§ THE EARL OF MALMESBURY,in moving the second reading of this Bill, said it had passed the other House by a considerable majority. He did not desire to stop street music altogether, but he supported the Bill, the object of which was to give to housekeepers the right of protection against the nuisance of music when it unpleasantly interfered with their quietude, by empowering the police to remove the offender. No man, he thought, had a right to ride his hobby, even if he were in the majority, at the expense of other people. The hon. Member who promoted the Bill in the other House (Mr. Bass) had published a book which contained a variety of facts showing how great was the nui- 1368 sance occasioned by the music in question. He showed that the nuisance was not confined to what might be called the aristocracy who lived in the large squares and streets of the metropolis, but that the poor who lived in narrow thoroughfares and crowded alleys were equally averse to street music, and they had made strong representations against it. It was a fact that the majority of the poor were more opposed to the nuisance of street music than their Lordships were probably aware of, and therefore it was not true, as had been said, that the Bill was directed against the amusements of the lower orders. A very remarkable petition had been presented against the Bill signed by men connected with literature, science, and art, and among them were the names of Charles Dickens, the Poet Laureate, and Maclise. The First Commissioner of Police said he was unable to satisfactorily work the present Act, and the police magistrates were of the same opinion, and were in favour of this Bill. The vestries in the borough of Marylebone had passed resolutions in favour of the Bill. Under these circumstances, he thought their Lordships would not refuse to pass the Bill.
§ Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.