Sitting of 20 May 1835

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Sale of Bread; Manure Toll Exemption; Bankrupt Estate (Scotland).—Read a first time:—Victualling Houses' Regulation.
Petitions presented. By Mr. GILLON, from Lanark, for the Removal of the late Administration.—By Mr. GILLON, Mr. R. FERGUSON, Dr. BOWRING, the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, Mr. WALTER CAMPBELL, the LORD-ADVOCATE, Mr. R. STEUART, and Mr. A. SPEIRS, from a number of Dissenting Congregations and Places in Scotland,—against any Grant to the Scotch Church.—By the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, Mr. SINCLAIR, Mr. W. CAMPBELL, Mr. A. JOHNSTONE, Sir ROBERT PEEL, Major CUMMING BRUCE, Sir GEORGE CLERK, and Sir ANDREW AGNEW, from a Number of Places and Congregations (Scotland),—for such a Grant.—By Mr. R. FERGUSON, from East Lothian, for an Improvement in the Game-Laws.—By Mr. WILBRAHAM, from Prescott, to Support the Established Church in Ireland.—By Mr. J. C. DUNDAS, from York, to Remit the Sentence on the Dorchester Labourers.—By Dr. BOWRING, from Leicester, for the Repeal of the Stamp-Duties.—By Mr. SHAW, Mr. PRAED, Mr. ROBINSON, and Sir ANDREW AGNEW, from several Places,—for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
Mr. Gillonrose to present Petitions from thirty-five different bodies in Scotland, against any grant of money out of the public funds for the purpose of extending the endowments of the Church of Scotland. These petitions had, almost all emanated from public meetings; they had been subscribed by above thirteen thousand five hundred individuals, all males, and above twelve years of age. In many instances, none had been allowed to sign who were not known to be above the age of sixteen.—The most ample discussion of the question had been courted, and the greatest pains taken to explain the true meaning of the petitions. In these respects they formed a striking contrast to the secret and hole-and-corner manner in which the petitions had been got up. These had not, in scarcely any instance, emanated from public meetings. The promoters of them were afraid to face the public. The petitions were carried round by the established clergymen and elders, who used every means of entreaty, or otherwise, to act upon weak minds. The signatures of females were received, who were peculiarly liable to be influenced in this way; and many were induced to sign under erroneous impressions, who, when the matter was fairly explained to them, endeavoured to get their names erased; and when this was not permitted, as was generally the case, they adhibited their names to the petitions against endowments, being the only means left in their power of undoing, in part at least, the evil they considered they had done. In proportion as he had
1256
been honoured by the confidence of a great number of his countrymen, from the English border to the Islands of Orkney, who were in conscientious principles opposed to this grant, he had been malignantly assailed by the promoters of this purposed act of injustice. He trusted the House would, therefore, indulge him for a few minutes, while he alluded to certain particulars connected with this subject, which he was bound to bring under their consideration. In formerly presenting a petition on the subject, he had adverted to the circular of the Committee of the General Assembly, from which, in fact, all the petitions for endowments had emanated; for there was no spontaneous movement on the part of the people of Scotland on this subject. The General Assembly's Committee had sent round forms of petitions to the different parishes, to suit their supposed circumstances of destitution of religious information, with instructions to the clergy and elders to use all means in their power to get signatures attached to them; and it must be confessed these functionaries had most zealously followed out these directions. The Committee had also published certain statements of the destitute condition of certain places in regard to the means of religious instruction. He could not speak to the whole of these, but he had selected one instance, namely, Hamilton, one of the burghs he had the honour to represent. In this place the population was stated in the circular of the General Assembly to be 9,513, necessary Church accommodation 4,576, present ditto 800, deficiency 4,200. He had then stated that not only were the whole of the seats in the dissenting places of worship kept out of view, but those also in a Church lately built in connexion with the Establishment. He had since learnt that in this statement he had been led into an error. The additional Church in connexion with the Establishment was not completed at the time the circular of the General Assembly was issued, but it was in process of building; it had since that period been opened, being suited to accommodate 640 persons, and galleries are now either being constructed, or at all events have been contracted for, which will accommodate about 460 more. To this extent he was willing to confess that he had been led into error, but what would the House or the country think of the fairness of the statement of the General

1257
Assembly which, in giving the amount of Church accommodation in Hamilton, kept out of view all that supplied by the Dissenters, amounting to nearly four thousand, and suppressed the fact that another Church was actually then being erected in connection with the Establishment. What an effect a statement such as that of the Committee of the General Assembly was calculated to produce on the minds of the Members of his Majesty's Government, or of this House, not acquainted with the local circumstances! At Hamilton alone, a place containing 9,513 inhabitants, a deficiency of church accommodation is exhibited amounting to no less than 4,200. Any one will immediately see, that this is a state of things which cannot be permitted to continue; and that at any expense to the country, the people, who are thus perishing for want of religious instruction, must be supplied. But when it shall be made apparent that the accommodation provided by the Dissenters has been altogether omitted, amounting to nearly 4,000 seats; and that the fact has been suppressed that a Church was in progress in connexion with the Establishment which now contains 640, and will shortly contain between 400 and 500 more—when this monstrously alleged deficiency of Church accommodation shall, on close inspection appear to be a very considerable surplus above what can possibly be required for the whole population, must not every candid mind agree with the sentiments of his constituents, the inhabitants of Hamilton, who say, they can view such conduct in no other light than that of intentional misrepresentation? But it had been said the General Assembly's Committee were not informed that this new Church, in connection with the establishment was begun. If so, it was their own fault. In making a grave statement to the public on a very important public question they ought to obtain accurate information; and when lie saw in the circular of the General Assembly's Committee, that the authority to whom they appealed was one of their own body, one of the Ministers of the Established Church in Hamilton, who could by no possibility have been ignorant of these facts, he could not avoid coming to the conclusion, that if not on the part of the Committee, there was on his, a wilful suppression of what ought in fairness to have been laid before the public. But it was also said the circular of the General Assembly
1258
did not profess to give anything but the accommodation in connexion with the Church itself. It must, therefore, go on the supposition that the whole population of Scotland should be instructed in connexion with the Established Church.—This would involve the erecting of, at least, 800 additional Churches, and an expense to the country of about seven millions sterling. But it seemed that the Churchmen deny that such is their object, they only wished to reclaim the practical heathens, at an annual expense of ten thousand pounds, to be gradually increased; then, why keep out of view the accommodation afforded, and the spiritual instruction administered by the Dissenters? They had involved themselves in a contradiction from which they had no escape. In the statement which he had made on the occasion to which he had alluded, he had referred to the means employed by the promoters of the endowment scheme to obtain signatures to their petitions. These had been of the most objectionable kind. The petitions had been carried about from door to door, and solicitations the most urgent had been used. Misrepresentations as to the object of the petition, the best proof of which was, in many instances, the persons who had signed the petitions, signing afterwards the petition against endowments. The people were told they were merely asking for the application of unexhausted teinds. Some had signed under the coercion of those to whom they owed money—some in ignorance altogether—some from threats of deprivation of Church privileges—and the names of some were put down without their consent being asked at all, and even the inducement of liquor had in some instances not been omitted. He had been challenged to produce instances; being thus called on he would mention Biggar, Earlstown, Thornhill, Dunsay, Airdrie, Lassuade, Lawrence Kirk, Tranent, Carnwarth, and Dalserf, as places where such practices had been employed. He had heard of various others, but would confine himself to those of which he had received information. In the case of Earlstown, there was a separate petition from 26 individuals, stating that they had been imposed on by the interested representations of those by whom their signatures had been obtained, repenting their folly, in being so misled, and praying that the grant may be withheld. These were means

