discourage and destroy—to act up to their convictions and their sense of duty as regarded the due observance of the Lord's day. The recent prize essays on the Sabbath, written by the labouring population of Scotland, showed, in an admirable manner, the general feeling of the working men in that country with regard to that sacred day; and he implored the House not to plunge Scotland in the awful position of having the gentlemen who conducted its railway concerns compelled, against their own sense of religious duty, to open the railways on the Lord's day. For these reasons he would cordially support the Amendment.

remarked, that the author of one of the prize essays on the Sabbath, alluded to by the hon. Member for Stockport, had himself declared that his own health had been injured, and his constitution enfeebled, from the want of proper recreation and open-air exercise. As to the assertion that this Bill sought to coerce, it seemed to him that the coercion was all on the other side.

would not yield to any man in his respect for the Sabbath; but they were dealing with this question upon public grounds, and in all cases where railways were involved, in testing the right of the public to use them, they could only be viewed as the public communication of the country. It signified not that they were constructed by private capital—the shareholders stood simply in the position of persons receiving their income from the tolls for running carriages; and it fell within the exclusive province of that House to consider what was necessary for the public good as regarded railways. It was necessary for ah works of mercy and necessity that communication should exist throughout the country on Sabbath as well as on all other days, and this Bill, instead of increasing, would actually lessen the labour of the working men; for at present special trains were run on the lines that were closed on the Sabbath, and the special trains required more attendants and workmen than it would be necessary to employ if a few carriages were merely added to the mail trains—which now run on Sundays at any rate—as recommended by this Bill. He would support this Bill, as an independent Member who thought it would promote the good of the whole community, without interfering with any private right.

concurred in the sentiments so ably expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who had set the question of the necessity for opening these railways in Scotland on Sundays entirely at rest, by stating, upon his own official experience, that no such necessity really existed. He (Mr. M'Kenzie) would not occupy the time of the House, hut merely express his determination to support the Amendment, believing that the Bill would cause a shock to the deep and sincere religious feelings of the people of Scotland.

could not refrain from expressing his opinion upon the question before the House, and had no hesitation in avowing his intention to oppose the Bill, on the ground that it was obnoxious to the best feelings of the great majority of his fellow-countrymen, and if carried would tend to extinguish those sentiments which he respected more than any other trait in the Scottish character, and which he would do his utmost, so long as he had a voice in Parliament, to encourage and maintain. But he believed the Bill to be absolutely necessary. It professed to be general in its objects—but it was not wanted either in England or Ireland. In the majority of railways in England, and even in Scotland, it was quite unnecessary; and, therefore, on the present occasion, for the purpose of merely meeting a few cases, the feelings of the people of Scotland were to be set at nought and outraged, because on some few railways the mail trains now; ran without any passenger carriages being attached. Petitions, signed by 30,000 persons, had been presented against the measure, and not one petition in its favour; and other petitions, as numerously signed, had previously been laid before the House. Therefore he implored the House to pause before it violated the reverential feelings of the people of Scotland in favour of the Lord's day, when so slight a necessity, or rather no necessity at all, called for such a proceeding. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Honiton, in supporting the Bill, said, he only wished to attach a few passenger carriages to the mail trains. Now this Bill compelled railway directors and proprietors, under a penalty of 200l., to convoy along the line of railway, to such a point as they required, all persons choosing to present themselves at the station on Sunday at the time when the mail train was about to depart. Now, he thought this provision very injurious. First, they must carry all classes in the train; next, the carriages could only be attached to the mail train, and therefore it would turn the mail train—which ought, above all others, to be conducted in the manner most adapted to ensure expedition and safety—into one of that class of trains which did more to demoralise the working classes of England and Scotland than was generally believed, namely, the monster trains that ran on holiday occasions. He had always maintained in his private capacity, and he still maintained, that there ought to be some means of conveyance afforded on Sundays for persons engaged in works of absolute necessity or mercy; but he hoped that the House would not, by a compulsory enactment, violate the religious feelings of the people of Scotland. If railway companies were compelled to run trains on Sundays, steamboat proprietors would next he obliged to run steamboats, and there would be no saying whore the operation of the principle thus introduced would stop.

