, in moving the Second Reading of the Hops Bill, said, he was quite aware, and had anticipated from the first, that strong opposition would be raised in the county of Kent to the passing of this measure. But he must say that the conduct of the Kent planters was not altogether consistent, inasmuch as they had over and over again been to the right hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer to urge upon him the, reduction of the excise duty upon hops; but the moment a Bill was brought in which proposed to reduce the duty, at once they opposed it, because it made an alteration in an Act of Parliament the effect of which was to give them almost a monopoly of the hop market. He ought in fairness to tell the House that yesterday he received a communication from a committee of hop-planters, who met at Staplehurst, a very central place in Kent, on Monday last, urging upon him not to proceed with this Bill; and in looking carefully over the names of the gentlemen who attended that meeting, he found that of the thirteen planters present, only three were from Sussex—one of these was certainly a very large planter; another was not so large; and the third was a very small planter. The answer which he (Mr. Frewen) returned to those gentlemen was, that, as he had been entrusted with various petitions from Sussex, signed by some of the largest and most influential landowners in that county, and also most numerously and respectably signed by hop-planters, praying that the Bill might pass into a law, it was his intention certainly to proceed with it. He did not intend to enter into any discussion of the excise duty on hops upon the present occasion, because that was a question which would have to be considered hereafter; but, at the same time, he felt that he ought to allude to it to a certain extent. The original excise duty upon hops was imposed in the early part of the last century; and at the period of the war, in the early part of the present century, it was increased to double its former amount, in order to assist in meeting the exigencies of the war; and up to this day it had never been modified. It was the only tax, he believed, which had not been either repealed or modified since the close of the war in 1815, and the only tax which was levied upon an article grown out of doors. And seeing that the legislation of the last few years had had serious and injurious effects upon the hop-planters, he thought it was no more than justice now to grant them some relief. He held in his hand a return moved for by his hon. Friend the Member for West Kent, and laid upon the table of the House only a few days ago, of the number of acres of hops under cultivation for several years past, and of the amount of duty paid thereon. And he wished to draw the attention of the House to this return, because it showed to what extent the pressure upon the hopgrower had reduced the cultivation of hops. By that return he found that the total number of acres under cultivation in the kingdom, in the year 1837, was 56,322; and that last year it was reduced to 43,125, or by more than 13,000. Now, this reduction had taken place chiefly in Sussex and Herefordshire; in the latter county the acreage of hop cultivation being reduced from 10,603 in 1837 to 5,125 in 1850, and in Sussex from 12,068 in 1837 to 9,718 in 1850. In Lincolnshire the amount had been reduced from 607 in 1837 to 260 in 1850; in Essex, from 325 in 1837 to 161 in 1850. In Wiltshire (about Salisbury) from 1,222 in 1837 to 5 in 1850; and in Worcestershire, from 1,888 to 1,031. These large reductions were, he thought, owing entirely to the legislative measures passed within the last few years. For instance, by the altered tariff of 1842 the duty was entirely removed from quassia, the immediate effect of which measure was to encourage the country brewers to substitute quassia for hops in the manufacture of their beer; and by the tariff of 1846 the protective duty upon foreign hops was reduced to the extent of nearly one-fourth of the previous amount, namely, from 8l. 11s. to 2l. 5s. Foreign hops now paid quite a nominal duty; in point of fact, the duty was no protection at all on Sussex hops, and that being the case, he thought he had only done justice in asking Parliament to take off the additional duty which, in consequence of the war, was imposed upon home-grown hops. As the House would not, however, be called upon to decide that point in the present stage of the Bill, because it was a question which must be considered hereafter in a Committee of the whole House, he would now direct attention to the main features of the Bill, the second reading of which he now proposed. He contended that the Act of 1814, entitled "An Act to prevent; Frauds and Abuses in the Sale of Hops," had operated unjustly to Sussex and other hop-growing counties; and, so far from preventing, had, to a certain extent, only encouraged fraud and abuse. By that Act samples of hops for the market were obliged to be marked with the name of the grower, and of the parish and county in which they were grown; and the effect of this regulation was to encourage a preference for one particular description of hops at the expense of others. As an illustration of the injustice with which the Act had operated, he might mention the circumstance that there were hop plantations which were so situated as to stand in both the counties of Kent and Sussex. All the bops taken off those farms were dried in the same oasthouse. They were all mixed up together, without any regard to the county in which they were grown, and as the pockets were filled they were stamped alternately "Kent" and "Sussex." What followed? Why, that upon being taken into the market, the pockets stamped "Kent" invariably sold at 10s. or 12s. a cwt. more than those stamped "Sussex," although they were in point of fact one and the same article. The law was also evaded by factors purchasing Sussex hops, and stamping the word "Kent," upon the pockets, and then selling them at an advance of 12s. the cwt. Now, he (Mr. Frewen) insisted that hops ought to be bought and sold in the market according to their quality and value, and not because they were produced at Farnham, or in Kent. If a planter in any other county could, by the application of his capital and skill, produce a good sample, there was no reason whatever why he should not receive a fair price for it, whilst, if he produced a bad sample, there was no reason on the other hand why he should not get a less price for it. He was anxious to see the principle carried out which was in general operation in all commercial transactions; and if the public could be protected against fraud, which he contended they would be under the provisions of this Bill (by repealing the regulation which required the name of the parish and county where the hops were grown to be stamped upon the hop pockets), that was all they required. If the House agreed to the second reading of the Bill, and should hereafter decide to leave it optional whether the name of the parish and county should be stamped upon the bags or not, he was quite ready to modify the Bill to meet that view of the question.