1259
not creditable to any cause; it was with the deepest regret he found, that party or sectarian spirit had so far blinded them as to induce them to employ these means when they professed to be advocating the cause of religion. It was proposed by this plan to endow the Chapels of Ease in connexion with the Church of Scotland. What would this be but relieving those of the wealthier classes, to whom the Churchmen undoubtedly belonged, of the burden for which they had in the most praiseworthy manner become bound, of supporting their own Clergymen, and throwing it upon the community at large? If this principle were adopted in Scotland, they must be prepared to carry it over all the kingdom, and to endow all the proprietary Chapels throughout England. Where was such a system to end? It was manifestly most flagrantly unjust towards Dissenters. Why do not the Churchmen, who are the wealthier classes, imitate the Dissenters in the exertions they make far the dissemination of Gospel truth? They provide both Churches and Ministers for themselves, they find seats for their poorer brethren, not in places set apart and marked as pauper seats, but so scattered among the rest that they do not excite peculiar observation; they provide for the maintenance of their own poor, and for the sending of missionaries both at home and abroad to reclaim the practical heathen; a more practical proof, as it seemed to him, of religious zeal, than getting up begging petitions throughout the country, and striving to extend the domination of a particular sect on the basis of public wrong and individual injustice. In one Dissenting congregation alone, that of Broughton-place, in Edinburgh, consisting of none above the middling, and many in the humbler walks of life, the sum of 1,400 l. was raised annually, as stated in the petition which he had the honour of presenting for the maintenance of the ordinances of the Gospel, the support of their poor, and the extension of Christianity at home and abroad. The truth was, this was a crusade against Dissentan—an attempt to put down Dissenters, from whose ministrations the country had benefitted so much. The omission of the Dissenting places of worship in the enumeration of Church accommodation, was insulting to the Dissenting body, and fraudulent as regarded the public. Instead of cultivating peace
1260
and good will among men, the Churchmen had been lighting anew the flames of religious discord throughout the land, and he could not help thinking, that even as regarded their own interest, it would, to use the words of one of the very sensible petitions emanating from the Dissenting bodies of Edinburgh, "have been more politic in them to remain content with what they have, than by asking for more to provoke indignant resistance to contemplated injustice."
Sir William Raesaid, it was clear, from many of the petitions upon this subject, that there existed great misapprehensions as to the nature and the objects of the proposed grant. He always understood the object was to provide accommodation for those classes who were not able themselves to pay the expense of seats in the churches. The accommodation at present was utterly inadequate to the wants of the country. The establishment of the Church of Scotland took place at a time when the population was not one-tenth of what t was at present. Parishes had become more populous, large towns had grown up, in which the population was vastly increased. In Glasgow and Edinburgh the accommodation in the Churches was totally inadequate. At present in the Dissenting places of worship the price of seats was high, this being necessary to provide an adequate stipend for the Clergyman. The poor had not the means of paying for these seats. The object proposed, therefore, was, that Parliament, by some grant, should come in aid of private benevolence, for the purpose of affording to the poor the means of spiritual instruction. That truly excellent man, Dr. Chalmers, and others who contributed money for this purpose out of their own pockets, required only the assistance of Parliament, so that they should not bear the whole expense. Let those who opposed this grant look at the increase of crime in Scotland. It was lamentable to be obliged to make the observation, but depravity was fearfully on the advance there, and the consequences must become truly alarming if adequate means of religious instruction were not provided in due time for the people. The Representatives of Scotland did not oppose considerable grants, proposed for other Ecclesiastical purposes; but they were immediately opposed, though the grant for which they applied was comparatively small. This matter had produced a very

1261
strong sensation in Scotland. There was a great deal of misrepresentation and misconception on the subject, and it became necessary, therefore, that the facts should be inquired into, and the real truth of the case ascertained. He, therefore, now gave notice that he should, on a future day, move for a Select Committee to inquire whether or not additional accommodation was necessary in Scotland, to give the people an opportunity of attending divine worship.
Dr. Bowringsaid, he had felt anxious to ascertain what were the feelings of his constituents upon this subject. Being sent there to represent the inhabitants of a part of Scotland, though not locally connected with it, he endeavoured to ascertain what were their feelings with respect to this grant. The majority of the petitions in favour of it from Scotland were not discussed in the face of day, at open meetings. It was not so with the petitions against it, which, he believed, represented the opinions of the great majority of the people. He was bound to say, that this was the case in the five boroughs which he had the honour of representing. A majority of them were unfavourable to the grant, and their opinions concurred with his own. He did not admit the justice of the principle that the few were to support the Church of the many. What the Dissenters of England, Scotland, and Ireland had done, and were doing, for religion arose from the purest motives, from a sense of Christian obligation and duty; and, having done so much, it was not fair to call upon them to maintain a religion from which they dissented. That would, indeed, be a happy day when every man might worship God in his own way, and give voluntary support to his religious instructors; then would the true millenium of Christianity begin—then would they see the Church, as it was in the early times of Christianity, effecting the moral good of the people through its own holy influences.
Mr. Robert Steuartwas ready to admit the advantage of keeping up a connexion between the Church and State, but he differed as to the way in which that connexion ought to be maintained. He did not think the Dissenters of England and Scotland, or the Roman Catholics of Ireland, ought to be called upon to maintain an Established Church. He rejoiced to hear from the right hon. Gentleman (Sir W.
1262
Rae) that inquiry would be made into this subject. The result of that inquiry would, he believed, be very different from what the right hon. Baronet anticipated. There were already in the Church of Scotland ample means for any additional endowment that might be thought necessary. Great additional accommodation was now afforded by the Dissenters to the members of the Church. This was the case in Jedburgh, where, out of a population of 5,600, there was but very few, ninety-two (as we understood), who were not provided with accommodation either in the Church or in the place of worship of Dissenters. He might be told the Dissenters in Scotland would not be so numerous if there was room enough in the Churches of the Establishment. The same argument would apply with equal force to the erection of additional Churches in Ireland, even in parishes where there were no Protestants. Many who opposed this grant were Churchmen themselves, and they opposed it because they thought it unfair to call upon others to support their Church.
Major Cumming Brucesaid, he would not reply to the observations of the hon. Member (Dr. Bowring) with respect to the voluntary principle. Into that question he would not enter at present. He derived much pleasure from the notice of motion given by his right hon. Friend (Sir W. Rae). The only satisfactory way for setting the question at rest was by inquiry before a Committee of that House. He lately received a letter from a person well acquainted with the subject, in which it was stated that in eight of the northern counties, the population of which was 321,925, there were out of the whole no more than 3,530 in communion with Dissenters, and acting upon the voluntary system. The same observation would apply to Nairn; and in Inverness the number of those in communion with the Church was five times as great as those in communion with the Dissenters. Much was said about the injurious and unjust nature of a tax to support an Established Church, from which those who paid the tax dissented. This was a novel doctrine, and it was the more strange when coming from the mouth of persons who did not oppose the principle of an Establishment. That House was in the habit, of voting large sums of money for education in Ireland, though vast numbers of the people were opposed to the principle on which the

