would not oppose the Motion; but he hoped the hon. Member was not prepared to say that no preliminary inquiry should take place in the case of private Bills. He would ask how it was possible that Committees on unopposed Bills could come to a proper know-ledge of the improvements necessary in a town or borough, without a preliminary inquiry. He agreed that there was at present much unnecessary expense, but he was sure there was an imperative necessity for ensuring a preliminary inquiry.

considered that it was unnecessary that private Acts should be obtained whenever a town required to be improved or waterworks established, and such Acts should be done away with. At any rate why should not a single Act for all these purposes be passed at the end of every Session, on the principle of the Enclosure Acts?

said, that his constituents had suffered much by this Act, which had been most prejudicial last Session to a Bill with respect to the conservancy of the Tyne. The preliminary inquiries were always unsatisfactory, and as regarded opposed Bills the Act was most unreasonable.

could only attribute the opinion formed by the hon. Member to his ignorance of the Act. The opinion of persons best qualified to judge on the subject had been taken before two Committees. The preliminary inquiries were a great advantage to the progress of private business.

said, there could be no objection to the appointment of the Committee, and therefore perhaps it would be better to agree to the Motion, and reserve all statements until a future occasion.

said, that seeing the hon. Member for North Lancashire in his place, he begged to ask him what his intentions were with regard to the adjourned debate (upon the English and Irish Universities), which stood upon the Orders of the Day for that night, but which it was certain could not come on?

replied, that it was not his intention to press the continuance of the debate, as he was satisfied with the letters of the noble Lord at the head of the Government to the chancellors of the universities, which had been lately published. The noble Lord had stated in those letters the object of the Royal Commission to be, to inquire into the state of the revenues of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge—into the provisions of the statutes by which their several colleges were governed—and to report their opinion whether any measures could be adopted by the Crown, or the Parliament, by which the interests of religion and sound learning might be promoted in the conduct of education in the universities. Those objects were perfectly satisfactory to him (Mr. Heywood). He should, therefore, not press his Motion for the adjourned debate, but should leave the House to deal with it as they might think proper.

suggested that, in that case, the Order of the Day should be read at once, for the purpose of adjourning the debate until Monday next; and he would give notice that he would ask the noble Lord on Monday, whether it was his intention to appoint a day for the discussion of the subject, seeing that he had a notice on the Paper of his intention to move that the question be adjourned for three months.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman should put his question and give his notice at five o'clock. The Order of the Day could not be moved before that hour.

begged to ask a question of the Chief Commissioner for the building of the New Houses of Parliament, that being the most fitting opportunity for putting it. It was, whether he would then state to the House what were the precise alterations suggested by the Commissioners with reference to taking down the strangers' gallery, and pulling down the wall behind the reporters' gallery?

said, that at the present moment there were no suggestions made by the Commissioners, either to Mr. Barry or himself. They were anxious that hon. Members should try the House, and then make any suggestions which they might think proper. Now, that they had had the opportunity of trying it, they would be better able to form a judgment as to the accommodation which it afforded, and how they could make themselves heard in it, and they could now suggest such alterations or amendments as they might think it needed.

wished to know whether he was to understand that all hon. Members were invited to send in their suggestions to the Commissioners?

said, that if hon. Members did so, the Commissioners would be very willing to attend to them.

wished to know, was the present trial to be the only one? Because, whilst every one was speaking to his neighbour as loud as he pleased, debating the novelty of their position, and hon. Members were moving about to all parts of the House, it would be quite impossible to judge whether it was easy or difficult to hear in it. He would beg to suggest that they should have a regular long debate in it upon some important subject before they came to any decision upon its merits, or offered any suggestions as to alterations.

said, that the Commissioners would take every opportunity possible of attending to any suggestions that might be made to them. But there was one observation of the hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex which he wished to set him right concerning. He (Mr. Greene) was not the Chief Commissioner; Sir John Burgoyne was the chairman of the Commission, and might therefore be styled the Chief Commissioner. He himself stood only third on the list.

said, that, by general consent, the House could meet again in the New House on any future day.

said, that it was impossible as yet to form a judgment as to the capacity of the building for transmitting sound. No doubt hon. Members scarcely heard a word of what was going forward; but it should be recollected that they had been doing only private business, which no one ever attended to in the old House except those who were immediately interested, and therefore they should not judge of the House nor condemn it too hastily.

said, that there was a public Bill specially set down for third reading at twelve o'clock that day. Hon. Members should therefore wait until five o'clock, and put their questions then.

—from, the gallery opposite the Speaker's chair—Sir, we do not know here what is going forward.

said, that the House had not formally declared, as yet, that at its rising it would adjourn to the old House. They ought to be informed whether they were to adjourn to meet in the old House at five o'clock, and whether they were then to be counted, as a mistake upon that head might cause no House to be made in the evening.

said, that, at its rising, the House would adjourn until five o'clock. At that hour it would assemble again in the old House, and be counted as usual.

Sir, I don't know whether you can hear down there, but we certainly cannot hear at all up here.

said, that there ought to be an examination at the bar of the House, in order to test the power of hearing in it thoroughly. And there was no person whom it would be more proper to examine than Mr. Barry himself; they would then have an opportunity of judging whether he could make himself heard.

hoped that the Government would consent to limit the discretion of the Executive to the addition of quarter-sessions towns. If some such rule were not adopted, a door would be opened for the worst species of favouritism in counties that might be contested. The rule which he suggested was an obvious and a fair one; and without some limitation he must vote against the clause.

, having a notice on the Paper of a clause to effect the same object by means of a petition from the grand jury-assembled at assizes, must oppose the hon. and learned Attorney General's clause. He said that the grand juries in Ireland performed the same fiscal business at assizes that the magistrates did at quarter--sessions in England; and as one object of the Bill was to assimilate the laws of the two countries as much as possible, his clause would create a power more analogous to that existing in England than the hon. and learned Attorney General's would. He contended that the Grand Jury Act worked well in Ireland.

begged to differ from the hon. Gentleman. He did not think that the grand-jury system worked well in Ireland. But he should oppose the hon. and learned Attorney General's clause, because he thought it would be very had to trust to a petition from Irish justices. He thought that the object would be better attained by the clause about to be proposed by the hon. Member for Roscommon, which sought to give the power of petitioning for additional polling places to a number (not less than 300) of the qualified electors of the barony.

said, the clause had been drawn up in consequence of several recommendations received by Government, and only carried out a principle which had worked in England with perfect success. The additional polling places could not be established unless by an Order in Council, and an efficient check and control over the magistrates would be exercised by the Lord Lieutenant, or by the new Secretary, and by the Government. Besides, it was open to any hon. Member to state objections to any polling place, which the Government would take into consideration. The effect of this clause was to give the initiative to the justices; but the Privy Council had the control. It was intended to make the law the same as in England; and the alterations in the clause were only such as to suit the circumstances of Ireland.