said, he had listened with much curiosity to ascertain upon what grounds his hon. Friend had introduced this Bill to the House. His hon. Friend had told them candidly that he expected considerable opposition from Kent, and he (Mr. Deedes) could assure his hon. Friend that he would not find himself disappointed; that the ranks of the opponents of the Bill would be greatly augmented by hon. Members from other counties also; and that in the result he would see that all who were engaged in the hop trade, as well as the growers themselves, were decidedly hostile to the principle of the Bill. It was very evident to him (Mr. Deedes) that the object of the Bill was to benefit the Sussex at the expense of the Kentish hop-planters; and it struck him as a singular coincidence, that there should appear in a morning journal of considerable circulation and influence—the Morning Herald of yesterday—a leading article upon the subject, in which the reduction of the duty was put forward as the principal reason for agreeing to a Bill the real object of which was to place the hops of the different hop-growing counties on one common level. Thus had it been handled by the journal to which he alluded, and thus had it been treated by the hon. Member to-day. His hon. Friend had complained of the inconsistency of the Kent planters in opposing the Bill, because since Parliament met they had gone to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ask for a reduction of a portion of the excise duty on hops. Upon that point he might say that he wished the Members of this House knew more than they did generally of the hardship of that duty upon the hop-growers of the kingdom; for if they did he thought such an extraordinary duty would no longer be permitted to exist. It was a war duty of a most oppressive nature. It entirely differed from every other excise duty now in force—and therefore the hop-planters of Kent opposed it. But his hon. Friend had no right to charge them with inconsistency upon that ground. The truth was, that his hon. Friend had come before the House and mixed up two questions, which were utterly unconnected the one with the other, and had thus forced upon the Kent planters the necessity of opposing him. If his hon. Friend had adopted a proper course, he would have placed upon the notice paper a Resolution for a Committee of the whole House to consider the question of a reduction of the duty; then he would have found the Members for Kent, and all who were interested in the cultivation of hops, giving him their cordial assistance. But because he had done that which, in point of fact, amounted to nothing, and introduced clauses in the Bill which were not, ipso facto, part of the Bill, he had no right to accuse them of inconsistency in not going the full length of the Bill. His hon. Friend had stated that the county of Kent possessed an unfair advantage in the market, and that the practice of stamping the name of the grower and of the locality in which the hops were grown, operated as a fraud, and deceived the purchasers of hops by imposing upon them an inferior article. Now he thought his hon. Friend was bound to show the real cases of fraud which, were required to be put an end to; but had he done so? No; he had simply stated that cases of fraud had occurred; and he (Mr. Deedes) now asked him, if hops were sent to market without a distinctive mark—he (Mr. Frewen) acknowledging that there was a material difference in the quality of the article—whether the temptation to fraud would not be thereby greatly increased? For his part, he had no doubt that that would be the case. He said, therefore, let the produce be sold for what it was worth by all means; but do let the grower have the opportunity of proclaiming what the article was which he offered for sale. The object of the Bill was to amend the 54th George III., intituled "An Act to amend an Act of the 39th and 40th Years of his present Majesty, to prevent Frauds and Abuses in the Trade of Hops;" and he contended that it was incumbent upon his hon. Friend to prove that a vast amount of fraud had arisen under the operation of that Act. In his opinion, the Act had worked uncommonly well, and given to the public the opportunity of judging fairly of the quality of the article, and of purchasing it at the proper market price, without having foisted upon them an inferior for a superior article. With these views, therefore, he should move as an Amendment that the Bill be read a Second Time that day Six Months.

seconded the Amendment, and said that he would in a few words endeavour to explain the meaning of the Bill. Everybody knew that the Farnham hops were the best in England; everybody knew also that the Sussex hops were the worst; and the object of the Bill was to create such a mystification between the Kent, Worcester, and Sussex hops that the public might be deceived, and buy bad Sussex for good Farnham. He could not say that any great complaint was to be made of the hon. Member for East Sussex in bringing forward this Bill. The hon. Gentleman might be anxious, in the prospect of a general election, to get up a little political capital; but he (Mr. Drummond) must object to the public being called upon to supply that capital, and this was, in his opinion, a sufficient reason for rejecting the Bill.

said, that, finding such an opposition to the Bill, he would recommend his hon. Colleague to withdraw it; but if he went to a division, he (Mr. Fuller) must vote with him. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that great distress prevailed amongst the hop-planters and agriculturists of Sussex, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would, in his amended budget, propose a reduction of the malt tax to the extent of at least 10s. a quarter, and of a penny per pound on hops. A measure of that sort would be received as a boon, and hailed with gratitude throughout the whole country. At the same time, he begged to intimate that the right hon. Gentleman's proposal to remit the duty on cloverseeds would operate most injuriously to the small farmers of Sussex, as the reduction of that duty a few years ago had already proved a serious injury to the Weald of that county.

opposed the Bill as one of a mischievous character. He knew of no article in testing the quality of which so little reliance was to be placed upon appearance, touch, and smell, as the article of hops. It was often the case that hops which appeared to be the best were of comparatively little value; and so difficult was it to determine their real value until they were in the copper, that he believed there were a great number of brewers who were no judges of hops, and very many merchants who knew nothing whatever upon the subject. That being the case, the House would at once see how desirable it was that the purchaser and consumer of hops should have the means of obtaining the particular description of hops which they were desirous of having for their specific purposes. Hops of the same appearance, grown upon different soils, and in different climates, produced the most opposite results. It was, therefore, absolutely necessary to know in what county and parish the hops were grown. The name alone was not sufficient for this purpose, for, in looking through the hop-growers of Kent and Sussex, he found that there were no less than thirty-five growers of the name of Smith, and that of these there were eight or ten "John Smiths" all of a row. Now the hops of one John Smith might be worth 6l. or 7l. a cwt., whilst those of another John Smith he would not have if they were given to him. A continuance of the present law was as necessary for the grower as the consumer, and he believed the Bill of the hon. Member for East Sussex would not only not prevent fraud, but greatly encourage it.