1263
plan of education proceeded. In the same way large sums were granted to promote the Fine Arts. Seventeen thousand pounds was voted for the British Museum, and he heard no objection made to these grants on the ground that there were many who would never derive the least benefit from them. It might be said, let the members of the Establishment in Scotland support their own Church. They might, perhaps, fairly say, we cannot afford it; and, after all, what was the sum asked? Why, it would not amount to so much as half a farthing each from the whole of the population. A large portion of the charge would fall upon men of property in communion with the Church. The amount of the sum so much objected to was a mere bugbear, not worthy a moment's attention from the House. With respect to the voluntary principle, he was surprised to hear it spoken of as it had been by those who admitted the principle of an Establishment. The principle was right or wrong. Let Parliament decide which it was, and if it should be declared by the competent authority to be wrong, let it be done away with as unjust and unholy. They who refused to carry out the principle stultified their own conclusion. It was the duty of the State, and one of its most important duties, to see that the means of spiritual instruction were afforded to the poor. He claimed on this ground the support of all who were favourable to an Establishment. With respect to the Dissenters, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland acknowledged the great advantage and the liberality of the assistance afforded by them in the way of accommodation. When the circular of the General Assembly was sent out, there were no churches in Hamilton, and some other places alluded to in the circular. They were built afterwards. How was it possible for the General Assembly, in their circular, to mention facts which were not in existence when it was issued? In consequence of the aid afforded by the Dissenters there were now only one in thirty of the population without accommodation. Otherwise it would have been one in nine. The great majority of the Dissenting Churches were not filled, in consequence of the high rate of payment for seats. The large Churches in Edinburgh, as he had been informed, were generally filled, partly, perhaps, from the attraction of popular preachers; but the great cause
1264
was that the seats were not paid for. It was the duty of Government to encourage the principle of affording to the poor the means of spiritual instruction without expense. He knew one parish that was sixty miles in length, and twenty-four in breadth, and another forty miles in length, and embracing several islands, unapproachable at times; another twenty miles long and twelve broad. In Perthshire there was one forty miles long and twenty broad. How was it possible for the inhabitants of such parishes to attend divine worship unless Churches were built for them? The Church of Scotland made this application to Parliament, not as a poor supplicant for aid, but on the ground that the National Church was a national benefit. The application for this grant was called a Tory trick. He utterly denied that there was anything of party spirit in it.
Mr. Patrick Stewartsupported the prayer of the Petition for a grant, and observed that, although it had been industriously circulated that about three millions were required for building, and four millions for endowing Churches, the fact was that only a sum of 10,000 l. was required. The Churches erected in Scotland had been paid for by private subscription, and all that was now asked was some assistance, in order to extend the accommodation in those Churches to the inferior classes. With regard to the petition from Edinburgh, it was eagerly signed, in consequence of the belief that it was a petition against eight millions of direct taxation, and to this he might add that a general petition from Edinburgh in favour of the grant would have been prepared and presented had not the principal parties considered that such a petition must have been signed by many who had affixed their signatures to parochial petitions, and who in consequence, would have petitioned the Legislature twice over. Such a motive in those who had taken an active part in this matter could not but meet with the approbation of the House. Some years ago Scotland was included in a Bill for a grant towards the erection of new churches to the amount of 50,000 l., but in consequence of some difficulty in the other House, the Bill was not carried through Parliament. This fact, he submitted, in some degree strengthened the claim now made.
Mr. Stewart Mackenziedeclared that he was favourable to the grant. When it was shown that the spiritual wants of the

1265
people of Scotland were inadequately supplied, he could not understand the force of the argument which would refuse to pay any attention to those wants.
Mr. Wilkssaid, that on the right hon. Gentleman proposing his Committee he should certainly feel it his duty to resist it, on the part of the Dissenters of the United Kingdom. He never would consent to a Parliamentary grant in cases where the contribution should be private. The claim now made was really surprising. One hon. Gentleman told them 10,000 l. only would be required, and another said that if one third part of a farthing was contributed by each inhabitant, the requisite amount would be raised. If it was such a trifle, then, what need of that application to Parliament. On these simple grounds he would certainly object to going into a Committee at all
Sir George Clerkwas sure that the more frequently and fully this Question was discussed the greater success they would have in removing the groundless apprehensions of those unacquainted with Scotch affairs, as to the demands made upon the public purse. The hon. Member who had just sat down was, it appeared prepared at once to resist the appointment of a Committee. In such a view of the Question, those hon. Members who felt that an Established Church tended to advance the morality and religion of a country could not possibly join. If they had no doubt as to the advantages of such spiritual assistance, it could not be to them matter of indifference whether or not it was adequately afforded to the people. Now, the principal duty of the proposed Committee would be to ascertain whether at present there was sufficient Church accommodation for those who desired to avail themselves of it: and, if not, whether the Church of Scotland was in possession of any funds out of which such additional accommodation could be provided. This was no unusual claim. In 1818, a grant of one million was made towards the erection of Churches belonging to the national Establishment in the southern districts of the island, and in 1824 another grant of 500,000 l. was made for a similar purpose. What were the chief objections to those grants? "Why," said the hon. Member for Middlesex, (Mr. Hume) and the right hon. Member for Nottingham (Sir J. C. Hobhouse), "there is no necessity for these large contributions in aid of
1266
so wealthy a Church as the Church of England. Apply the grant to the extension of the Church of Scotland, which is poor, and in absolute want of such assistance, and we shall be satisfied." That proposition was now made. Many Churches had been built by private subscription, and in order to collect an income for the Clergyman, it was necessary to place a price upon the seats. Give an endowment to such Churches, and it would no longer be necessary to continue that system. Indeed, he would readily agree to the propriety of making it a condition of the grant, that in Churches so circumstanced, a large proportion of the seats should immediately be thrown open. An insinuation had been hazarded that this was a Tory manœuvre. He would merely observe in reply, that a representation of the propriety of such a grant had last year been favourably received by the Whig Government, and it might moreover be remembered that the then Lord Chancellor had from his place in Parliament, strongly urged the necessity of attending to the spiritual wants of the people of Scotland. Let not hon. Members be led to suppose that any burden would be imposed upon the Dissenters. He was well aware of the number of those who dissented from the Established Church, and he had not been inattentive to the number of Petitions against the proposed grant. But he would affirm that hardly one of these Petitioners was at all affected by the necessary expenses for the support of the Church. The Church-rates were defrayed by the proprietors of land, who were all strongly in favour of the grant. The only class of persons dissenting from the Church of Scotland, and at the same time contributing to the payment of its expenses, were the Episcopalians, and they, he was certain, were far from being hostile to the proper supply of the spiritual wants of the people. In conclusion, he hoped that the House would not agree in the doctrine laid down by the hon. Member, who had taken a preliminary objection to any inquiry into the subject.
Petition laid on the Table.