opposed the Bill, and protested against the practice, which was growing up in that House, of introducing Bills to remedy what a few individuals thought proper to regard as a grievance. There was here really no grievance, and the hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill would find that by it he was retarding rather than facilitating the object he had in view.

could not allow the debate to close without repudiating any acquiescence in the statement made by the hon. Member for Montrose with respect to the state of moral and religious feeling in Scotland. He gave that statement the most positive denial. They had been told that the strict observance of the Sabbath had tended in a great degree, by its extreme rigour, to demoralise the lower part of the population of that country. He did not acquiesce in the justice of that remark; and he could appeal, without the least difficulty, to those who were best acquainted with the people of Scotland, to bear him out in the assertion that the strict observance of the Sunday had given great moral strength and great moral dignity to the national character. It seemed to him that the directors of railways had generally exercised a sound discretion, and that the grievances complained of were not of such a character as should induce the House to interfere.

begged to remind the hon. Member for Montrose of the old Scotch proverb, "It is an ill bird that files its own nest." He sympathised with the feelings of the people of Scotland in their objection to any compulsory enactments on this subject, and he should, therefore vote against the second reading of the Bill.

made a few remarks in explanation.

did not admit the applicability to the hon. Member for Montrose, of the Scotch proverb just quoted, but believed that the vote which the hon. Gentleman was about to give would have the effect of cleansing his nest. He (Mr. Reynolds) had heard the debate of that day with surprise, because on reading the Bill he expected it would have been unanimously agreed to, and with regret that hon. Gentlemen should have endeavoured to mix up with the question so much religious feeling, when religious feeling had nothing to do with it, except in the imagination of the opponents of the measure. As it was his intention to vote for the second reading of this Bill, he would state, in justification of that vote, that of the sixteen railways in full operation in Scotland, eight, comprising 240 miles, worked on Sundays; the other eight, of an equal extent, did not. On the latter class, which he would call the religious railways—there had travelled, in the half year ending June last, 1,572,000 persons; and on the "irreligious" railways, 1,623,000 had travelled in the same period. Was it a sin, then, to travel on Sunday, in one part of the country, or on one railway, and not on another? Let it be remembered that inns were licensed, and the proprietors compelled to entertain travellers on a Sunday. In England people might travel all over the country on a Sunday; and on the river the inhabitants of the metropolis were not prevented from travelling. He would ask the hon. Member for Stockport and others, if they had not been directors and were not shareholders in railways that were open on Sundays? If they would not be accused, then, of rank hypocrisy, let them sell out their shares in those railways; but let not the people of one part of this empire be denied privileges which were enjoyed by others.

said, he was not ashamed to avow a prejudice in favour of observing the Lord's day. It was remarkable that a general Bill should be brought forward for the sake of regulating some few railways in Scotland, especially as the public feeling there was decidedly and conscientiously opposed to the measure. Cases of inconvenience were alleged, but were there not inconveniences from having no delivery of letters on a Sunday in London?

moved that Mr. William Miles and Mr. Eliot Yorke be discharged from further attendance on the Smithfield Market Committee, and that Mr. Ormsby Gore and Mr. Wodehouse be added to the Committee.

objected to the Motion; complaining that the metropolis was not represented on the Committee. He moved, as an amendment, that Mr. Osborne be substituted for Mr. Wodehouse.

said, that the metropolis had reason to complain of the manner in which this Committee had been obtained. He objected to a new Committee at this late period of the Session. The corporation had been prevented from enlarging the market, because they did not know what Parliament was about to do.

said, he had not added to the Committee. He merely proposed to substitute two Gentlemen who were willing to servo, for two who were not. He had asked several metropolitan Members if they were willing to serve, and they had declined.