should also vote against the Bill. He could only regard it as a Bill for the encouragement of trickery. He should have no objection to a reduction of duty, but he could not support a Bill that gave direct encouragement to deception.

said, that previous to the establishment of the system now in force under the statute, the Farnham hops were not very celebrated; but when they had come to be distinguished by the operation of the Act of Parliament from other growths, they had been greatly improved, and the growers had therefore every reason to be satisfied with the present system, from any alteration in which they did not anticipate advantage.

said, it was not necessary for him to say much as to the character of such a proposition as the present, since that had been already broadly stated by the Seconder of the Amendment; and other hon. Members very fairly complained that the effect of the measure would be to enable certain hop-growers to cheat their rivals; but he thought that he himself had some reason to complain of a portion of the Bill, which had reference to the duty payable upon hops. The hon. Member for East Sussex got leave to introduce his Bill at 12 o'clock at night; and, under a title which gave no reason to suspect anything of the sort, a Bill was brought in for repealing 200,000l. of the hop duties, which amounted to one-half of the revenue collected from that article. The effect of that would be to put money into the pockets of persons who did not appear to him to possess any especial claim to such an advantage. In fact, it would put 200,000l. into the pockets of the growers, and not into the pockets of the purchasers. It was not quite the way of legislating on such a subject, to introduce a Bill under such a title, and include in it a clause, discovered only by accident, for repealing one-half of the duty. He had no doubt that his hon. Friend opposite would be the last person in the House to take an unfair advantage; but practically the effect of the Bill would be, not only to put an end to the existing system of marking, but to reduce the system one-half. He would not go into the question of a reduction of the hop duty then; it might be a fair subject for discussion, and when properly brought before the House, he should be quite ready to express his opinion: and if the hon. Gentleman did not think it advisable to adopt the recommendation of his Seconder, and withdraw the Bill, he hoped the House would negative it.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said this was not the right time for bringing forward a proposal to remit some portion of the hop duty. If this was not the right time, he knew not when the right time would be; for now there was almost an impossibility of obtaining rents. If the Government did nothing, they would be still more out of favour than they were already in the hop-growing districts. Believing that the Bill was brought forward to benefit the hop-growers, he should support it.

, in reply, repudiated the charge of unfairness which had been thrown out against him, and stated that the hop-growers in different parts of the country ought to be placed precisely in the same position as the growers of wheat. Each took his sample to market, and let each in like manner depend for his price upon the quality of his goods. There was no reason for showing more favour to one grower than to the other, and he should therefore, notwithstanding the taunt of seeking for popularity, persist with his Bill.

was prepared to support the Bill, both for the words in it in roman letters and for those in italics, though of course the attention of the House at this stage was most directed to the former ones. The question affected practically the pockets, not only of hops, but of men; and after the sham legislation in which the House had been for so many days engaged, he thought it might occupy itself a little in a measure of real practical relief. It was a great grievance that hops should be exempted from that universal rule of commerce—of common sense—caveat emptor. The effect of the present law was, that when the more meritorious man, who had contended against a bad soil, brought his hops into the market, he was subjected to a legal disadvantage compared with the man who had easily raised his on a good soil. To borrow the words of a speech of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon on a former night, the rustic who had the cold clay soil of the Weald knew he was worse treated than any one, and he knew the reason why; and no one who had lived in a hop district, or seen an adjudication of prizes for hops in any of the parishes, and seen the farmer eagerly canvassing the twenty or thirty odd yellow-brown packages, which, to the unlearned, looked all alike, could doubt but that buyers of hops could distinguish between good hops and bad hops, on seeing them. As to the second part of the Bill, all he could say was, that rem, quocumque modo rem, was the motto of Downing-street, and ought to be suspended on a hatchment over it, to teach impatient suitors what they were to expect.

said, that he had undertaken the charge of the Bill at the request of a large number of his constituents, who were Sunday traders, and who regarded Sunday trading as an evil of the greatest magnitude. It would be in the recollection of the House that last Session the House of Lords referred the subject to a Select Committee, before whom evidence was taken for and against any measure of interference with the practice; and in accordance, with the preponderating weight of evidence, their Lordships passed a Bill, which was sent down to this House so late in the Session that it was found inexpedient to go on with it. The present Bill did not introduce any new principle of legislation; for an Act was passed in the reign of Charles the Second containing far more stringent clauses than any in this Bill. The principle, however, was identical—the Act of Charles the Second declaring—

"That no tradesman, artificer, workman, labourer, or any other person whatever, shall exercise any worldly labour, business, or work of ordinary calling on the Lord's day, works of necessity and charity excepted."