ELECTION RIOTS AT PRESTON.
Dr. Bowringpresented a Petition from Preston, signed by 4,500 inhabitants of that place, complaining of events which happened there during the last election, of the scenes of outrage and violence which were

1267
committed by the partisans of the sitting Members, and of the bribery which was unblushingly practised, and imploring the house to interfere for the purpose of preventing the recurrence of similar malpractices. He believed that the Petition was calculated to promote the advance of a Question which of late years had made great progress in the public mind—he alluded to the Question of the Ballot. He was one of the few persons who many years ago had advocated the Ballot as the best security for the honesty of the elective body. Certain he was, that wherever there was wealth it would be employed to seduce, and wherever there was power, it would be employed to coerce, the honesty of voters, and this was a remarkable example of the manner in which wealth and power combined, had been used to obstruct the conscientious voters of Preston. The allegations of the petition were so important, that he was particularly desirous to call the attention of the House to them. He had himself been an eye-witness of many of the facts of which the petition contained a statement. On the 8th of last January, having been requested by a great number of the electors to stand as a candidate for the representation of that borough, he had gone thither, not with an intention of accepting their offer, for he was then engaged elsewhere, but with the intention of ascertaining the state of things in the place. He found the town in complete possession of a body of men wearing blue and yellow caps. On going to the hustings, representations were made to the Mayor, that if it were permitted these men to parade the town with this distinguishing dress it must inevitably lead to violence and outrage. The Mayor, however, would not listen to these representations. On the following day these men broke out into the most violent excesses: many houses were attacked, the windows were broken, and the furniture in them destroyed; and in consequence there were presented at the last March assizes against these persons indictments, upon which thirteen of them were found guilty, and sentenced to be imprisoned for different terms, varying from six to twelve months. Regarding some of the persons who where then found guilty, the learned judge who tried them said that it was fortunate for them that they had not been indicted for capital offences, and reminded them that they were indebted for that lenity entirely to the
1268
mercy of the prosecutors. The hon. Member then read the allegations of the petition, which were in conformity with his speech. After the statement which the House had just heard, it would be no surprise to the hon. Gentleman to hear that the prayer of the petition was, that the House would be pleased to pass a law preventing the occurrence of bribery and intimidation at elections, and that it would grant the Ballot as a security to electors. The petitioners also prayed for such a reform in our Municipal Corporations as would relieve the Mayors of borough towns from their present duties, and as would restore to the people the right of which they had been deprived,—namely, the right of electing their own magistrates. He had given notice to the sitting Members of his intention to present this petition. He was afraid that not only intimidation and violence, but that corruption also, had been carried on to a large extent in the borough of Preston at the last Election. He had received this card (holding one up to the House) from a voter who had received it for his suffrage at the last Election, but the man's conscience smote him, after he had performed his part of the contract, and he had not the courage to present the card, which would have entitled him to receive the price of his corruption. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that this petition be referred to the Committee sitting to inquire into the best means of preventing bribery and intimidation at elections.
Petition referred accordingly.

OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH.
On the question, that the House resolve itself into a Committee on the Lord's Day Observance Bill,
Mr. Hawesrose for the purpose of moving that it be referred to a Select Committee up stairs. He felt that the subject was one of considerable importance, and regretted that any petition should have been presented on the subject calculated to produce any feeling of levity. He was inclined to admit, that some day should be set apart for rest, and that encouragement should be offered to the due observance of the Sabbath. When the hon. Baronet for Wigton (Sir A. Agnew) formerly introduced his measure on this subject, he called it a Bill for the protection of the poor. Certainly, when seen, it was found to deserve any-

1269
thing but that title, and the hon. Member for Shaftesbury, (Mr. Poulter) did not hesitate to oppose it, and to cast no little ridicule upon it. He must admit, that this Bill was of a much more moderate description, than the Bill of the hon. Baronet; the hon. Member who promoted it, professed that his object was, to put down Sunday trading, and for this purpose he had brought forward two Bills—one last year, and that now under consideration. The two did not percisely correspond, because in the present measure many important words were introduced: it was of a more formidable nature. It was proposed in it to punish every act of "ordinary trading" or dealing on the Lord's day; and the whole question, therefore, was, what was "ordinary trading?" Unless that were clearly made out, the objection originally made by the hon. Members for Shaftesbury to the Bill of the hon. Baronet would apply to his own Bill namely, that it left society at large to the tender mercies of informers. It seemed to him indeed that the informer was the only party who would receive encouragement and benefit; nor would the result be the better observance of the Sabbath. The hon. Baronet (Sir Andrew Agnew) objected to the reference of Bills of this kind to a Select Committee, for he had so stated in a pamphlet he had published; the hon. Baronet's reasons, indeed, were not very strong, and he was not without hopes that the hon. Baronet might change his mind; but at present it seemed that he disapproved of secret discussion in conclave upon the subject. He, on the contrary, saw considerable objection to public discussion on the measure. He did not think that the cause of religion was at all served either by the display of over-earnestness on the one side, or by the application of scoffs and taunts on the other. For this reason he held that a Select Committee to examine the Bill was the more proper course, as it gave all parties interested a means of being heard without causing public offence. The House was perhaps not aware that there were sixteen or seventeen statutes for the better observance of the Sabbath; they had been passed from time to time, from time to time they had been modified, and nearly all but those intended to give some exemption had become obsolete. Surely this was an argument for pausing and considering well the construction of a new
1270
Act of Parliament on the subject. He could not help thinking that his hon. Friend's (Mr. Poulter's) own argument, used upon occasion of the hon. Baronet's Bill, deserved considerable weight when he contended that a Committee ought to be appointed to prepare "a rational and truly religious measure, to give protection to every class of his Majesty's subjects in respect to the observance of the Lord's Day." From his hon. Friend, therefore, opposition to the amendment could hardly be expected. While he wished for no further legislation he could not deny the great interest taken in the subject by the country, and hence it was evident that at no distant period some Bill must pass into a law, and the principle of this measure having been sanctioned on the second reading, some means ought to be adopted honestly and fairly to make it a proper measure by defining the meaning of the words "ordinary trading." His hon. Friend (Mr. Poulter) had stated that his intention was only to shut up shops on the Lord's Day; but the words in his Bill went further, and went to put an end to all traffic. [Mr. Poulter No! No!] His hon. Friend might not really mean that, but he did not think there was a lawyer in the House who could show what ordinary trading was. It was impossible, therefore, to say to what extent the Bill went, nor, probably, could his hon. Friend inform the House. If his hon. Friend was afraid to face the ordeal of a Select Committee—if he could not define what his Bill was to effect, it was necessary that the Question should go before a Committee, where it could be fairly, fully, and honestly discussed, where it could be ascertained what was meant by ordinary trading—what it was proper to touch, and what to leave untouched. If his hon. Friend would consent to that tribunal, he, for one, would give his hon. Friend his best assistance. If no clear definition was to be given, so that the practical effect of the measure could be judged of, he, should feel it his duty to oppose it on every opportunity. One point ought to be kept in mind by the House, viz., that it was admitted on competent authority that there had been a gradual and progressive improvement in the morals of the people, and that Sunday was now better observed than at any former period. This fact had been avowed