had the strongest possible objection to the principle of leaving such power in the hands of the magistracy. In political questions the magistrates did not possess the confidence of the majority of the people. It would not mend the evil to give a power of controling the magistrates to the Lord Lieutenant, or to the Irish Secretary, for they might all be partisans alike.

denied the statement of the hon. Member that the Irish magistracy did not enjoy the confidence of the people; on the contrary, he had never heard one expression of dissatisfaction among the people with respect to any magisterial decision.

could only say that the noble Lord was very happy in his experience. He had nothing to say against the magistrates, but he knew that almost all over the country they had not the confidence of the people. He was averse to giving the power proposed by the clause to the magistrates, and doubly so to giving it to the grand jury, who were the essence of the magistrates.

said, that the Bill for appointing additional polling places in Ireland had been before the House for two years, and during all that time none of those direful dangers that were now apprehended from this clause had ever been thought of. Not a word of apprehension had been uttered during the progress of the present Bill to its second reading, nor until the House had gone into Committee upon it, when, upon a suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington, that the English plan should be adopted as far as possible in Ireland, his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary conceded that it was reasonable and practicable. Not a word was then said against the plan; and his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General accordingly prepared the clause under consideration, which he earnestly trusted the House would agree to.

opposed the giving of the power into the hands of the magistrates, who were always found in opposition to the opinions of the people, especially in the south of Ireland. There was no occasion to thrust in the clause at present. Let them wait for a year or two, and see how the Act worked. It would then be time enough, and easy enough, to introduce such a clause, if necessary.

defended the clause, and thought that the justices of the peace in Ireland might be safely intrusted with the power of fixing the polling places upon petition to the Lord Lieutenant. He was surprised to find such an indisposition among hon. Gentlemen opposite to intrust powers such as these to Irish gentlemen. If a man embarked his fortune in the colonies, or if he bought an estate in Scotland, he might then be trusted; but let him approach the fatal shore of Ireland, and hon. Members opposite would intrust him with as little as possible of the influence which belonged to his station. The gentry of Ireland were anxious to do their duty, and to atone for the past. Let the House, therefore, treat them, as much as they could, as belonging to a common empire, as subjects of the same Sovereign, and admit them to equal powers, equal responsibilities, and an equal administration.

considered the clause to be objectionable for many reasons. Political feelings were frequently strong among the magistracy of Ireland, and the clause might lead to the recommendation or otherwise of polling places for political purposes.

said, the distance of the polling places might be so great as to hinder the exercise of the franchise, and he saw no danger in leaving it to the magistrates to recommend additional polling places where required. He did not gee why a proposal to adopt the English practice should be opposed with regard to Ireland.

would support the clause now brought forward by the Government as a great improvement upon the original clause.

said, the object had been to embody the English system in the Bill, as was stated in the former debate. He had uniformly insisted on the principle of having the polling places so regulated as might be most convenient to the great body of voters; and in so doing, preference should be given to the sessions towns.

said, their position was this—they had put in the scedule of the Bill such polling places as they thought from their present knowledge would be fit and proper for the purpose; but, lest hereafter what they had done should be found imperfect, it was proposed to place in other hands, namely, that of the magistrates, the power of continuing from time to time the work which Parliament had begun. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundalk proposed that there should be a limitation in the powers given to the magistrates, and the limitation was that the additional polling places named should be quarter-sessions towns. This he considered a very obvious and just proposition, therefore he would give it his decided support.

opposed the Amendment, which he deemed wholly unnecessary, and regretted that such proposals should be brought forward merely for the sake of a little mock popularity.

would give his support to the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundalk. It might be all very well for the hon. and gallant Member to defend the magistrates of Ireland; but all he could say was, that up to the present hour that body continued to act on all political questions in opposition to the feelings of the people of Ireland. He would mention, as one instance, that 800 magistrates had signed a memorial censuring the present Government, and censuring the Earl of Clarendon for the dismissal of Mr. Beers, who had sat as a judge on his own case. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland had said, "I will give you this clause, because it is in the English Reform Act." Now, there was no analogy in the case; but whenever anything could be found to act against Ireland, she was sure to have the benefit of it. If this close assimilation were to exist, why should not the right hon. Gentleman give Ireland a 40s. franchise—and why should not the county which he (Mr. Roche) had the honour to represent—the Yorkshire of Ireland—be divided as the Yorkshire of England was, so as to return an equivalent number of representatives? He well knew that no argument which he might use would have any effect on right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury bench; for, unfortunately, he had been sitting on the wrong side of the House. He, in accordance with the wishes of his constituency, supported the Government generally, and therefore his suggestions were deprived of that weight which they would possess if emanating from hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. He denied that there was any compact between the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland and the Irish Members on that side of the House. He would sup-port the Amendment.

had heard no reason why the list of towns from which additional polling places should be selected should not be made out and added to the schedules of the Bill. The places at present appointed in the schedules were all quarter-sessions towns. Why then should not the future be limited to quarter-sessions towns also? There ought to be some limitation. It was absurd to say that the magistracy of Ireland possessed the political confidence of the public. If it were so, why were stipendiary magistrates appointed by Government in Ireland, and not in England? What reason could be assigned by the Government for it, but that the justices had not the confidence of the people.

would support the limitation. In the schedule of the Bill the polling places laid down were quarter-sessions towns; and he thought they should not give power to the magistrates to go beyond the principle of the Bill.

could not but think that the apprehensions of those who were afraid of gross partiality on the part of the magistrates were unfounded. He did not think that any practical purpose would be effected by the proposition of the hon. Member for Roscommon. If his proposition were agreed to, there might be a petition from 300 electors praying for one place, and another petition signed by 300 other electors praying for another place. The House divided:—Ayes 33; Noes 108: Majority 75.