The provisions of the present measure were not so stringent, but they were intended to remedy defects in the provisions of the Act of Charles, the working of which had been entirely inoperative. The House would also recollect that a Committee of this House sat upon this subject in 1847, before whom voluminous evidence was given, and it was proved by a vast majority of witnesses that some legislative provision was desirable. In that feeling the tradesmen of every portion of the metropolis agreed, and he was not aware that it was much stronger in Lambeth than in the Tower Hamlets, and other parts of the metropolis. He knew it would be urged, in opposition to the Bill, that frequent instances occurred that wages were not paid until late on Saturday night, and on that account facilities must be afforded to buy necessaries on Sunday morning. Now the greatly preponderating weight of evidence established the fact, that in almost all cases wages were paid sufficiently early to enable the labouring population to go to market on Saturday night. In the evi- dence before the two Committees to which he had referred, it appeared that a large number of witnesses declared that higher prices were paid for necessaries on Sunday morning, than they could purchase them for on Saturday night. The proof of that fact was quite overwhelming, and it was further stated by one respectable tradesman, that he abstained from opening his shop on Sundays during the first eleven years he was in business; that owing to his neighbours, who did open on Sundays, taking away so large a portion of his trade, he was forced also to open on Sundays in self-defence; that the sales of provisions were at a higher price than he obtained on week days, and that higher price enabled him to undersell his neighbours, who did not open on Sundays, during the rest of the week. The general evidence went to the fact that it was of no benefit to the industrious classes to be able to make their purchases on Sunday mornings. Hon. Members perhaps would be surprised to hear that within a few hundred yards of that House 700 shops were open on Sunday morning, and that a large number were shops, not selling provisions and necessaries, but articles of every description. He thought it would he conceded that man was incapable physically, mentally, morally, and socially, of continual labour; and hon. Members must consider that men compelled to open their shops on Sundays were forced to the almost incessant labour of 365 days in the year. It bad, in fact, been admitted by all civilised nations, from the earliest period, that suspension of labour was necessary for the well-being of man. In support of it he might quote the fact, that the most eminent commentators on the laws of Greece and Rome stated, that on their festive days labour was suspended, to give rest to the labourers and slaves. During the existence of slavery in our colonies, the slaves, by law, were not permitted to be worked on Sunday, which they enjoyed as a day of rest. In the United States, where slavery exists in its most hideous form, the slaves have Sunday for a day of rest. Since the limitation of time, the work in factories was better done, and as much in quantity, as that performed during the long-hour system. How much worse is the condition of the 15,000 to 20,000 assistants in the Sunday-trading shops. It was not his intention to go into any of the provisions of the measure, because he should be ready, immediately after the second reading, to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, fairly I chosen to consider it. He had taken it up not as a volunteer, and he wished it had been placed in other hands. Amongst the evidence before the Lords' Committee, a journeyman in a large clothing establishment, stated that his employers opened on Sunday morning at seven o'clock with a display of all kinds of articles, and kept open whilst persons were going to church. A journeyman butcher stated that they commenced business at four o'clock on Saturday morning, and kept open until half-past twelve at night, and then again opened at seven o'clock on Sunday morning. A greengrocer stated that he commenced business at four o'clock on Saturday morning, and kept open until half-past twelve at night, and began again at seven on Sunday morning, and that was the general practice in the trade amongst the shops that opened on Sunday. Here were men compelled to work for twenty hours in one day, and he would ask what condition of slavery was more worthy their pity than that of men forced to such incessant toil by the hard necessity of the custom of the trade? However it might be shown that parties might be injured, the House must agree with him that some remedy ought to be applied. It was conceded by almost every one that no benefit was conferred on the general community, by marketing on the Sunday. He did not wish for any legislation to compel persons to go to church, though he should wish them to do so. He did not take this up as a religious question; all he wanted was that there should be a day of rest.

should move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. He thought that the hon. Member for Lambeth had avoided entering into any details explanatory of his Bill. After a lapse of 200 years, he thought the House would not be prepared to begin legislation anew against Sunday trading, unless the hon. Member who proposed it was able to bring forward some measure which would stand critical observation, and answer the purpose he had in view. It was an invidious position to object to a measure like the present; but what had fallen from the hon. Member would, if he mistook not, reconcile the country to the opposition to this Bill. The hon. Member said, "Refer this Bill to a Committee upstairs;" but he ought to have told the House what the Bill was before he asked them to agree to the second reading. The other evening the hon. and learned Member for Youghal asked the hon. Member whether the expenses attending upon this Bill were not paid by the vestry of Lambeth out of the parish rates? The hon. Gentleman replied, that he did not know that was the case. However that might be, the hon. Gentleman would find that in 1848 and 1849 a sum was paid for printing, in connexion with this subject, out of the poor-rates of the parish of St. Luke's, 10l. having been paid in one year, and 5l. in the next. This year, too, he was informed a resolution had been passed that a sum of money for this purpose should be paid out of the rates. These things ought to be known by the House, in order that they might understand how petitions in favour of such measures were manufactured, the petitioners being the gentlemen who sat in their arm-chairs, enjoying every luxury, able to shave and wash themselves at home, without being obliged to go to an obscure shop in the New-cut, where they could enjoy one of these operations at the cost of a halfpenny, while the other entailed an expense of 1d. The hon. Member who moved the second reading was so shy of alluding to his Bill, that he compelled him (Mr. B. Wall) to call the attention of the House to its clauses. In the first place, it was to apply only to the metropolis. Now, he said, if we were to have a law on Sunday trading, let it be a law for the whole country, and not for the metropolis alone. If the House should agree to go into Committee on this Bill, he should move in Committee to extend the Bill to the whole of England and Wales. The law of Charles II. was put in force oftener than the hon. Member supposed, for it appeared by a return for which he (Mr. B. Wall) had moved, that 140 or 150 convictions under that Act had taken place during the period of eighteen months over which that return extended. The hon. Member for Lambeth said, that no new principle of legislation was established by this Bill. He denied that, for the Bill contained the principle of cumulative penalties, which was an entirely new principle in Sunday legislation. In the case of barbers, this Bill was exceedingly hard. Under the present law, or rather the Act of Charles II., they could be fined no more than 20s. for a contravention of the Act; but by this Bill they could be fined up to 40l. and for each offence. Then there was a provision with regard to the hawkers and dealers in oranges, and other perishable articles. This enactment would not provide against that evil. The boys and girls engaged in that occupation might, and no doubt would, lay aside their baskets; but they would have large pockets, in which they would keep their oranges; and when the police were out of sight, they would exhibit them in their hands. He begged to suggest to the Secretary of State, that carts employed in the street for the purpose of selling such perishable articles, should be registered in the same manner as coaches, omnibuses, and all public conveyances were. As regarded the religious aspect of the question, any act of the kind contemplated by the Bill would be repugnant to the feelings of the English people. If the Act of Charles II. was insufficient, was also the Police Act, and Michael Angelo Taylor's Act? All shops, of whatever description, should be shut during the hours of divine service on Sunday, in the same way as beerhouses and public-houses were regulated at present. The objectionable feature of the Bill, however, was the principle of cumulative penalties, as he had already stated. This principle of cumulative penalties was introduced into all the modern Bills to put down Sunday trading, and it had been uniformly rejected by the House. The present Bill proposed to except beer and stamped publications from the articles which might be sold on Sundays. By a Who book on the sale of beer, which came from the House of Lords last Session, the law was finally set at rest. It contained a general order, issued by the Excise, in which the officers of Inland Revenue were instructed that no objection would be made to the sale of table beer, retailed by persons who were not licensed victuallers, provided that it were sold at a price not exceeding 1½d. per quart. Now, the present Bill would affect the sale of that liquor on Sundays. The public-houses of the metropolis were allowed to be opened on Sundays after one o'clock, under certain restrictions. By this Bill the commonest beverage of the working classes was taken out of their reach, and the hon. Member sent them, if they had money, to the public-house; and, if they had none, to the pump. There was a penalty for selling this table-beer on Sunday, and the Bill would not allow the poor man, in point of fact, to have any drink. In the list of excepted arti- cles which might be sold on Sundays, he found the words "or periodical papers stamped with the penny stamp." This would exclude all the unstamped publications, which were the chief reading of the mechanics and artisans. There were as many as fifty unstamped periodicals, many of them very respectably conducted. Among them were the Family Herald, Eliza Cook's Journal, the publications of the Messrs. Chambers, the Working Man's Friend, and these would stand the most scrutinising eye. They were, too, able to give information to many Gentlemen within the walls of that House. These publications, as the bill of exceptions stood, could not be purchased by the poor man on Sundays. Was this legislation suited to the year 1851? Was it going forward, or was it not rather retrograding with a vengeance, even back to the time of Charles II.? In conclusion, he begged for a moment to refer to the evidence given before the Lords' Committee last year, upon which the present Bill was founded. Mr. Mayne, the Chief Commissioner of Police, said, that he should look with apprehension at any attempt to enforce by law the provisions of the Bill, on account of the great improvement that had taken place; and, again, that he thought a general Bill would not be an effective one for the purpose. Mr. Elliott, a magistrate of great experience, said, that speaking as a lawyer he thought the Bill very inadequately drawn, and that it could not work as it was. Mr. Chester and other magistrates said, that they would rather see the Bill thrown out than passed with the exceptions which it contained. On these grounds, he thought that if such a Bill could be available for the purposes for which it was intended, it ought not to be founded upon the evidence at present before them, but that they ought to go before another Committee. He was convinced that the proposed Bill was one of the most mischievous, irritating, anomalous, and uncalled for that had ever been submitted to the House, and he therefore moved, as an Amendment, that it should be read a second time that day six months.

