of which called upon the House to declare, | offence any sum not less than 5s., nor that men were commanded by the Lord to more than 10s.; for the second offence, respect the Sabbath Day; an assertion in not less than 10s., nor more than 20s.; which many conscientious people were and for every subsequent offence, not less quite unable to concur. All introduction than 20s., nor more than 5." So no of tests of that kind was to be deprecated. man was to be allowed to ask a neighbour He highly approved of the object of the news, or go to a room and quietly securing a day of recreation and quiet for read the papers without incurring a penalty the great mass of the population; but he of from 5s. to 51. A penalty of 50l. was as highly disapproved of the discord likewise to be imposed upon the keeper of which the Bill was calculated to introduce any news-room who opened it on Sunday. into the country. He had read with great All the common conveniences of life, all pleasure a pamphlet, by a dignitary of the social intercourse of human beings with Church, the object of which was to en- one another on Sundays, was interdicted deavour to break down unimportant religi- by the Bill. Nay, more than that. It ous distinctions, and to make all Christians was well known, that persons confined in brethren. The tendency of this Bill, on towns were frequently compelled to breathe the contrary, would be further to divide a fetid and unwholesome atmosphere; and and narrow sects; and to set up the that many of those persons could not means of discord among the people. go to a distance which would enable them What he desired was, that the people to breathe fresh air, without hiring horses should have rest and refreshment on the for that purpose. He, himself, was comseventh day. Let them look at the Bill, pelled to be in London six days out of and see if it kept that object in view. It the seven. He was an invalid; but by set out with observing, that all work this Bill he should be incapacitated from ought to be prohibited on the Sabbath breathing fresh air on the seventh day. day. The only exclusion was, "the man If, indeed, he were so rich as to have servant and the maid servant;" so that a carriage of his own, he might repair although the hon. Baronet took the Jewish to the environs of the town; but, as it was, law as the foundation of the measure, if the Bill were to pass, he must breathe he departed from that law in this essential the noxious air of the metropolis on the particular. He was sure that those hon. seventh, as well as on the other days Members could not have read the Bill of the week. To him that would be a who were not inclined at once to reject it. great evil; and was not that the feeling of He would read only one of its enactments, the great majority of the middle and lower and from that the House would see the classes? One provision of the Bill was to spirit of the measure. It ran as follows; shut up baking-houses on Sundays. The consequence would be, that every poor man's wife must dress his meat for dinner; while, at present, she was allowed to spend the day in peace and quiet; and a small number of persons performed that necessary labour. By this enactment, therefore, labour on the Sunday would be multiplied a hundred-fold. Females, of all persons, ought to be exempted from labour on the Sunday, and should take that recreation which was calculated to restore them, and fit them for the toil of the approaching week. But this Bill would prevent them from doing so. He had gone last Sunday down to Greenwich, on purpose to see how the population of the metropolis amused themselves on that day. Nothing could be a more pleasing sight, or more consonant to every good feeling. The people came out for air; they were walking quietly in the Park; enjoying the pure atmosphere, breaking no commandment, And be it further enacted, that every one who shall be present at any meeting, assembly, or concourse of people, upon any part of the Lord's Day, for any purpose of gaming, wagering, or betting, or for any wake, fair, baiting, or hunting any animal, cock-fighting, dog-fighting, or shooting, or any pastime of public indecorum, inconvenience, or nuisance." Now, let the House fancy a whole community obliged to agree with what any Magistrate might think proper to understand by the words, "public indecorum, inconvenience, or nuisance!" The enactment proceeded" or for public debating upon or discussing any subject"—surely it it was difficult to conceive any mode of passing a day more unobjectionably than in calm and rational discussion "or for public lecture, address, or speech, or who shall be present at any news-room, or club-room, shall forfeit for the first and violating no law. He would oppose | than it had been for the last thirty years; the hon. Baronet on religious grounds, but he was willing, from regard to those and tell him that true religion was not so who were interested in such pointscold and narrow a system as he represented especially the tradesmen of large towns, it to be. God required no such painful to forward any measure which would really and absurd sacrifices as his Bill would im- be one of protection, but he