, after presenting a petition signed by 31,000 inhabitants of Manchester, praying for the total abolition of Sunday labour in the Post Office, said that if the question he had to submit to the House had no other claim to their consideration than the deep and extensive interest which had been manifested in it by the whole of their constituents in different parts of the kingdom, it would deserve their most respectful attention. No other object had ever excited a deeper attention, or had created a more intense sentiment in the public mind. This feeling had been evinced in public meetings, by memorials and deputations to the Government, and by petitions to Parliament. This feeling was not confined to any one class or profession, or to any one order or rank of society; it pervaded the very highest and the very lowest grades of the community; it was felt by labourers, artisans, tradesmen, merchants, bankers, capitalists, and persons of all descriptions. This feeling also, he was happy to say, was not confined to any one form of theological or political opinion. It prevailed with equal force in the smallest agricultural districts as well as in the largest manufacturing towns and cities. It was a question which might be argued upon a very much higher ground. It might be argued upon its religious character—upon the justice of the case to the parties concerned, and upon its deep importance to the whole community. He hoped its discussion would be conducted in a sober and friendly spirit, suited alike to the character of the assembly by whom the discussion was carried on, and the importance of the subject itself. For his part, he would studiously refrain from uttering anything which should in the least degree excite anger or provoke opposition. On the contrary, he must begin by expressing his thanks to Her Majesty's Government and to the Post Office authorities for what they had already done. They had conferred a great benefit on the parties interested, and no greater benefit had been conferred by them than the proof they had given that they could confer still more. All he hoped was, that the Government would now endeavour to accomplish their own good work, and perfectly establish their own reputation. He would now call the attention of the House more particularly to the deep feeling which had been declared by the public on this matter. The report of the petitions, up to the present day, was not completed; but the total number of petitions down to the 24th of May was 3,820, and that of signatures was 549,538. Many of these (from Scotland alone, 335) were signed by the chairman only; and there was a vast number of petitions yet to be reported. Several hundreds had not yet been presented. He had, therefore, a right to conclude that the signatures would actually amount to no less than 700,000. But, taking into account the number of persons who might be assumed to be represented by the signature of the chairman, he was warranted in estimating the number of petitioners in support of the Motion he was about to make at not loss than 1,000,000. Look at the details. Take Liverpool. It had sent a petition signed by 14,000 persons in favour of the Motion. As soon as the subject was mooted in that town, 200 merchants and bankers formed themselves into a Committee to forward the object of the Motion which he now had to submit to the House. The petition from Manchester had 31,000 signatures appended to it, including a considerable number of rich and extensive firms. From Aberdeen a petition had come signed by 16,702 persons; from Paisley the signatures were 6,563; from Edinburgh they were 24,298, and from Glasgow 21,750. The Glasgow petition was worthy of attention. The town-council consisted of fifty members, forty-one of whom signed the petition; of the banks nine out of the eleven in that city attached their signatures to it; twenty-two surgeons and physicians signed it, sixty-eight procurators, brokers, &c.; and 500 merchants and manufacturers. In the year 1839 the subject of the penny post was brought before the House. The Government yielded upon that subject to a body of petitions representing only 266,511 persons, and in thus yielding they gave up a revenue to the amount of a million of money, which for a considerable time placed the Government in great financial difficulties. What was it that the petitioners in this case asked for? They sought nothing for themselves, but simply requested that a boon might be extended to a certain number of their fellow men. That was all. A memorial was presented to the First Lord of the Treasury, signed by about 5,000 merchants, bankers, &c., of the city of London. The testimony of the city of London on this subject was of great importance, as it was the city which all the other towns and cities in the kingdom wished to take as a model. If any evil could possibly arise out of the plan which he now proposed, it must have been felt in the metropolis of the whole world; but the London bankers and merchants declared that they were strongly impressed with a belief that there existed no greater necessity to justify the transaction of the ordinary business of receiving and delivering letters on Sunday, in any of the post-offices of the united kingdom than in those of the metropolis; and they earnestly requested Her Majesty's Government to take into immediate consideration the expediency and propriety of causing the same to be discontinued, by ordering the post-offices in the country to be altogether closed on that day. Their belief was grounded on the fact that the metropolis, containing a population of 2,200,000 souls, had never experienced any necessity for opening the metropolitan post-office on Sundays, and also on the fact that the great acceleration which had recently taken place in the postal communications throughout the empire must necessarily diminish, to a very great extent, any inconvenience which it might otherwise be supposed would arise from closing the provincial post-offices on Sunday; and, believing that the effectual preservation of a seventh day of rest from their ordinary labour was a principle of vital importance to the physical and social well-being of the poorer classes of society, whilst the due observance of the Sunday was a duty of solemn obligation upon all classes of the community, they agreed to take such measures as were best calculated to press the subject on the attention of the Government and the Legislature. So far as the Government had hitherto acted, he and those whose petitions he was supporting, were in entire accordance; but the Government now said that they had done enough, whereas he and the petitioners said that a great deal more could and ought to be done. The Government wished to stand still, while he and the petitioners maintained that the Government ought to go forward. The demand he and the petitioners made was simply this, that every town and city of the united kingdom should be put on the same footing as the metropolis in respect of post-office work. They simply required that the metropolis should be the model to be imitated in all postal matters in every town and city in the kingdom. They asked that a rule should be established to prohibit the collection and delivery of letters and the transmission of mails on the Lord's day. When he said the transmission of the mail, he meant the mail bags; he did not propose to interfere with the passengers. The whole question involved in this debate was a very simple one; he merely asked that each town and city in the united kingdom should be placed under the same conditions in respect to postal matters as the metropolis. The petitioners did not require any exemption from taxation, or ask for any political privilege. They sought not the slightest benefit for themselves. All they asked for was, theoretically, the adoption of a principle which they held to be sacred, but practically that Parliament should extend relief to a body of overtoiled men, and place them on the same footing and in the same condition as that of all other subjects in Her Majesty's dominions. This was the long and short of their demand, and he could not understand in what manner it could reasonably be resisted. It had indeed been said that the plan was impracticable; but that was the invariable answer which had been given to every proposition he had ever submitted to the House, but which nevertheless had since been carried into effect. But if Government gave him this reply, what, he would ask, had their own functionaries said upon the subject? The resolution he was about to propose might be divided into two distinct parts: first, it required the cessation of the collection and delivery of letters in all the post-offices of the united kingdom on the Lord's day. What was Mr. Rowland Hill's testimony upon that point? In his minute of the 5th of January, he said—

"As regards collection and delivery, London is already in the state proposed, and though the delivery of Sunday in provincial towns is probably the heaviest in the week, still there could be no insuperable obstacle to placing any other town, where the inhabitants in general so desired it, in a similar position."

In the same minute he observed—

"The former—that is, suspension of collection and delivery—might be adopted without detriment in detail, according to the wish of each particular place."

The surveyors of the Post Office, summoned to London to give their opinion and counsel on the subject, said—

"With respect to the total suspension of all delivery on Sunday, it is obvious that the measure would be a great boon to the servants of the Post Office, and, if the public mind is prepared to acquiesce in such a proposition, we do not perceive that it is liable to any objection on the part of the Post Office."

He was justified, therefore, in saying that there was no objection on the part of the Post Office in respect to the first part of his resolution. If they would examine all those who had the greatest experience of their postal system—bankers, traders, commercial men of all grades, they would say that no evil whatever, but, on the contrary, a vast amount of good, had arisen out of that amount of restriction on the Sunday delivery which existed in the metropolis. He recollected a few years ago, when a notion prevailed that a Sunday delivery was about to take place in London, that a stronger feeling was manifested and greater efforts were made to resist the plan than any he ever knew to have been displayed in the whole course of his public life on any subject that ever agitated the public mind. To pass now to the second part of the subject of the Motion—the non-transmission of the mail-bags; in reference to this, the report of the surveyors was:—

"The operation of such a measure would be most unequal, being comparatively harmless with respect to all towns situated within 200 to 250 miles of London, but acting with increased severity upon the interests of all towns situated beyond that limit."