begged to second the Motion for the rejection of the Bill. He had been requested to oppose it, and he did so willingly, because he thought the Bill calculated to inflict great hardship on the labouring classes. In the report which had been alluded to by the hon. Member for Guildford there would be found unanswerable reasons against the Bill; for it would be found that it would inflict the greatest hardships upon the poorest classes, whilst it left those who were in easy circumstances totally untouched. To the poor people this Act would be cruelly oppressive. The valuable and interesting letters upon "Labour and the Poor" which had appeared in the Morning Chronicle would convince all who had read them of the injustice and oppressive nature of this measure. Those letters showed that thousands of the working classes did not receive their wages until late on Saturday night. Many of them were employed in running about the streets until the close of the Saturday, and how could they comply with the provisions of this Bill? It would prevent them from obtaining the proper necessaries of life. The Bill provided, that for eight months in the year no meat or provisions for human food should be sold on a Sunday, and that for the other four months they should not be sold after nine o'clock on Sunday morning. These were restrictions which inflicted no inconvenience on those who were in easy circumstances, and who could obtain their provisions at any time, and who had all the necessary means of keeping their food till it was cooked; but it was far different with the working classes, who had often no money till they received their wages at a late hour on Saturday night, or even till Sunday morning. Any one who had read the report which was made by the Committee of the House of Lords, must know that there were thousands of little workmen who were running about the town all Saturday night from shop to shop trying to sell their goods, in which they did not succeed often till a very late hour at night. Again, there many workmen employed by small masters who did not receive their wages till Sunday morning. There were thousands and tens of thousands of people, in short, who had no means of purchasing their Sunday's dinner till the Sunday morning; and who, under this Bill, would be compelled to make Sunday a fast-day, or else would be driven to the public-house. Then, there were, at least 200,000 who had no separate apartment, but who with their families lived in the same room with other families. If these people had the means of buying on Saturday night, how could they preserve their provisions from taint till dinner time on Sunday in the polluted atmosphere of their crowded rooms I It was clear such persons must live from, hand to mouth, and would therefore be greatly injured. It had been said that such a Bill as the proposed one would diminish the extent of Sunday trading—but it would increase the amount to a great degree of Sunday suffering. He was sure such a Bill would not have a chance of being adopted if the working classes had a share in the representation of that House equivalent to what the other classes had. Why Was it that the barber, who was almost exclusively employed by the poor man, was not allowed to carry on his necessary business after ten o'clock, while the cabmen and engineers, &c., were allowed to work all day? He had no respect for the petitions which had been presented in favour of these Bills. Let those who had scruples about supplying their poor neighbours with the necessaries of life, or those who desired to amuse themselves by expeditions into the country, shut up their shops—there was no compulsion on them to keep them open; but they were not content to do this, unless they could make their neighbours do this also. This was not religion; it was avarice, or rather the spirit of the dog in the manger, who would neither use what he had himself, nor let others use it. For such selfish conduct he had no sympathy. The Bill was conceived in the very spirit of intolerance, for it attempted to force on others the opinions which some of them, perhaps, entertained themselves. He objected to the title of the Bill, which was called a Bill to prevent unlawful trading on a Sunday. He believed there was Very little unlawful trading to be complained of. From Hyde Park-corner to Whitechapel, and from the bridges to the New-road, what was there to be seen on a Sunday but one gloomy line of dingy window shutters? The only exception was to be found in the poorest districts, where it was a matter of necessity that certain shops should be open. He believed there never was a time when there was greater respect for the Sunday; the crowded churches were evidence of that. He believed there was a general feeling of its being a religious duty to keep Sunday as a holyday, and he would rather trust to the good in- fluence of that feeling than embark in vexations legislation, such as that proposed by the Bill before them.