could not conpose on the people. The Almighty re-sent to a Bill, the details of which could quired, that we should perform our duties to one another, without one particle of asceticism. By this Bill, one set of people, having peculiar ideas respecting a particular day, wished to compel all other persons to conform to their creed, and to worship God after their manner. not be worked into any other form than to impose unjust restrictions, and unmerited penalties.. Sir Robert Inglis did not deem it right in Government to throw the whole weight of their influence against the Bill. Without attaching undue importance to the Lord Morpeth doubted the possibility prayers of the people, he would wish the of carrying into effect the various provi- House to remember that this was a quessions of so complicated a Bill, though he tion on which the people of England had acknowledged the propriety of its prin-shown a strong anddecided feeling. Without ciple. He should vote for the second reading, in the hope that it would receive in the Committee all the modifications re-viction, he must say, that any subject quisite for making it a useful and desirable enactment. Mr. Estcourt concurred in the principle of the Bill, but thought that beneficial alterations might be made in it. No one could deny that it was desirable to keep the shops shut on the Sabbath. yielding their judgment, or acting on any question without the most deliberate con was deserving of anxious and attentive consideration which was borne to them on the prayers of 230,000 persons. He was happy that he could agree with the noble Lord, in the opinion that, during the last thirty years, there had been a great improvement in the manner of observing Lord Althorp believed there was no man the Sabbath. But was that improvement in that House who would quarrel with not less than might have been expected the principle of the Bill; but the details from the increased means of religious inwere in his opinion of so extraordinary a struction, which above all other countries, we character, that he considered they could had so eminently, during that interval, not depart from the usual parliamentary possessed? The Lord's Day in this councourse of opposing it at once. Nothing try was observed in a manner superior to in fact could be done with the Bill, but that in which it was kept in any country what would lead to the introduction of of Europe-Scotland excepted; so much some new measure. The Bill could not so, indeed, that foreigners constantly combe so altered as to retain anything like its plained of our strictness. But the quespresent form. For his own part, he was tion for consideration was, whether our most anxious to support any measure observance was such as it ought to be, which would in practice be one of protec- according to the commands of Scripture ? tion to those who desired to keep the Let them remember also, the cries of those Sabbath as a day of rest, and not of coer- petitioners who had asked our interference cion to those who did not. But this was on a ground which no Legislature could a Bill of Pains and Penalties-uncalled rightly reject-that of protection. Was for and impolitic-not desired by the pub-the hon. and learned member for Bath lic, and not deserved by them; and he could not do otherwise than oppose it in its present stage. He wished for a measure, not to compel men to be religious, but to allow and enable them to be so. It was neither consistent with religion, with morality, nor with sound policy, to interfere with the old recreations of the people. Nothing would be more unfair, impolitic, or uncalled for. He really believed that the Sabbath Day was, after all, now better observed in these realms, aware, that no less than 7,400 journeymen bakers had petitioned the House of Commons to enable them to observe the Sabbath? Whether it were right or not to grant their prayer, it was fitting that the Legislature should consider it well. Some of those who petitioned, might be influenced by worldly motives—but it could not be questioned that many were actuated by the purest and most sacred feelingsregarding the Sabbath as a divine institution, which they ought to observe. Some therefore, would not pledge himself and his Majesty's Government to the introduction of a Bill which would at least repress such practices, he was not justified in calling on the House to resist this Bill, and in refusing his assent to its principle, solely because he objected to the provisions by which it was proposed to carry the principle into effect. He could assure the noble Lord, that he would best consult the interests of the Government, and the wishes of the people, by allowing the Bill to go into Committee. Sir Matthew White Ridley said, he would oppose the present measure, because he considered it a Bill of pains and penalties, and not calculated to secure the better observance of the Sabbath, or conduce to the interests of religion. Mr. Lefroy considered they ought not to hesitate in going into Committee. The Bill was founded on such principles as, with a slight modification of its details, could not fail to be acceptable to a major thing was due to both these classes; and