1271
by the hon. Baronet (Sir A. Agnew) on presenting a petition with the sentiments of which he declared his concurrence. Dr. Pye Smith had made a similar declaration in a celebrated sermon, and, if necessary, other authorities to the same effect might be quoted. What he wished was, that this improvement should be allowed to proceed without legislation. No Act of Parliament could operate so effectually as good example. He would not farther occupy the time of the House, but would move as an Amendment that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.
Mr. Potterseconded the Amendment, after the Bill had been supported by a majority of the House on its second reading, it was not fit to throw it out without due consideration, and that consideration could be best given in a Committee upstairs. He knew that several Members had Amendments to propose which would create discussion, and might throw a certain degree of ridicule upon the Measure. He understood that the hon. Baronet intended to oppose the Amendment, because he thought that public discussion was useful; but surely it was a disadvantage that a question of this sort should be treated with any want of decorum. It was one great error of the Bill, that it attacked only the lower and middling classes. Such was the case with the Measure of the hon. Baronet, which went the length, however, in one clause, of preventing travelling on Sunday. He (Mr. Potter) wished to know why the hon. Baronet had not attempted to stop the mail; why, too, had he not endeavoured to shut up the Zoological Gardens on Sunday, as well as Hyde-park? The reason seemed obvious—that it would infringe upon the luxuries of the higher orders—the Members of the two Houses of Parliament.
Mr. Poultertrusted, that the House would support him in his resistance to a most unreasonable proposition, proceeding from no other desire than that of obstructing, delaying, and defeating a moderate measure, which had been approved of by a large majority on the second reading. If it had at all resembled the Bill introduced by the hon. Baronet (Sir A. Agnew), there would have been ground for referring it to a select Committee. If it had contained numerous and extensive clauses—if it had attacked large classes of the
1272
people—if it had imposed heavy, various, and complicated penalties, it would have been quite proper that it should undergo a revision of the kind; but small as it appeared, it was in fact smaller than it seemed, for the whole enactment occupied but six lines, and if it were referred to a Select Committee, there would not be half a line for the consideration of each Member. He sincerely believed that if the Bill were allowed to pass in something like its present shape, it might justly be called The Poor Man's Bill. At all events it would secure to him one day in the week as a day of repose, peace and instruction. He trusted that the House, having already given its support to the principle of the Bill, would not desert it on the present occasion. It was his intention in Committee to introduce further exceptions into the Bill, and to provide for the just recreation and refreshment of the poor, who on Sundays, after attending Divine Service, might feel disposed to walk to some distance from their habitations. With that view it was his intention to provide for the sale of fruit and confectionary on the Sabbath-day; but he believed that the suppression of shop-keeping and ordinary trading on that day, instead of being an inconvenience or a disadvantage, would be attended with very considerable benefit to the poor. [Upon this point the hon. Gentleman quoted the testimony of several tradesmen, to shew that the purchase of necessaries on the Sunday Morning, instead of the Saturday evening, was a decided disadvantage to poor persons.] In point of fact, the simple question involved in the Measure was, not whether the penalties should be provided to prevent the recreation of certain classes of the community, but whether common marketing on Sundays ought not to be abolished.
Mr. Humecould not understand, if the Measure were good what possible objection the hon. Gentleman could have to referring it to a Select Committee. If its provisions were found reasonable, surely a little closer examination of them would not subject them to any danger. The hon. Gentleman had said, that the Bill, as it now stood, would not interfere with the interests of any class of the community; but he (Mr. Hume) had been assured by the market-gardeners in the neighbourhood of London, that if such a Bill were allowed to pass it would be utter ruin to them; because it

1273
was perfectly impossible for them to provide for the supply of the Monday's market, without violating in some degree the sanctity and repose of Sunday.
Mr. Cobbettwished to know whether, in the exceptions which the hon. Gentleman said it was his intention in Committee to insert in the Bill, he meant to include persons who sold cakes and fruit by the road-side? There were thousands of industrious persons who obtained their living in that manner; and he begged to know whether they were to be protected.
Sir Andrew Agnewcould see no other object in the proposition for referring the Bill to a Select Committee than the allowing the Gentlemen who might compose that Committee an opportunity of indulging in scoffs and taunts. He for one could not regard the provisions of the Bill as of too stringent a nature: on the contrary, he feared, if it were allowed to pass in its present shape, it would fail of producing the desired effect.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas at a loss to conceive what possible benefit could result from the adoption of the hon. Member for Lambeth's Motion. The Bill had already been read a second time, its principle had been fully recognized by the House, and now in the regular order of things its details came to be considered in Committee. What advantage (unless delay were to be regarded as an advantage) could possibly attend its being referred to a Select Committee, remained for the hon. Member for Lambeth to prove. When the Bill went into Committee it would be open to any hon. Gentleman to object to any of its provisions, or, if he thought fit, to propose new ones.
Mr. Warburtonthought that the adoption of such a Bill as the present would tend to bring all legislation upon the subject into disrespect. The hon. Member for Shaftesbury (Mr. Poulter) admitted that he had several amendments himself to make in the Bill; then why not give to all whose interests might be affected by the Bill an opportunity of stating their case before a Select Committee? The Report was not a fit one for consideration in a Committee of the whole House, because the exceptions to be proposed were completely matters of detail. As the Bill now stood, he (Mr. Warburton) was persuaded that all places of refreshment would fall within the provision of its penal clauses; and therefore, if passed in
1274
its present shape, it would, in the course of a very short time, become a positive dead letter.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, I confess that I always listen to discussions on this subject with great concern. There is no man in the House who attaches greater importance than I do to the proper keeping of the Sabbath-day. I think no one has a right to shock the public feeling by desecrating the Sabbath-day; but at the same time, I entertain very serious doubts as to whether we shall promote that object by legislation, and whether it will not be better to trust to the influence of manners and the increase of morality, for the purpose of checking, by public opinion, the attempt at profanation of the Sabbath, than to have recourse to new laws which I fear in themselves would be difficult of execution; and which, as they might be perverted to purposes of annoyance to individuals, would tend to bring the law itself into disrespect. I confess, judging from my own experience, I should say that you might safely trust to the influence of manners. I should say, that comparing, even within my own short experience, the observance of the Sabbath with what I have witnessed, and certainly with what I have read, making this comparison I should say, that without the interference of any new law the Sabbath-day is now much better observed than was the case formerly. If that effect has taken place nothing would be more easy than to show that you owe that consequence, that good effect of the influence of manners, to the influence of public opinion and not to legislation. Because I will undertake to prove, to the satisfaction of any man, that the enactments now on the Statute-book, are not, and have not been, observed. Of this I am perfectly satisfied, that you have only one of two alternatives—either to leave the law in its present state, and not to touch it, or, if you do touch it, to simplify and consolidate it, and to let the public know what the law really is with respect to the desecration of the Sabbath. Now, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Shaftesbury is about to take a third course, which I think very unnecessary. The law of Charles 2nd, is now in operation; it is on the Statute-book, but practically it is not observed; but the hon. Gentleman is about to pass a Bill which assumes the existence and operative effect of that law.