said, he knew that the inhabitants of the metropolis were extremely diversified in opinion with regard to this Bill; but the hon. Member for Lambeth had made a proposition in which he hoped the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Amendment would coincide, namely, that if this Bill should be allowed to pass the second reading without opposition, it should be referred to a Select Committee.

wished to know if the Committee would have power to examine witnesses?

had no objection.

Then, I agree to that at once.

said, no provision was made for the expenses of constables in cases where magistrates, instead of exercising a summary jurisdiction, sent the case for trial to the sessions. This would throw the expenses of constables on the parish or county instead of the Crown, which now paid them.

said, it was intended that the words should include all the expenses that were now included in the certificate. If that was not the case, the words should be altered so as to make that quite clear.

said, that in some instances where the cases were not sent to the sessions, no expenses were allowed, which he thought a great hardship.

wished to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the question of allowing the expenses of prosecutions in cases of assault sent by a magistrate to the sessions. At present the court could not allow the expenses of prosecutions in such cases, but he saw no reason why the expenses should not be allowed in cases of aggravated assault, as well as in common felonies. If the right hon. Gentleman was not prepared to consider the question, he would himself bring up a clause with reference to it.

was very glad the hon. Gentleman had drawn attention to this matter. It was a very important one, for many reasons. The present state of the law held out a premium to persons to adopt what was called "hard swearing," in order to secure the committal of the defendant for trial, in which event, if the prosecutor were a poor man, he would be unable to proceed.

thought that the proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for East Kent ought not to be entertained without considerable caution, or it might open the door to very great expense. He would not say more than just to put the right hon. Gentleman upon his guard relative to the admission of the proposed clause.

could see no principle upon which the expenses of prosecuting aggravated assaults that came before the quarter-sessions should be withheld.

was of opinion that the presiding magistrate at assizes, and the justices at quarter-sessions, might safely be intrusted with a discretionary power in ordering the expenses. As the law at present stood, it was extremely hard upon the poor. He should cheerfully vote for such a clause as his hon. Friend the Member for East Kent had alluded to.

thought that there would be a difficulty in dealing with the case as had been suggested by his hon. Friend; for it frequently happened that cases of trumpery assault were brought before a magistrate, who refused, perhaps, to have anything to do with them. The parties then might prefer an indictment before a grand jury, and, if the costs were in all cases to be allowed, that practice would no doubt greatly increase, and the county expenditure be much enhanced. At the same time he was far from denying that the present system was capable of great improvement, and he thought the subject well deserved the attention of the Government.

considered it would be desirable to give the magistrates the power of granting a certificate in certain cases, stating that the parties were not entitled to proceed further. Such a provision would greatly control the expense of prosecutions.

said, it had been suggested by the hon. Member for East Kent that there ought to be discretionary power to order expenses in cases of misdemeanour, and also that where no committal took place the same discretionary power should be given. With regard to the first point, a discretionary power did exist in cases of felony and cases of misdemeanour, mentioned in the 7th Geo. IV., c. 64. There were no doubt other cases, not then foreseen, which ought to have been included in the same category, such as those in which parties might he tried and convicted of the minor offence. He doubted the propriety of giving the court the unlimited power in all cases of misdemeanour which it now possessed in cases of felony, and thought the better plan would be to specify the cases in which a discretionary power should be given. With regard to the other point, he thought the giving of a discretionary power in cases where no committal took place, would lead to a great expense, and to the bringing of charges which had no substantial foundation. There might, no doubt, be some eases in which hardship was occasioned under the present system; but he was inclined to think that the inconvenience was much less than it would he if the suggestions of hon. Gentlemen were adopted.

had previously given a notice which, if carried, would have had the effect of giving the magistrate power to take the confessions of delinquents. By such a proceeding the cost of witnesses and general expenses of prosecutions would be materially avoided.

said, he did not propose that magistrates should have an unlimited power in all cases, but that power should be limited to particular cases. If magistrates were not to have discretionary power in such cases, then it was clear the right hon. Gentleman did not think magistrates completely fitted for their office.

considered it was right that the Secretary of State should have power to fix the amount of expenses to be paid per diem; but unless precautions were taken in case a magistrate's certificate was not to be conclusive, the expenses might be enlarged indefinitely, and no means at hand to check abuse.