So that within a radius of 250 miles, the transmission of the mails on Sunday might be stopped without any injury resulting—["No!"]—at least, it would be "comparatively harmless." Now a radius of 250 miles would comprise the whole of England to the east and south coasts, to the west as far as Plymouth and Bangor, and to the north as far as the borders of Durham and Westmoreland. It so happened that nearly all the English towns of importance, except Newcastle and Carlisle, were within a range of 250 miles, and the mail from London even at present reached Carlisle at 7.55 on Monday morning, and Newcastle at 9; so that the inconvenience would practically amount to nothing. Scotland and Ireland would no doubt be affected by the proposed regulation; Scotland to this extent, that the Monday morning delivery would be postponed to the afternoon, and in some parts of Ireland it would be postponed to the Tuesday morning. But there was this very remarkable fact, testifying the feeling of great masses of the people upon this subject, that notwithstanding it was known that this result would take place, Ireland had petitioned very largely indeed for the carrying the whole of the resolution; and Scotland—including the great commercial town of Glasgow—had sent petitions for the total measure, with 253,157 signatures up to the I4th of May only. But there was no doubt that the second part of the Motion was open to much more debate than the first; indeed, to the first it seemed altogether impossible that any effective opposition could be made, for the proposed regulation would do no more than place the provincial towns and cities upon the footing of London, and make Sunday the blank day in the provinces instead of Monday. Now, although he, and those whom he represented, retained their opinion as to the feasibility of carrying the whole resolution into effect, and the benefit that would result from it, yet as upon the second part there was a great difference of opinion, not only among those who had not yet made up their minds altogether, but even among those who had signed many of these petitions, he was prepared to amend the resolution in this respect, and instead of proposing, in the terms of his notice, an address asking for measures to be taken to stop the collection and delivery of letters, and also the transmission of mails on the Lord's day, he would move—

"That an Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that measures might be taken for the extension of the system of rest on the Sabbath in the London Post Office to the provinces, and that the collection and delivery of letters should entirely cease on that day in all parts of the kingdom—[the word 'collection' was a technical term, and did not mean the dropping of letters into the box, but the sorting and the arrangement]—and also that Her Majesty would call inquiry to be made as to how far, without injury to the public service, the transmission of mails on the Lord's day should entirely cease."

The resolution so modified should surely meet the acceptance of the House, considering the vast body of petitioners who prayed for the first part of the resolution; and that in regard to the other the House was only asked to address the Crown to cause inquiry whether so great a boon, so ardently desired, might not be conferred without injury to the public service. Let the House consider the great importance and value of such an arrangement. The benefit to be derived would not be limited to the few thousands who were confined within the wall of the Post Office, or engaged in the carrying of mails, but would extend to all the receivers of letters—the bankers, merchants, and, above all, the clerks and official persons in the countinghouses and houses of business, who were compelled, by necessity, as it were, against their own desire, to engage in a great deal of business on the Lord's day. Surely some certain period of returning repose should be secured for our overwrought people. Every Gentleman present might be appealed to, to testify in his own person to the satisfaction which he felt on the return of the Sunday, if only from the consciousness which he had that he should not be compelled to hear the everlasting-rap of the postman at the door, and to answer letters time after time during the day. Appeals might be made to the House upon many grounds to induce them to consent to the measure proposed to them: first and foremost, upon the ground of the Scriptural character of the institution, and the religious obligation of the day. Without entering into any theological argument, this might at least be said, that all who received either Testament, or both—the Jew, the Roman Catholic, the Church of England, all the reformed churches of the Continent, the Wesleyans, the Protestant Dissenters—all recognised the divine institution of the Sabbath, and carried into practice, as well as confessed, the obligation of the observance of one day in seven for the purpose of worship and repose. This obligation was universal. There was no distinction of persons, or callings, or stations, or pursuits, of times or circumstances—it was binding upon all. The only exception was that constituted by works of piety, charity, or necessity. The wonderful adaptation of this institution to the social, physical, and religious wants of man was, if there were no other, an argument for the divine character of the institution. That it was particularly suited to the case of those whose necessities called them to daily toil, had been well proved in those remarkable recent productions, the prize essays by working men on the temporal advantages of the Sabbath, in which the men stated their own experience and recorded their own feelings, and showed how their aspirations and their wants were met by the recurring day of worship and repose. The House might almost be appealed to on the ground of justice; they were imposing upon their public servants in this department a duty which they did not impose upon any other, nor upon themselves, for they took good care to secure, not only the Sunday, but the Saturday, for themselves. These persons, although in receipt of public salaries, had rights inalienable, privileges that could not be taken away, or even suspended, except upon the ground of public overwhelming necessity. Now, if necessity was the plea for continuing this Sabbath labour, the truth of the argument should be proved by instantly opening the London Post Office; if necessity was not the plea, as it could not be, then the provinces and London should be put upon an equality. This was also a sanitary question—a question of health, concerning all engaged in this labour; and Gentlemen might well direct their attention to the consequences of overtoil, the vast amount of widowhood and orphanage resulting from the premature death of those who were taxed beyond their power. The proposed limitation might, among its benefits, produce that of somewhat extending, if not life, the working powers of thousands. If relaxation was necessary for those who lived in a great measure of ease, how requisite it must he for those sons of toil who laboured from morning to night, and in many instances through the night into the morning! Would the House listen to a working man speaking his own feeling in one of these prize essays—Heaven's Antidote to the Curse of Labour? The writer was showing that we were not only to look to the cessation of bodily toil, but of wear and tear of mind—that change of occupation which gave refreshment and constituted repose, as so many working men found in passing from the severity of toil to active labour in Sunday-schools on the Sabbath. The writer said—

"It is not enough that a race of rational beings should be dealt with on the mercenary principles adopted with respect to our beasts of burden. Man's twofold nature—his nobler capabilities—his elevation as a moral agent—his soul, resplendent even in its ruins—challenge a loftier recognition of his claims than is due to the more drudges of creation. To calculate the daily ravages committed upon the loins, the muscles, and the limbs of labour, and to dole out the minimum amount of rest and nutriment that will suffice to repair these damages—to barely maintain the equilibrium of functional waste and supply at the smallest possible sacrifice of their services—is to embrute the labouring population; yea, to degrade beings originally fashioned in the image of God into mere animate machines to be used in the production of wealth, luxury, and patrician indulgences, in which they are never suffered to participate. Instead of which, they are doomed, through the elasticity of youth, the vigour of manhood, and the decrepitude of age, to spend all their intervals of relaxation from physical exertion in eating, in drinking, or in sleeping—and all of this only to gather fresh power for the strained sinews, and new moisture for the dripping brow! But man yearns for a higher order of repose than this; something more congenial with the diviner indwellings of his being. Not the mere oblivion of the senses; not the luxurious stretch of the tired limbs; not the subdued throbbings of the overwrought brain; not alone the casting out of mortal weariness and pain; not a rest altogether imposed by physical necessity, but a rest that may be wakefully, intelligently, and complacently enjoyed. Such a want is delightfully supplied by the institution of the Sabbath!"