1275
The hon. Gentleman's Bill is entitled, "A Bill to amend and render more effectual the statute 29th Charles 2nd.;" but the provisions of the Bill are totally at variance with its title, for the hon. Gentleman does not attempt to enforce the Statute of Charles. He does not attempt to make the Statute of Charles more effectual, but he selects one particular offence contemplated by that Statute, and makes that one particular offence more penal. The hon. Gentleman says nothing of the other offences specified in the Statute of Charles; and consequently, when you have this Bill passed, you must still refer to the Statute of Charles, to explain to you what the law really is. The hon. Gentleman says, there is no occasion to consider the Bill with any great anxiety, or to discuss it at any great length, because all the enacting part of it is comprised within six lines. That may be very true; the Bill itself may no exceed six lines, and yet it may be very important. For instance, you may say that there shall be no drinking on the Sabbath-day, and that provision, if you like, may be comprised within a single line; but still every one would be aware that the provision though short was of a most sweeping and comprehensive nature, and that it would be necessary to look with great jealousy and apprehension to the practical consequences that might ensue from it. I will prove to the hon. Gentleman, that in carrying his Bill into effect it will be constantly necessary to refer to the Statute of Charles 2nd. One of the offences under the Statute of Charles is the letting out a boat for hire on Sunday. [Mr. Poulter: That clause has been repealed.] But how are the people to know that? The hon. Gentleman founds his measure upon the Statute of Charles—calls it a measure for enforcing and rendering more effectual the Statute of Charles, and then, when one of the very first offences specified in the Statute of Charles is mentioned, he gets up and tells us that other Bills have since passed by which the penalties upon several offences enumerated and provided for in the Statute of Charles have been repealed. How, then, is the hon. Gentleman's Bill to be understood? The Statute of Charles, in the next place, provides that no "drover, waggoner, butcher, &c, shall travel or come into any inn or lodging on the Sabbath-day, under the penalty of 20 s." Is that a part of the hon. Gentleman's
1276
Bill? [Mr. Poulter: No.] But is not the dealing with these persons part of the Bill? I was at first inclined to support the proposition of the hon. Member for Lambeth, for referring the Bill to a Select Committee; but, upon further consideration, I think it would be infinitely better for the House of Commons to meet the Report fairly, and to defeat it upon principle. If it should be the opinion of the House that it is dangerous, that we may defeat our own objects by legislating on the Report, surely it would be better, rather than to create a vexatious delay, by referring it to a Select Committee, when a Report may be made at such a late period in the Session as to prevent the possibility of any effectual progress being afterwards made—rather than to adopt that course, surely it would be better to act upon the suggestion I now make. I am opposed to the proposition for referring the Bill to a Select Committee, because some Gentlemen might think that an indirect mode of defeat. I am, therefore, prepared to go into Committee this evening, and to allow the hon. Gentleman to make the Bill as perfect as he can; and when he has taken that course, I shall call upon him either to drop the Bill altogether, or to leave the law as he found it, and to trust to the continued operation of manners to enforce the observance of the Sabbath. That I confess is the bearing of my own mind. I confess I do see enormous difficulties in trying to carry this Bill into effect. The Statute of Charles 2nd attempted to prevent travelling of all descriptions on the Sabbath, as well by the ordinary means of land carriage as by boats? Why is that abandoned in the present Bill? If it be wrong for the humbler classes to travel by steam to Richmond on Sunday, surely it must be equally wrong for us to be travelling in our carriages on the same day. I do believe that the rich are the greater offenders, but we ought not to make laws which practically inflict very unequal restrictions on different classes. If we interfere with the innocent recreations of the poor, such as mere locomotion, we shall do much harm. Enactments of such a description tend only to create disunion between the richer and the lower classes, because the restrictions which they provide apply principally to the latter. To any law proceeding upon that principle I must decidedly object. If you legislate upon the

1277
subject at all it ought to be impartially: the restrictions you provide should apply equally to all classes. The hon. Gentleman, the Member for Shaftesbury, despairing to make the Statute of Charles 2nd efficient upon the two points I have enumerated, takes another point and endeavours to make it more stringent than it was originally intended to be. Then I say he ought to repeal all the rest of the Statute. He should either leave the law as it is, or else make it more simple and plain. That is not the hon. Gentleman's object. But considering the pains and trouble to which the hon. Gentleman has gone, no doubt with the best motives, I shall not throw any impediments in his way on the present occasion; but I shall reserve to myself the right—when the hon. Gentleman has reduced the Bill to as perfect a shape as he can, either of calling upon the House to reject the Bill altogether, or, if the House be determined to legislate upon the subject, then to require that we should so consolidate the laws, as that the public may understand what is an offence against the law and what is not.
Mr. Tulksaid, that if he thought this Bill was either intended or calculated to render more stringent that detestable Statute of Charles the Second, it should not have his vote: but it was because he considered it calculated to afford to the poor man that freedom from labour and that opportunity to partake of innocent recreations which he required on the Sabbath-day, that he should give it his support.
Mr. Robinsonthought as the principle of the Bill had been adopted already by the House, it would be hard on the hon. Member, who had bestowed so much pains upon it, not to allow it to go into Committee. The whole of the observations of the right hon. Baronet would have been much more appropriate if they had been made on the second reading of the Bill.
Mr. Hawesagreed to withdraw his Amendment, and would take the sense of the House upon the Question on the bringing up of the Report.
The Attorney-Generalexpressed his entire concurrence in the view which the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had taken on the subject, which he conceived to be one wholly unfit for legislation.
Mr. Goulburnintended to vote for the Bill going into Committee of the whole
1278
House; and trusted that whatever amendments were introduced might, on the one hand, remove all just causes of complaint made against any overstrained enforcement of the law of Charles the Second, and, on the other hand, be equally effectual to prevent that great and crying evil which had grown up very much of late years—that of Sunday trading.
The House went into Committee on the Bill.
Mr. Poulterproposed to introduce the words "in an open shop," in order to obviate the objections which had been made to the Bill by the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel)
Sir Robert Peelwished to know what was meant by the words "in an open shop?" Did it mean selling at a stall, or not? It was material to be very definite upon this point; because the people would regard this Bill as the latest legislative declaration on the subject; and if selling at a stall was not to be included under the terms "open shop," then instead of putting an end to trading on the Sabbath-day, the effect of the Bill would be to make that trading be carried on more publicly than ever, inasmuch as a stall was more open than a shop. The hon. Member excluded the sale of animals on the Sabbath; but if the words "open shop" did not mean a stall, there would be an inconsistency in the Bill, for animals were always sold openly, and not in shops. If, therefore, it were legal to sell at a stall, it would also be legal to sell cattle on the Sabbath-day.
Mr. Poultersaid the word "Animals" was intended to prevent the sale of cattle in any way. He regretted that he had not heard the objections of the right hon. Baronet before, as he confessed he was at this moment unprepared to meet them. He thought, however, that means might be devised to obviate those objections. The words "in any open, shop or stall" might have that effect.
Mr. Hawesasked whether the hon. Gentleman meant to put down coffee-shops and the sale of newspapers on the Sabbath-day?
Mr. Poulterthought that coffee-shops ought not to be excepted out of the operation of this Bill. With respect to the sale of newspapers, certainly, as the Bill was at present framed, such sale would fall within the scope of its provisions. But it was competent for any hon. Mem-