said, this was the most important clause of the whole Bill, and he rose to move its omission. He considered that the onus probandi rested on those who brought forward this clause to show why a large and a respectable class of practitioners were to be disfranchised, and their emoluments interfered with in this summary way. The magistrates' clerks were general practitioners, respectable in their conduct, and much trusted by the gentry and others of the district in which they practised. He had received a letter setting forth the probable working of the clause so practically and fully, that he would trouble the House with a few extracts. [The hon. Member here read portions of the letter which had reference to associations for the prosecution of felons, showing what would be the consequences if the clause in question were allowed to stand.] The gentlemen who acted as the secretaries to those associations, and who always conducted the prosecutions of felons, were themselves generally the clerks to the justices, so that the alteration would evidently have the effect of depriving the country of the services of a most valuable class of professional gentlemen. Such a charge must involve a largo addition to the county rate in reimbursing them for the losses they may sustain. They were compelled to attend the assizes in order to prove confessions, &c.; and although they would not have the power to prosecute, they would have the privilege of defending prisoners. He confessed he could not see the reason of such a distinction. He therefore trusted the right hon. Gentleman would either consent to the withdrawal of the clause, or to such a modification of it as would meet the objections of a body of men who felt that not only their fair emoluments were interfered with, but an aspersion cast on their character and conduct which was wholly undeserved. He should move the expulsion of the clause, with the view of raising a discussion on its merits, or divide the Committee if no satisfactory reasons for its retention were assigned.

thought it necessary that the clause should be either omitted or modified. In the borough he represented, the justices appointed a clerk to conduct the prosecutions, who was paid by I salary, the fees going into the borough fund; and this was a plan which had operated very beneficially. Where there were a number of magistrates' clerks competing; for the prosecutions, it caused a great increase of expense. He hoped a proviso would be added to the clause, exempting from its operation those clerks to justices who were paid by salary, and had no interest in the prosecutions.

thought the whole of this discussion afforded a fresh illustration of the difficulty of legislating for local exigencies by a central authority. He was assured that the operation of this clause would be very injurious in many places, and he hoped it would he withdrawn.

said, the most important point was the exclusion from practice of certain professional men. He had received various complaints about this clause, and thought it required much modification.

said, the object of the Bill was to diminish the expenses of prosecutions, and he supposed it was intended to infer that magistrates' clerks had an interest in bringing additional witnesses in order to increase their costs. But he believed the insertion of the clause now under consideration would produce the very effect which the right hon. Gentleman was desirous to prevent. He would just state to the House the result of the present system with respect to the cost of offences tried at Lincoln from the neighbourhood of Gainsborough. Out of 220 commitments, only three of the indictments preferred by the magistrates' clerk had been ignored by the grand jury. The expenses of each prosecution amounted to 4l. 4s., but the employment of another attorney would have been attended with an additional cost of 6l. 6s. He believed, generally speaking, that the magistrates' clerks were the most fit persons to perform this duty, and was of opinion that the proposed change would not at all diminish the expense.

, from long experience as a chairman of quarter-sessions was confident that if clerks of petty-sessions were prevented prosecuting, justice would not be done. The best men were selected to fill these offices; and the result would be that prosecutions would fall into the hands of men less well informed. He approved of the suggestion that the clerks of petty-session should be paid for the prosecutions by salary.

believed that the system of remunerating the procurators-fiscal in Scotland was working well, and it seemed to him that a similar system would work well if introduced in England, with regard to the services of magistrates' clerks.

wished to know what the accusation was against these gentlemen; for his part, he had had considerable experience as chairman of quarter-sessions, and he had never seen anything but a due economy on their part, and believed that public justice was advanced by the present system.

said, that since this Bill had been before the House, he had received an immense number of letters on the subject, the greater part of which stated objections to this clause. He brought no charge against the gentlemen who acted as justices' clerks, comprising as that body did some of the most respectable practitioners in the law. He was surprised, therefore, to hear the hon. Member for North Northamptonshire say that this Bill was an imputation on the whole body of the clerks of justices, and that they were bound to oppose this clause, as, indeed, they were most effectually doing. No doubt there was a natural tendency in the human mind to avail itself of opportunities of obtaining money, and therefore there might be an increase of the expense when it put money into the pockets of the party incurring it. No doubt many cases had occurred in which the public bad been charged under the present practice with unnecessary expenses by clerks of justices conducting prosecutions. When the Municipal Corporations Act was beforet he House, a similar clause was inserted; but they did not hear that what was then proposed was casting any imputation on the gentlemen who acted as justices' clerks in the municipal boroughs, nor had he heard since of any inconvenience from the adoption of that clause, while at the same time it kept down the expense of prosecutions. He had given his best attention to this subject, and he thought the clause might be open to exceptions in its application to particular country districts; but his only object in it was to insert in the Bill a clause which might tend to promote economy without risking the loss of the proper means of conducting prosecutions and enforcing the criminal law. A suggestion had been thrown out on the second reading of the Bill, that if the clerks were to be paid by salaries, for which in the next clause there was an optional provision, those salaries should be calculated with reference not only to the duties they performed as magistrates' clerks, but also with reference to the duties that might be thrown on them in conducting prosecutions. With some modification, he thought that such a pro- Vision might be beneficially adopted. He should propose that the clerks should not be at liberty to be concerned in any prosecution until the salaries were fixed, nor unless they were recommended by the justices to conduct such prosecution, and a justice should certify in writing that it was expedient that the clerk should conduct such prosecution. He was not, however, prepared to ask the House to assent to the clause as it stood, and would, therefore, postpone it for further consideration.

suggested that the following difficulty might arise. By the proposed clause the committing magistrates were to have the power of recommending the costs of prosecution. A case might occur in which the clerk came to the sessions under the authority of the committing magistrate as a fit person to conduct the prosecution, and, on the other hand, the quarter-sessions might not consider the case to be one in which the expenses ought to be allowed.

thought there would be a difficulty in allowing a single justice to certify for the prosecution. The power ought not to be vested in a single magistrate, but in the bench of petty-sessions.

said, that it would be well if the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary determined the amount of fees payable to clerks of the peace. In his opinion the amount ought to be fixed.

must, from all he had ever seen, speak in high terms of the magistrates' clerks, who were men of high standing and honourable character. He should beg to move the following Amendment to the clause:—

"To add to section 6, after the words, 'and to his rights in respect thereof,' the following words:—'and that the salary to be paid to any such clerk of the peace shall not be less than the average amount of the fees, profits, and emoluments payable to such clerk of the peace, in respect of his office, for the three years next preceding the passing of this Act.'"