We were all aware of the movement for the early closing of shops, and for the limitation of the hours of labour in factories: were these departments alone to be thus benefited? All the advantages of rapid locomotion and communication redoubled the toil of those whose case was now especially before the House; were they alone to be as a Pariah race, excluded from the enjoyments of the rest of the community? The matter was very simple. The simple demand was, that there should be transferred to the country the benefits and restrictions to which we so willingly submitted in this great commercial city. The working man just quoted said—

"The Sabbath, as a day of relaxation and refreshment, should be esteemed piously by the working classes in particular. The statesman, the merchant, the manufacturer, and even the tradesman, can often escape the duties or emancipate themselves from the thrall of business; and, vanishing from their respective engagements, may embark for foreign travel, and luxuriate awhile in some invigorating clime; or, wandering up and down our own fair isle in search of health, may halt at spots rich in historic interest, and in memorials of ancient fame, or may visit the wonderteeming cities and towns reared by modern enterprise; or else, if wearied with the excitement of such scenes, may turn aside, for a season, to the margin of the ocean, and there inhale health and gladness from its bracing breezes; refresh their bodies in its living waters: and soothe the irritation of their feelings with the music of its murmurings. But not so the poor workiug man. He cannot go beyond his tether. He can rarely cast off his collar. From morning's dawn to evening's close, and often into the deep shadows of the night—through scenes of sorrow and tribulation, and the incipient stages of disease—his necessities chain him to his post. Condemned, like Sisyphus of old, to cell the stone of labour up the steep acclivity of life, which, on having neared the summit, rebounds to its starting point again—he finds himself, after the disbursement of his scanty wages, again at the bottom of the mountain, yoked to his hopeless task, and compelled to begin anew the uphill struggle. But cheer thee, child of travail! The blessed Sabbath is thine own! It is the excellent gift of thy Maker—see, then, that no man rob thee of thy boon! It is the heirloom of thy family—see that it be not alienated from their possession!"

He (Lord Ashley) hoped he had abstained from touching anything that might give rise to theological controversy; but he could not repress the expression of his strong feeling of the immense goodness and wisdom of God in the institution of this period of returning rest, and of the immense injustice of those who would refuse the participation of it to their fellow-creatures. He felt great comfort in the consciousness that he was speaking the sentiments of more than a million of his fellow-countrymen upon this great subject. He rejoiced that here vox populi and vox Dei were in strict harmony. No new law Was asked for, no restriction upon the freedom of the enjoyment of others, nothing that could in the least interfere with any privileges, rights, liberties, immunities; but simply that the power be given to these sons of toll to enjoy, if so disposed, the opportunity of observing the law of their God, and of "remembering the Sabbath-day that they might keep it holy."

seconded the Motion.

could assure his noble Friend and the House, that in opposing the Motion he was fully sensible of the deep feeling entertained by many persons upon this subject, and should be exceedingly sorry to be supposed, from any word that he should say, to differ at all from the view the noble Lord had expressed of the value of the Sabbathday. But this Motion went but a very small way towards carrying that view into effect. If the object were that no labour should be performed on the Sabbath, a very different Motion would be required; because, even as to persons employed in the public service, the noble Lord was in error when he supposed that the parties employed in the Post Office were the only persons upon whom Sunday labour was imposed. What did he say to the case of the police, the exciseman, the coast-guard, the customhouse officer, all of whom were called upon to perform duties on the Sunday? He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had mentioned persons connected with his own department; but there were many other classes of servants, private and public, from whom the noble Lord could not venture to propose to take away the burden of Sunday labour. That it should be reduced to a minimum, both in public and private establishments, no one felt more strongly than himself; and he hoped to show that upon this subject the Government had not been negligent, but had, within the last two years, carried that principle to an extent never contemplated previously, and far exceeding what had been done in the last half-century. He had to thank the noble Lord for acknowledging so frankly what the Government had done; because for the last six months the Government had been subjected to the grossest misstatements of fact as to what they had been doing for the past two years. For those two years the noble Lord at the head of the Post Office department, and gentlemen connected with the administration of that office, had been unremitting in their endeavours to reduce the amount of Sunday labour; and it was a proof how strangely things were sometimes taken up in this country, that the very measure which effected the largest reduction was treated as one of the opposite direction, and tending very largely to increase Sunday labour! He could not help suspecting some portion of the feeling manifested had taken its rise in the misstatements which were circulated in the country upon this question; he did not at all mean to say that an honest feeling did not exist upon the subject, but the most extraordinary misstatements had been circulated, and conduct was imputed to the Government the very reverse of that which they were pursuing. He would state generally the effect of the measures the Government had pursued. The effect had been to relieve from any Sunday labour, preventing attendance on divine worship, no less than 8,000 persons in the united kingdom. The measures which excited so much feeling was the temporary employment of about 25 clerks in London on the Sunday for a very few months; 27 clerks had been employed in the London Post Office on Sunday for years without exciting observation, and it was proposed to cm-ploy temporarily 25 more; and that was a portion of a general measure—and it was unjust to consider what took place in one particular town, and exclude what took place in the rest of the country—that was part of a general measure, by which in England upwards of 6,000 persons were relieved. It had since been extended to Scotland and Ireland, and 2,000 more were relieved. But what had been the effect with respect to London, where the outcry arose? Why, not only had the additional employment of 25 persons (to bring the new system into operation) been discontinued, but the 27 persons heretofore employed had by subsequent arrangements been reduced to four. In London the 27 persons employed had been reduced to a clerk and three messengers; and in the country generally the persons connected with the Post Office had been relieved to the number of 8,000; and with the exception of those who attended to the receipt and delivery of the mails, in the few cases when they happened to arrive during church time, and who would not be relieved even by the proposal of the noble Lord, no person was debarred from the opportunity of attending public worship on Sunday. He would appeal to the House whether such attacks as had been made upon the Post Office department were justified; he had certainly felt very strongly the exceeding injustice of the attacks made upon the department by persons who never took the trouble to ascertain what the facts were. He hoped the House would take what the Government had done as a pledge and earnest that they were willing to the greatest possible degree they believed practicable to carry further this reduction of Sunday labour; and he was perfectly ready, with reference to the latter part of this resolution, to undertake that inquiry should be made how far it was possible still further to reduce the conveyance of the mails on Sunday. But the proposal of the noble Lord was, first, that there should be no collection of letters on the Sunday in the country; that was, that the Post Office messengers should not be sent round to collect the letters, but that people should be at liberty to put them in on the Sunday—though, if there was to be no despatch on the Sunday, that would not be of much advantage to them. Now, so far as the Post Office was concerned, it was perfectly easy to close the office; it was a question for the public to determine whether they wished to have their letters on Sunday or not; and where any district had expressed its wish that there should be no collection and no delivery of letters, that wish of the inhabitants was conformed to. The second question was one of greater difficulty, because it involved a very considerable delay in the transmission of letters to many parts of the country. It was, after all, not so much a question for the Government as for the country to decide. If the country was prepared to forego the receipt and delivery of its letters on Sunday, and to submit to the inconvenience which the delay of the transmission of mails on Sunday would impose upon it, there was no difficulty, so far as the Post Office was concerned. But he believed that the country would find that this imposed exceedingly great difficulty and hardship upon it; and he confessed that he thought he was faithfully representing the great majority of the people when he said that such a course ought not to be adopted. Within the last two years the noble Lord the Member for Bath presented a petition from that city, urging that the Post Office should be closed on the Sunday. It was closed after ten o'clock, with the general approbation of the inhabitants; but no sooner was the arrangement adopted than a counter petition was presented, showing the hardship that the measure asked for would inflict upon them; they stated that the persons living there had connexions in every part of the globe, and that early intelligence from them and communication to them was an object of great solicitude. Was not that so with all persons of all classes, from the highest to the lowest? In the case of the highest, indeed, many means of obviating the difficulty might be resorted to. It was easy to send a message by electric telegraph, or to send a messenger—for the noble Lord did not propose to stop the trains. But that was not in the power of the great majority—it was not in the power of the poorer or the working classes; and believing that to them, no less than to the wealthy, early intelligence from friends and relations was an object of great interest and anxious solicitude, He was unwilling to debar them from the advantage which the Post Office gave them. The question had been raised in the United States, in many parts of which stricter notions prevailed upon the observance of the Sabbath than in England; but upon consideration they came to the same conclusion as he hoped that House would come to. They were desirous of a diminution of Sunday labour, but they felt that it could not be utterly discontinued; that the comfort and happiness of a large portion of the people were essentially promoted by the regular transmission of the mails. This was not a question of revenue; the revenue would not be affected materially by the decision; he utterly disclaimed that consideration; but he believed the comfort and happiness of a great portion of the people were promoted by a very small degree of Sunday labour in the transmission of the mails, and he believed the evil was much less than the advantage. Wherever Sunday labour could be diminished, the Government were perfectly ready to diminish it; but they did not think it would conduce to the real happiness of the great body of the people that it should be utterly and entirely discontinued.