1279
ber to propose an exception of newspapers from the operation of the Act, and the House would deal with such a proposition as it thought proper.
Sir A. Agnewsaid, that as regarded the sale of newspapers, he begged to remind the Committee that the newsvenders had petitioned the House to put down the sale of newspapers on Sundays.
Mr. O'Connelldeprecated all legislation on this subject. Piety was not to be enforced by Act of Parliament. It flourished most when left to the free operation of higher motives than the fear of legal pains and penalties.
Sir Harry Vernerexpressed his hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman would not give up the Bill. In his opinion it was a most sensible one, and would produce the beneficial result of rendering certain laws which are now practically inoperative effective.
Mr. Thomas Duncombehoped, that coffee-houses would not be closed on Sunday by the act of that House, as there were a very numerous class of young men, attorneys' clerks, and so forth, who were unable to obtain their dinners at any other places.
The Attorney-Generalentreated the Committee to recollect that after what had already taken place the present discussion was a mere waste of time. He hoped they would allow the Bill to go through the Committee pro forma, with a view to its being afterwards recommitted.
Mr. T. Duncombepresumed, then, that they were only suggesting heads for some amended Bill to the hon. Member. He would suggest one himself—namely, that shell-fish sellers should be excluded from the operation of the measure.
Mr. Potterwould beg to make another suggestion. The 29th of Charles 2nd prohibited the sale of flowers, fruits, and herbs, on Sunday; as many persons had a great taste for flowers, and as it was one of a most innocent description, he should propose a clause lo exempt flowers, fruits, herbs, confectionary, soda water, and ginger beer from the operation of the measure.
Mr. Roebuckwould equalise the law, so as to affect the rich as well as the poor. If public carriages were to be stopped on a Sunday, so should private vehicles; public carriages afforded comfort and means of conveyance to a greater number of persons than private, and yet employed
1280
fewer labourers. If a poor man, pent up all the week, was to be debarred from an excursion to the country for his health on a Sunday in a hired vehicle, why should the rich man, who was free every day in the week, have a license for driving about on that day, and keeping a retinue of servants employed about him and his horses? He respected the morals of the poor, and he did not see why servants, who could not with impunity take a jaunt on a Sunday, be employed in rubbing down the horses of their masters on that day; nor did he see, if the rigid observance of the Sabbath were a matter of such imperative duty as to exclude all kinds of labour, why lordly Bishops should ride to Church in coaches, and compel their servants to work, and violate that observance.
Mr. G. F. Youngcalled the hon. Member to order. If he were not about to give notice of an amendment he should not enter into such a discussion.
Mr. Roebucksaid the hon. Member (Mr. Young) was in the habit of lecturing persons. But it would be well if his reprimands were more guided by judgement and discretion. He (Mr. Roebuck) would contend that the Bill was a punishment to the poor, and a perfect indemnity to the rich. If a rich man gave a dinner to twenty different persons on a Sunday, as was often the case, all these would have their coachmen, footmen, and grooms employed to attend; see then how many would be required to violate the Sabbath, in order to minister to the pleasures of a few. Yet a poor man, who had not a kitchen fire, or utensils to dress his breakfast or dinner, would be prevented from going to a coffee-shop or cook-shop on that day to get necessary food. Last year, when a similar Bill was before that House, a body of mechanics called on him, said they desirous of being orderly and hurting nobody, but if the House of Commons passed such a Bill, and showed such carelessness about their wants and and comforts, they would declare their feelings by openly breaking the Sabbath, for they would assemble in a body of 100,000, and dance and play.
Mr. G. F. Youngdenied that he used a dictatorial term to the hon. Member, and surely the hon. Member was not exactly the person to charge any one with assuming too much, or with want of judgement, modesty, or discretion.
Mr. Ewartalso opposed the Bill; which, by its operation in Liverpool alone, would prevent the transmission of newspapers to the whole of North and South America by vessels that sailed on a Sunday. He entreated the hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw the measure, and extricate himself from the legislative morass in which he was now plunged.
Mr. Charles Bullersaid, that the only refreshments the hon. Member allowed the public to procure on Sunday, were medicines. He would not allow work for gain on Sunday. Now, his Bill would allow the rich to work for gain on that day; for the rich lawyers might carry on their chamber practice on that day—and these lawyers might be employed on that day in preparing a case for prosecuting the poor violators of it. Not only the lawyers, but the attorneys and their clerks might be safely employed on that day. So, then, a poor man was to be punished for buying or selling a halfpenny-worth of meal on a Sunday, and the Solicitor or Attorney-General, his attorneys, and their clerks might be safely engaged in preparing a prosecution against him, an occupation that the community might not think quite so innocent.
Mr. Macleanexpressed his concurrence in the opinion, that if they interfered unnecessarily with the amusements of the people, they would take a pleasure in breaking, and make a point of breaking, the law. He was not aware that there was any foundation for the charge which had been made against the members of the legal profession. When the hon. Gentleman had reached that exalted legal station to which he no doubt very properly aspired, he would have an opportunity of resisting the temptation and refuting the accusation in his own person.
Mr. Baineshad never heard a discussion in that House which he thought would prove so offensive to the public, from the tone of levity with which the subject had been discussed. He hoped the hon. Member would persevere with the Bill, and that his perseverance would be crowned with success.
Mr. Hawes, having commenced the discussion, indignantly repelled the accusation of the hon. Gentleman. It was rather too much for that hon. Gentleman to take upon himself to impeach the conduct of that House and of individuals who had as good a right as himself to express
1282
their opinions, even though they did so n a manner unpalatable to him.
Mr. O'Connellparticipated entirely in the feelings expressed by the hon. Member for Leeds, as to the propriety of their respecting the sentiments of their constituents, and certainly a lecture upon that subject came particularly well from the hon. Member for St. Andrew's. It was on that account he had made a grave, speech, because his constituents were fond of a hearty laugh. In his opinion there was a species of gravity more injurious and more contemptuous than any laughter; for it was upon that that persecution was founded. The best way to meet bigotry was by turning it into ridicule. The Inquisition was introduced in other countries under the mask of seriousness, and God forbid that under the same pretence persecution should be attempted in this country. The time was gone by when they could attempt to institute piety by Act of Parliament. After all that had been said, he would ask the hon. Member if he thought he could ever pass his Bill through a British House of Commons? He most sincerely hoped that they should never hear more of it. There was a question lately before Lord Jeffery as to whether a barber's boy was obliged to shave his master's customers upon Sunday, and the Scotch Courts had given as their judgement that he was not obliged to shave.
Mr. Andrew Johnstonhaving been pointedly alluded to by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, begged the indulgence of the House while he, in a few words, explained the situation in which he had been placed. It was quite true that a considerable number of his constituents were not pleased at the vote which he had given in opposition to Lord J. Russell's motion on the Irish Church, and had called upon him upon that account to resign his seat as their Representative. In these circumstances, not trusting to his own judgment in a matter so personal, he determined upon taking the advice of those in whose opinion he himself as well as his constituents felt confidence. He accordingly laid a statement of his case before Lord John Russell, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, and put the question to those Gentlemen, whether in the circumstances he was bound to resign. The noble Lord and the two gentlemen whom he had named gave it as

1283
their joint opinion that he was not bound to resign, and it was on their judgment thus given that he had the honour of continuing to hold a seat in that House.
Various Amendments were agreed to, and the House resumed.