the Bill contemplated nothing--so far at least as he could understand it; except matters of trading, travelling, and labouring on the Sabbath. There were several points respecting the meetings of municipal bodies, &c., on the Lord's Day; but those were unimportant compared with the provisions which he had mentioned. Was there anything in the principle of the Bill, as applied to these three provisions, to which the noble Lord could refuse his assent ? He might refuse it as to the degree in which they were applied; but was he prepared to withhold it generally from the questions of limiting labour; elosing shops, and preventing travelling for hire, on Sunday? The subject was attended with difficulty, in respect to interference with the amusements of the poor; and it was true that legislative enactments might press harder on the poor man than on the rich. But that arose from the nature of things; it was impossible to prevent either from doing what he pleased inity of that House. his own house; but there was no such Mr. Wynn was much more disposed to prohibition in this Bill. It did not apply trust to the gradual growth of religion, to the poor man in his own house; it fol- than to any new penal enactments. There lowed him to the public house-to the was a clause, at the end of the Bill, which place where those scenes were acted which declared that it was not to extend to works violated every law of decency, and moral- of piety, charity, or necessity. Who was ity. It improved the present law with to be the judge of what constituted respect to public-houses and beer-shops; works of this description? Must it not be and interfered with the resort to those the individual who was setting out on it? places at particular hours of the day. If he could convince himself that a work Among the petitions presented to the on which he was about to engage was a House was one from his constituents--work of charity or necessity-and thus presented by his hon. friend and Colleague feel himself at liberty to travel on a Sun-in which the petitioners stated that they day in furthering it was it necessary for believed it to be the bounden duty of every him to satisfy every innkeeper that he was Christian country to provide for the re-really at liberty to hire post-horses? Supligious observance of the Lord's Day; and that the existing laws were insufficient to secure the attainment of that object. In the evidence given before the Committee on this subject, which sat last year, several gentlemen-police Magistrates and others-connected with the administration of justice stated, that the laws were inoperative-that they had, in fact, become a mere nullity; so much so, that persons had been known to offer to pay the fine for keeping their shops open at the beginning of the day. They said, "We will not give you the trouble of fining us; here is the amount of the fine, and we will keep our shops open, and violate the laws." Could the noble Lord justify such a state of things as this? If the noble Lord, pose the case of an officer hastening to join his regiment-or of a child to visit a dying parent-it would be urgent on both that they travelled without let or hindrance, and rapidly; yet they must, under this Bill, first satisfy every innkeeper, that they were engaged on a work of " necessity." To proceed as the Bill proposed, appeared to him to be acting on a novel principle of legislation. At all events, it went much too far, and he recommended that it should be withdrawn. Mr. Robert Grant contended, that the observance of the Sabbath was a proper object of national care. If the present Bill were thrown out, he feared the people would think that the Reformed Parliament was disposed to deny the principle of this and former enactments on the same sub- | and, unless a person was an enthusiast, ject. He should, therefore, vote for the he could scarcely get such a measure second reading. through. In spite of ridicule, he would vote for the second reading. Mr. Wason suggested, that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. If that were consented to, he would vote for the second reading, not otherwise. Mr. Petre could not support the second reading of the Bill, though he had voted for the first stage, unless he were assured, that in the Committee it would be very considerably altered. Mr. Hill hoped, that the Bill would be withdrawn, at least for the present, as he was convinced that such a measure would rather lead to the abolition of the present observance of the Sabbath than its due observance. It was, in fact, a Bill for the desecration of the Sabbath by the rich, and for the observance of it by the poor. While the chimney of the rich man might be reeking, and all his cooks employed, the poor man must be satisfied with his humble and Saturday-dressed dinner. This was not the time when the two classes ought to be brought into opposition, and least of all on such a question as the observance of the Sabbath. Mr. Shaw thought, that Parliament ought to legislate no further than to regulate public trading; but, although the Bill went too far, it could be sufficiently altered and improved in the Committee. It was the moral and sound sense of