said, he had many years ago expressed his views on the subject of Sabbath observance, in a manner that would make it be considered an act of either hypocrisy or cowardice on his part were he to decline to state his sentiments now with equal plainness. The noble Lord began by stating that he would decline all theological argument, that he would make no theological statements; and then all he said was this—that all Scripture, all churches, all sects, were unanimous on the question of the Sabbath. He (Colonel Thompson), however, must declare that while Christianity and not Judaism was the religion of the great majority of this country, there must be a great multitude of men—silent, perhaps—not wishing to put forth their ideas with force or violence, or even energy—who believed that the observance of the Sabbath according to the Jewish law, was not only not ordered, but prohibited to Christians. The great Author of Christianity himself was exposed to imputations on this head; and the like would probably not fail to be thrown out against his humblest follower. The Author of Christianity himself opposed the prevailing notions on the subject of Sabbath observance; and another, second only to him, the Apostle Paul, styled par excellence the Apostle of the Gentiles, commanded those to whom he wrote to allow no man to judge them in that matter. Other things were included in that injunction, to which he would not allude by name, lest he should excite a smile, according to the practice which he was sorry to see too prevalent in the House. Christianity had liberated its professors from the most onerous rite of the Jewish law, but only on the same authority which had liberated them from the enforced observance of the Sabbath. No mention is ever made of the belief of any of the Apostles in the obligation of the Jewish Sabbath, except to disavow it. Mention is made of the "Lord's Day," a fitting appellation to give to the first day of the week in commemoration of the great event which on that day had occurred, and which it was proper should be kept continually before the eyes of Christians. But was there any record of that day being kept according to the requirements of Judaism? The only statement found, was that the disciples met on that day and made charitable contributions. If the practice of the early Christian Church was looked at, no trace could be found of the Sabbath, or any substitute, being observed in the manner prescribed by the law of Moses. On the contrary, the first day of the week was regarded as a day of enjoyment; and such was the practice still in countries professing the faith of Rome, which though not admitted by a majority in this country as a creed, was undeniably of value as an antiquarian record. In any such continental town, Sunday might be seen as the day of enjoyment; and not Sunday, but the representative of a more painful and equally solemn event, was chosen for the day of self-denial, as was testified by the Vendredi Belache on the door of every theatre. If the Confession of Augsburg was consulted, it would be seen that the obligation to observe Sunday, Pentecost, and other festivals, was protested against by the earliest collection of Protestant Reformers, as an imposition not obligatory upon Christians. If the House laid its commands on him, he would read them the whole either in excellent Latin or very antiquated English; but he would recommend to hon. Members to read it for themselves in the library of the British Museum, where they might take it from the very book which had perhaps been in the hands of those who went to the stake upon that quarrel. Luther made it a point to buy something every Sunday, that he might show his Christian liberty. Calvin conceived the reason why the Sabbath was so strictly enforced on the Jews was, that their numerous slaves had no other means of obtaining repose. He was disappointed that hon. Gentlemen opposite did not cheer that statement, because he meant to ask them in reply if the English labourer was in that servile state which prevented him from maintaining his own cause. The Church of England gave the commandments as she found them in the Book of Exodus; but he would ask any hon. Gentleman who could say his catechism, whether in that catechism the Church made any inference as to the obligatory character of the Sabbath? On the contrary, she entirely ignored it. He knew there was something on the subject in a Homily; but, he would ask, what was there which could not he found in the Homilies, or some insulated portion of the documents of the Church? Transubstantiation could be found there, as well as that other doctrine about which so much agitation prevailed at the present moment, and which he mentioned because it had been productive of persecution to an old college friend—the doctrine which a British classic (Sterne), himself a presbyter in the English Church, had held up as the object of the avowed jest of Protestants, under the description of baptism par le moyen d'une petite canule. Auricular confession could be found in the services of the Church. If he was an unwise bishop—and such things had been and might be again—he would not allow Christian burial to man or woman who had not made auricular confession to his satisfaction; for was it not stated in the rubric that every man on his sick bed was to be exhorted to confess his weighty sins—and who had not committed weighty sins?—nor allow it to any Member of that House who ate a chop in Bellamy's on a Friday—["Hear, hear!"]—for was it not written that all the Fridays in the year were fasts, and did not he therefore who had eaten and not confessed, die in hostility with the Church? The fact was, that the Church of England was a compromise, and a sensible and wise Church she was in adopting that course; and in interpreting her doctrines her own example must be followed—the main points taken, and the accidental cast aside. Paley, Arnold, Whately, and other eminent members of that Church had given it as their opinion that the observance of the Sabbath was not obligatory, and that it ought to be resisted by Christians. He would instance what had been his own share of suffering in consequence of the existing cruel rule. He had a relative, his wife's brother, who was reported to him on the Saturday afternoon as being dangerously ill. It proved to be one of the earliest cases of cholera; though no one then knew it. He hastened to see him in one of the suburban villages. It was too late that night to write to his sister, who was in Paris. On Sunday it was the will and pleasure of the noble Lord's brother sectaries, that no intelligence should be sent. At one o'clock on Monday morning his brother-in-law died, and he (Colonel Thompson) had the melancholy duty to write to his sister that her brother was dead, and that a savage sectarianism had prevented his danger from being communicated to her. Was it Christian that such suffering should be inflicted upon him and upon thousands more? But there was no necessity for the thing even on the adversary's own showing. Might not those who had this work to do on the Sunday, have their burden alleviated by working some on one day and some on the other, or might it not be done by men who had no religious objection? There was a numerous body in this country whom he hoped soon to see admitted to this House and to the privileges of citizens, who had no objection to working on the first day of the week, by the token that their religious rule prohibited them from working on the seventh; and they had no objection to other persons working for them on their Sabbath, for he happened to have been acquainted with a Jewish family who kept a Christian servant to stir the fire for them on Saturday'. One point more. He had no confidence in the reported acquiescence of the higher commercial classes. In a commercial town he had once the honour to represent, he found there was a disposition among the richer classes of merchants to delay the post; they were particular in requesting, that their post letters might be long in coming. That seemed to him a paradox, and he sought an explanation; and he discovered that the rich merchants had an idea that 20l, which was the cost of an express from London, was often well spent if they could keep the lower class of merchants from having the same early information. He hoped they were approaching the time when the observance of the Sunday, which he was far from wishing to abolish, would be turned to the advantage of that large class in this country who, having no political influence at this moment, were rising to knowledge and intelligence which would soon force the necessity of admitting them into the constitution. When were these men to learn, unless upon their day of rest? Would it not be wise to encourage the desire; and would the House begin by declaring that the first step should be to deprive them of the means of receiving a communication from or sending one to their friends upon that day?