He considered that if salaries were to be granted, they ought to be fixed according to the average emoluments and profits for the last three years. He hoped that the consideration of this section, however, would be deferred. The salaries when fixed, might be reconsidered at the end of three years, and an alteration made if it was thought necessary.

said, the object of the clause was to facilitate the commutation of fees now received by the clerks of the justices and of sessions. The measure had been pressed upon the consideration of the Government, and a Committee which sat upon the subject last year recommended a change of the nature now proposed. He thought the proposal of the hon. Member who last spoke, who wished to limit the amount of salary for a period of three years, subsequent to the time it was granted, might be objected to on this ground: at present the fees of the clerks of the peace could be diminished at the instance of the quarter-sessions; the rule upon this point had not been inoperative, and if the Amendment were agreed to, the effect would be that the clerk might be guaranteed a salary which would not be capable of any change for three years.

would not press his Amendment.

said, that in this clause a power was given of diminishing the salaries of clerks of the peace, but not of increasing them. In this respect the same powers should be given to magistrates of boroughs as had been given to justices of quarter-sessions.

said, he thought no alteration was necessary, as the magistrates, if they acted wrongly, were subject to control on the part of the Secretary of State.

thought that some means should be provided to prevent quarter-sessions deciding such matters without due notice, and that the Secretary of State should have the power to act as arbitrator between parties. A great part of the income of many clerks of the peace did not consist of fees in prosecutions, but of fixed charges for other business.

urged that some means should be adopted to prevent the salaries of clerks to borough magistrates being reduced by the ratepayers. He saw no reason why the magistrates of boroughs should be treated differently from magistrates of counties, with regard to fixing the salaries of their clerks. He hoped the right hon. Baronet would promise to reconsider the subject, otherwise he should take the sense of the Committee upon it.

said, there was this difference between the functions of justices of the peace in counties and in boroughs, that the former managed all the financial business of the counties, while the latter had nothing to do with the financial busi- ness of boroughs, the control of which was vested in the town councils. To empower justices of the peace for boroughs to administer the financial affairs of those boroughs, would be to establish an entirely new principle; and, though he had no doubt they would be actuated by no improper motives in regulating the salaries of their officers, he thought it was not advisable to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire, he would take care to provide that due notice should he given of any intention to alter the emoluments of clerks of the peace, so that no precipitate resolution might be adopted. The hon. Gentleman also suggested that, in case of any dispute, the Secretary of State should act as arbitrator. If the Committee were willing to place that power in the hands of the Secretary of State, and if they did not think the exercise of such a power might deter courts of quarter-sessions and town councils from making recommendations, he would not object to the introduction of such a provision.

said, that the clerk of the peace generally acted as solicitor to the county, and his emoluments as solicitor were frequently double the amount of his fees as clerk of the peace. He was acquainted with a case where the fees of a clerk of the peace for a county were something less than 300l. a year; but his Bill as county solicitor was about 700l. a year. He conceived that the Bill, in its present form, would leave clerks of the peace whose salaries might be fixed, at liberty to act as county solicitors, which would give them considerable additional emoluments.

moved, that after the words "governing body," the following words be inserted:—"and the justices of the peace in special sessions assembled." His object was, to give to justices of the peace in boroughs a concurrent power with the town councils in determining the amount of salary to be given to clerks of the peace.

said, the proposal now made by the hon. Gentleman was very different from that which he understood him to suggest before. He understood now that the hon. Member did not mean to transfer the power of fixing the salaries of clerks of the peace from the town councils to the justices, but only to give the justices a Voice in the matter; and if the hon. Gen- tleman would defer his Amendment until the bringing up of the report, he (Sir G. Grey) would, in the meantime, give the subject his consideration.

wished to know whether it was intended that the salaries to be given to clerks of the peace should comprehend all costs to which counties were put incidental to the office of clerk of the peace?

replied that the salaries were intended to be a commutation for all the fees received by the clerks of the peace in that character. The counties might, however, employ any solicitor they chose; and if the clerks of the peace were compensated in their salaries for the duties they performed as solicitors, there was nothing to prevent the business of county solicitor from being transferred to another person, in which case a double charge would be thrown upon the county rate. The magistrates might, of course, if they chose, make an arrangement with the clerk of the peace for conducting criminal prosecutions.

inquired whether the salaries would include all fees which were not strictly for professional business—whether, for instance, they would include registration fees?

thought they ought to cover every duty which a clerk of the peace was, by statute or usage, compellable to perform as clerk of the peace.

said, that an imprisonment of three years was a very severe one. Two years was the usual term up to which a discretion was allowed, and he did not see why they should make an exception in the present instance. He was aware the Bill had been brought in in consequence of the Sloanes' case, but they were not likely to have another case of such gravity.

said, the wording was any term "not exceeding" three years; and he thought the penalty not too severe, as some of the offences to he provided against by the Bill were little inferior to murder.

wished to know whether the Bill would extend to young persons apprenticed or hired out to persons out of the union?

proposed to extend the operation of the Bill to a circle of five miles beyond the union. In cases where young persons were hired out to a distant part, such as their being taken from a union in Sunderland to become domestic servants in Cornwall, for instance, it would be impossible to require the guardians to incur the expense of visiting the young persons periodically. The law already, to some extent, met the case of apprentices beyond the union; but with regard to servants, he thought it impracticable to trace them out and visit them at a distance.

thought some means ought to be devised to afford the protection of the Bill to the cases which the right hon. Gentleman said it was impracticable to meet.

said, he was anxious to render the measure as effective as possible, and, therefore, he should reconsider the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member.