the country which required some enactment on the subject, and he hoped Ministers would not set themselves against all improvement in this respect. Mr. Hardy was of opinion, that the present laws were inadequate for the purpose, and that a Christian House of Commons ought to do something in order to cause the due observance of the Sabbath, which was instituted, not so much for the vexation of man, as for the honour of the Lord. Mr. Rotch regretted that the subject had been forced upon the House-he had himself been made the humble instrument of presenting various petitions, most carefully got up he meant petitions read to every person who had signed them-and the question was, whether the prayer of 200,000 petitioners was to be disregarded? If the Bill was inefficient, where was the hon. Baronet to obtain assistance to render it efficient but in a Committee of that House? He could get no assistance elsewhere. He was beset with opposition, Mr. Fowell Buxton would only detain the House two minutes, but could not avoid saying, in answer to the hon. member for Bath, that the preamble of this Bill was copied from another on the same subject 107 years old. Bishop Porteus had said, and most truly, that the due observance of the Sabbath was the great bulwark of Christianity. Mr. Andrew Johnston fully concurred in the principle and many of the details of the Bill. The opposition to the measure, and the disturbance in the House indicative of impatience, proceeded from that portion of the Members who were opposed to the Protestant religion. They might well object to the due observance of the Sabbath, on which the safety of the Church mainly depended. The hon. member for Dublin, at a meeting of the Trades' Union, had told those assembled, that the Sunday ought not to be spent in gloomy gravity, which sickened the human countenance and sallowed the complexion, and that he highly approved of the manner in which the Sabbath was usually spent in England. In his own country, the hon. and learned Member said, he had witnessed with pleasure dancing, playing at ball, and other amusements. But when such were the opinions of the hon. and learned Member, and his friend, he hoped they would have no influence over a Christian assembly. Mr. P. Howard could support so few of the clauses of the Bill which had been introduced by the hon. Baronet, that he must vote against the second reading, though he respected the motives of those who adopted a different course. A bill should give something like an accurate and defined outline of what was afterwards to be filled up and perfected in Committee, otherwise the process of amending would be endless, and the result almost always unsatisfactory. He was disposed to take effectual means of preventing any unnecessary barter or business on the Lord's Day, especially during the hours of divine service; but must, at the same time, remark, that many of the causes which led to the more serious violations of the Sabbath could not be reached by legislation. A practice (for he would only detail one instance), existed in Man Sykes, S. SCOTLAND. Callander, J. H. chester, and many of the larger towns, | Staunton, Sir G. T. Amendment withdrawn, and the House divided on the question, that the Bill be then read a second time: Ayes 73; Noes 79-Majority 6. Bill thrown out. List of the AYES. Ingham, R. Lamont, Captain N. HOUSE OF LORDS, Friday, May 17, 1833. MINUTES.] Bills. Received the Royal Assent:-Tile Duties; Cotton Duties; and Exchequer Court (Scotland). for Poor Laws to Ireland.-By a NOBLE LORD, from St. George's, Bloomsbury, and another Parish, against the Assessed Taxes.-By the Marquess of STAFFORD, from several Dissenting Congregations, for Relief to the Dissenters from their Grievances, respecting Registration, Marriage, and Church Rates.-By the Earl of RODEN, from several Places, for the Better Observance of the Lord's Day.-By Lord SEGRAVE, from Dursley; and the Earl of WICKLOW, from Wotton-under-Edge, for the Revision or Abolition of the Sale of Beer Act.-By the Duke of CLEVELAND, the Earls of RODEN, ROSEBERY, ALBEMARLE, and CHARLEMONT, the Marquesses of LANSDOWN and STAFFORD, and Lords SALTOUN and SUFFIELD, from a great Number of Places,-for the Immediate Abolition of Slavery. WINE DUTIES.] The Earl of Aberdeen said, in reference to a subject of conversation in that House a few weeks back, he rose to move for some information connected with it-he alluded to the Wine Duties. It appeared to be admitted by Ministers that their anticipations, when they proposed the alterations last year, had not been realized. He had predicted that which had now turned out to be the fact. The Motion which he would submit would show the result of the alteration of the law, and he apprehended it would. fully prove what he now asserted. The noble Earl then moved "That there be laid before this House an account of the quantity of Wine imported into Great Britain for the last five years, ending the 5th of January 1833, specifying the amount imported each year, distinguishing the country from whence imported; also an account of the amount of duties paid upon each description of Wine for the like period; also an account of the |