said, it appeared to him that the hon. and gallant Member entertained the opinion that the observance of the Sabbath was not of perpetual obligation. From this opinion he begged to differ. The hon. and gallant Member seemed also to regard the exercise of the Christian religion on the Sabbath as a severe and bitter service, and that he wished to be exempted from it. He (Mr. Plumptre) did not sympathise in such feelings. He deemed the exercise of religion a high privilege as well as a high duty, and that they involved a high reward. As well might the command, "Thou shalt commit no murder," or "Thou shalt not steal," be regarded as not of perpetual obligation, as to say that the obligation to observe the Sabbath departed with the Jewish law. The right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that the proposition of the noble Lord did not go far enough; and he instanced the cases of policemen, excisemen, the coast guard, and custom-house officers, all of whom were required to labour on the Sunday. The distinction, however, in the cases was this: labour in the Post Office was not absolutely necessary—in the other cases it was.

was glad that the noble Lord had altered the latter part of his Motion as it stood on the paper; because, although he was anxious to prevent the delivery of letters on Sunday, he had no wish to stop the transmission of mails on that day. Much had been said about the hardship to which post-office officials were subjected under the present system; but the system was productive of great inconvenience to private individuals also. For his part, he was quite tired of reading and writing letters on Sunday. If all persons were placed on the same footing, no injury could arise to any one from the abolition of the Sunday delivery. Take his word for it, that, if the noble Lord's proposition were carried into effect throughout the kingdom, everybody would rejoice at it after a fortnight's experience. It was farcical to pretend that the delivery of letters on a Sunday was a matter of essential importance to every petty provincial town, when the merchants of this great metropolis went without their correspondence on that day without complaint. He did not rely so much on the religious part of the question as others did; but he thought every man was entitled to the Sunday as a day of rest, and to employ it as he liked. He cared not whether the observance of Sunday sprang from Judaism or not. However established, it was a benefaction to mankind. His own experience satisfied him that if the Legislature and the Government were not to maintain the observance of Sunday, it would soon be converted into a workday. Masters would soon force their workmen to labour on Sunday, as some masters now compelled their men to work longer than they ought to do on week-days. For the reasons he had stated, the noble Lord's Motion should receive his cordial support.

denied that the petitions presented in favour of the noble Lord's proposition expressed the opinion of the more intelligent portion of the community. To show that such petitions were got up, he instanced a case when, a petition having been presented purporting to be from a borough of 15,000 inhabitants, and signed in some instances by persons whoso names he did not recognise, a counter petition was sent to him for presentation signed by the magistrates and all the principal traders and shopkeepers of the place. He hoped the independent Members of that House would have the courage, as he believed they had the inclination, to oppose the Motion.

having presented several petitions from Cork against Ministers' Money, proceeded to express his regret that he had not been in his place when the noble Lord at the head of the Government made a statement in reference to the subject. As some responsibility attached to him (Mr. Fagan) with regard to this question, he hoped the noble Lord would be pleased to repeat what he had stated to the House that evening, and he hoped the noble Lord would also take the opportunity of saying that, if not in this Session, at all events early in the next Session, the Government would be prepared to take up this question. The noble Lord must be aware, that after his announcement that evening, as he (Mr. Fagan) understood it, it would be exceedingly difficult indeed for the protestant clergy in the corporate towns of Ireland to collect the tax. He had the pleasure of showing the noble Lord that evening a letter from a most amiable and respected clergyman of the Established Church, the Dean of Limerick, Dean Kirwan, the son of the celebrated Dr. Kirwan, and from that letter the noble Lord was aware how anxious he was that this tax should be abolished, not only on account of the bitterness and ill-feeling it produced amongst all classes in Ireland, but also on account of the utter impossibility of now collecting it. He hoped also the noble Lord would state that he would adhere to the recommendations of the Select Committee of that House in reference to the question, for any settlement that would transfer the burden from the tenant to the landlord would not answer. It might answer on the tithe question, but it would not answer with respect to ministers' money, because they had it in evidence that the landlords who paid the tax, or the greater part of them, were Roman Catholics. He hoped, therefore, that the noble Lord would state that the recommendation of the Committee would be adhered to. After the statement of the noble Lord, he should ask the leave of the House to withdraw the Motion which he had on the paper for that evening.

said, he had stated on a former occasion, when the hon. Gentleman was not present, that the question of ministers' money was under the consideration of the Government, and that there was a plan by which it was hoped that the grievance would be remedied. The Government intended to Introduce a measure on the subject, and he had no hesitation in saying that it would not be later than the commencement of the next Session when that measure would be proposed.

begged to remind the noble Lord that ministers' money was also collected in Edinburgh and Montrose, and hoped that relief would also he afforded to the parties affected by it.

said, that a report on the subject had lately been presented to the House, and he considered it was expedient that they should have ample time to consider its recommendations, and give their opinions upon it.

was exceedingly glad to find that they were secured from the necessity of entering into one of those unpleasant discussions that generally took place on this subject. He always thought it was a question that should have been taken up by the Government, and was ready to admit there were a great many circumstances connected with ministers' money that ought to be remedied. He sincerely hoped that this long-disputed question would be brought to a satisfactory arrangement.

Sir, in introducing the subject of the oaths to be taken by Jews, it is not my intention to make any statement at present. I do not think the House will object to give me leave to bring in a Bill on the subject, seeing that it has twice passed a Bill on the same subject, and appointed a Committee to inquire into the present state of the law. What I propose is, that there shall be a Committee of the whole House, and that leave be given to me to bring in the Bill; and on moving the second reading of that Bill, I will state the reasons on which it is grounded, and why I think it is desirable to legislate upon the subject. There is so much uncertainty with regard to the law, that some persons think it will be a matter for consideration whether persons professing the Jewish religion cannot come to the table on as good grounds as persons belonging to the Society of Friends; I am decidedly of opinion it would not he right that that course should be taken. It is most desirable that both Houses of Parliament should have an opportunity of discussing the question, and considering in all its bearings what were the intentions of the present oath of abjuration, and the course to be taken; and it is to give full consideration to the subject that I shall move for leave to bring in a Bill to regulate the mode of administering the oath of abjuration. I move now—

"That this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee, to take into consideration the mode of administering the Oath of Abjuration to persons professing the Jewish Religion."

assumed that the Bill which the noble Lord proposed to introduce would raise the same question as to the Christian character of that House as the Bill discussed on a former occasion. He had not the least wish to detain the House by provoking discussion at the present moment; but he must express his regret, after the strong proof which the noble Lord had just had of the religious feeling of this country—a feeling not lightly to be tampered with—that he should think fit to disregard the satisfaction with which the decision of the Upper House had been received. He would merely conclude by warning the public that they were about again to see introduced into that House a question the discussion of which every one who felt deeply upon such subjects must lament. It was most lamentable that there should be a doubt as to the propriety of retaining the Christian character of that House; and, humble Member as he was, he gave notice that when the noble Lord proposed the second reading, he would move that it he read a second time that day six months, in the full confidence that he would be supported by the same deep feeling, to the existence of which the division that had just taken place bore convincing testimony.

would second the proposal of his hon. Friend. He protested against the measure in any shape, and against the Christian character of the House being altered, and would take every opportunity of giving his decided opposition to the measure.

"Resolved—That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate the mode of administering the Oath of Abjuration to persons professing the Jewish Religion."

said, that when he gave notice of his intention to move the postponement of the adjourned debate, he did so in the belief, which he shared with other hon. Members, that there was not the least probability that the subject could come on with any profitable discussion that night, or before eleven or twelve o'clock. If he thought things would be as they were at present, there was no reason why the debate should not be resumed, and he would be the last person to ask the House to show indulgence to persons negligent in their duties; but under the circumstances, and considering the opinions entertained with regard to the course of business, it was not an unreasonable request to make that the House would not go on with the debate that night. With the exception of himself and the representative of the University of Dublin, every Member representing the Universities was absent. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth, and other Members interested in the subject, were also absent. The question involved constitutional doctrines of considerable importance; and those Gentlemen were anxious to open those topics, and lay their views before the House. Another question had been raised to his great surprise, namely, that this discussion should drop altogether. He hardly knew if it were necessary for him to go into arguments on the question: he hardly knew if any Gentleman conversant with the history of the Universities, or the relations between them and the State in former times, would think that the question of an inquiry into their condition was one so trivial that it did not deserve discussion in that House. The noble Lord admitted, when he entered into the question, that the debate related not to the issuing of a Commission, but to the state of the Universities; and he also admitted it was a question that deserved discussion. He (Mr. Gladstone) was quite sure the noble Lord was right, and that for the object he had in view the whole matter should be opened up; for to enter into the question hastily, or at once get into the midst of it, was not the most satisfactory way to dispose of it. The constitution had given the Universities the high privilege of being represented, and their representatives should be allowed to express their views on such a Motion. He hardly anticipated any opposition from the noble Lord, as there was a claim which in justice could not be resisted for a full discussion on the matter; and he (Mr. Gladstone) would not occupy the time of the House by reasoning on such a matter, were it not for the manifestation of an intention on the part of a noble Friend of his to prevent the further progress of such discussion. They had not had a night's debate on the question whether the Commission should issue. The debate commenced from the speech of the noble Lord, and he must likewise point out that they were informed that a course would be pursued by the Government different from that actually taken. They were told deliberately in so many words, at the commencement of the evening, and while the hon. Member for North Lancashire was making his speech, that it was the intention of the Government to meet the Motion with "the previous question." Therefore the tone of the debate was different from what it would be if they had any announcement like that of the noble Lord. It was to the Universities, at least, a very serious and formidable announcement; and their intention was this—directly to raise the question whether the proceeding intended by the noble Lord was not strictly an unconstitutional proceeding. They did not mean to debate the question on the ground whether it was expedient, or whether there was cause to warrant the interference of the State. The interference of the State was one thing—the mode in which the noble Lord proposed to conduct that interference was another; and they would argue to show that it was an unconstitutional mode of proceeding which the noble Lord meant to take. If he thought there was reason for a measure so serious as an inquiry into the state of the Universities, the only course he could with propriety take was to propose the appointment of a commission by Act of Parliament. He (Mr. Gladstone) did not then intend to go into the discussion, but wished to show the noble Lord that the matter was of a grave and serious character, and leave the noble Lord to consider whether he could give an opportunity for the further discussion of the question. There was no intention on their part to evade it; they knew the position of the Universities would be weakened and their character degraded by such a proceeding; the sooner the discussion came on the better, and they entreated the noble Lord (though it might be his own opinion that there was no occasion for discussion, and that he should make his Motion to adjourn the debate for three months), by his obliging intervention, to give them an opportunity of stating their views on the subject. It was not right that the Members for the Universities, with the exception of the right hon. Member for Cambridge, should not be heard on this question; and he therefore moved that the debate should be adjourned to Monday next.

had no objection to the adjournment of the debate to Monday next, for he admitted that in the absence of the other Members for the Universities it was not right to proceed with it at that moment; but at the same time he did not at all see that he was bound to postpone Government business for the purpose of the resumption of that debate. After the hon. Member who brought forward the Motion was informed of the intentions of the Government, he did not wish to persevere in it, and was ready to withdraw it. That being the case, he was not bound to find an occasion for the discussion of the question; but the right hon. Gentleman could discuss the question on some other Motion. He thought the course should be to appoint this debate for some day when the proceedings of independent Members would have precedence of the orders of the day, and not ask the Government to give up one of their nights for the purpose. If that course were taken, he should have no objection to the postponement of the debate.

Will you postpone the Commission?

Oh, no: I don't promise to postpone the Commission; but I am not making extraordinary speed with it. I agree on those terms to the adjournment of debate to Monday next.

hoped the noble Lord would not postpone the issuing of the Commission. He believed the proceeding was perfectly constitutional. He hoped the Government would persevere, and that the public would have the benefit to be derived from that inquiry.