WILLS EXECUTION BILL.
The Attorney General The Attorney General moved that this Bill be recommitted.
The House went into a Committee. The clauses to the 13th were agreed to.
On the 13th clause being read,
Sir William Follett Sir William Follett moved as an amendment that the words "as well as real property" be omitted; the effect of which would be to leave the law as regarded real property as it at present stood. The object of the Bill was to allow persons of the age of seventeen to dispose by will of real as well as of personal property. He wished the law as far as concerned real property to be left in its present state.
The Attorney Generalwas very desirous that there should be one age named at which both sorts of property should be disposable by parties. He would agree to the feeling of the majority of the Committee, whether the age should be twenty-one in reference to both, or twenty-one in reference to realty, and seventeen as to personalty, but he certainly thought individuals should not be allowed to dispose of personalty under seventeen years of age. As the law at present stood, children of ten, twelve, or fourteen years old might will away money to any amount, provided they were of sound mind.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, there could not be a greater anomaly in the law than that which told them that a person might not dispose of real property to the amount of 40 s.; and told them in the same breath, that he might dispose of personal property to the value of 500,000 l. There was just the same temptation, just the same probability of deception as to personal, as to real estates. But his hon. and learned Friend, (Sir W. Follett) proposed to remove a part of the anomaly: he said, "I prohibit you from devising real property till the age of twenty-one." But, in his opinion, as he had often observed, the law ought to be the same with respect both to personal and real estates, and that it was infinitely better at twenty-one, than any other age; and he had no objection, therefore, to imposing a restriction up to twenty-one.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the law, as it then stood, was a disgrace to national justice. There was no rule as to personal property: the court decided whether the party was competent: that was certainly the worst mode of legislating upon the case: that state of the law had been endured to the present year; and really it was not creditable to England that it had been suffered so long. Now they had come to remedy it, by striking out the anomaly which had been adopted for ages. A person could dispose of personal property, or chattel interest, to any amount whatsoever. It was proposed now to correct the anomaly by diminishing the power, that is, by keeping from a person the disposal of his property so far as related to chattel interests, till he was seventeen, and increasing the power so far as related to real property by lowering the age at which it could be disposed of to seventeen. The only question for the House was whether it were better to give the dominion over real property, or to take it away from chattel property. The hon. Member had convinced him that the method proposed by this Bill was the best way to remedy the anomaly, and he should certainly oppose the Amendment.
Dr. Nicholsaid, that he thought the present law fixed a very fair age, and he should support the Amendment of his learned Friend.
Sir George Stricklandobserved, that the reason the age of twenty-one had been recommended by some Members was plainly this, that that age was fixed on for a variety of other purposes, that in the minds of the community at large it was regarded as the age of competency, and that the grounds of any departure from it would not be admitted as valid by people in general, and would lead to uncertainty and dissatisfaction. He preferred the Amendment, leaving the law as it stood, or making the age twenty-one for all, to the alteration proposed by the Bill.
The Solicitor Generalwas sensible of the difficulty of drawing a line, but he thought that the suggestion of his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Exeter, would put the law on the best footing, that is, if the age of twenty-one were fixed upon as the disposing age for both species of property. He agreed that seventeen would not satisfy the community at large, because it would be comprehensible to very few. As to the idea

1285
that any privilege at present enjoyed ought to be looked upon as a vested right, he repudiated it altogether, and he therefore fully concurred in the substitution of twenty-one for seventeen.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonprofessed himself favourable to seventeen or eighteen, rather than to twenty-one. There was no analogy between the act of disposing of property by will and by contract, since it was one thing for a man to indulge his inclinations, and quite another to form a sound judgment respecting the equivalent which he might receive in any given contract. As to the mischiefs that might arise from capricious and absurd wills, experience had proved that they were much more frequent amongst the very old than amongst the very young. Inasmuch as a minor might become a parent, the privilege of disposing of his property as he thought proper amongst his own offspring ought not to be denied to him.
Mr. Lynchsupported the Amendment. He admitted that it took away a right, but it did so for the purpose of conferring a general advantage, making the law what it should ever be, uniform.
Mr. Bernalcontended that they ought to deal with personal property in the same manner as with real. It should be recollected that in modern times the great mass of the property of the country was personal; the national debt leases for 999 years were all chattels. In former times, personal property existed only in name; consisting only in a few hoarded ingots of gold and silver, or anything of that kind; but now personal property was often more valuable even than real. He agreed with the Member for Dublin as to the necessity of uniformity, but they must fix upon an arbitrary period: he thought the age of twenty-one was best, because it opposed a greater barrier and security against undue influence. Looking at the habits of the youth of both sexes in this kingdom, he would put it to the Committee whether it would not be more consistent with the general welfare of the community to restrain the power of disposing chattel property until the age of twenty-one, rather than extend it? At twenty-one it was probable that a great many of the errors of sixteen or seventeen would be seen and avoided, for two or three years caused a great change in the mind of young people at that period of life. Every parent and guardian knew that at seventeen their
1286
charge was not safe, nor even twenty-one; but as there should be a period to nonage, and as twenty-one was nearer to ripe reason than seventeen, he thought there could be no hesitation which to choose in the mind of any man who looked at human nature as it actually existed. He could not see why there should be any distinction between personal and real property in the present state of society. Personal property in 1835 was quite as valuable as freehold property. Why then should not both have equal protection against the errors of youth or the efforts of designing individuals?
Mr. Charles Bullerobserved, that wills and contracts were matters essentially different, and the feelings of the young were as much in accordance with those of persons of mature age, as the feelings of those far advanced in life. Besides that, the power of making wills often operated most advantageously on the Law of Primogeniture; he was therefore unwilling to agree to anything tending to circumscribe that power.
Sir William Follett,in reply to the hon. and learned Member for Kircudbright, said, that the Amendment certainly went to take away a vested right; but then the original clause, which the hon. and learned Member supported in opposition to it, was to precisely the same effect. With respect to the age of seventeen, nothing could be urged in its favour. It was entirely unknown to the law of the country, while twenty-one was recognised in almost every legal Act referring to person or property. If, therefore, the law, in a majority of cases, fixed upon twenty-one as the age of perfect capacity, why depart from it in the present instance? Why not equalize that to the other? There was no more magic in the age of twenty-one than in that of seventeen; but as a time should be drawn somewhere, it would, for all useful purposes, be best to fix it at a period which everyone recognized, and which common-sense acknowledged.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, the real question at issue was the age at which individuals were competent to devise their personal property; and it was one which, whether lawyers or not, hon. Members would find no difficulty in resolving. In adopting the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Exeter, he was clearly of opinion, that the Committee would be legislating against the natural feelings of

1287
humanity. A case in point would convince them of the fact. A man might marry under the age of twenty-one; he might have children under the age of twenty-one, and he might die under the age of twenty-one. Was he to be deprived of the power of bequeathing his personal property because he had the misfortune to die before a certain age? To suppose so would be doing a violence to the feelings of human nature. If, however, the Committee should decide upon adopting the Amendment, and fixing twenty-one as the age, he trusted that they would make the case he adduced an exception to the general rule, and provide for it and others of an analogous nature accordingly.
Mr. Lawsuggested, that the introduction of the word "unmarried" into one part of the clause, would meet the view of the last speaker—giving the testamentary power to married, and taking it away from unmarried persons under the age of twenty-one.
The Attorney-Generalthought, that under the age of twenty-one, there was great danger of an improper disposition of property. For that reason, as well as the universality of twenty-one, and the uniformity it gave to legal processes, he should support the Amendment.
The Committee divided, when there appeared for the Amendment 82; for the original Clause 38—Majority 44.
The Clause as amended, was ordered to stand part of the Bill.
On Clause 16 being read, which provides that every will be in writing, and signed by the testator in the presence of two witnesses,
Dr. Nicholl Dr. Nicholl moved as an Amendment, that the following words be added:—"Where such will is wholly in the handwriting of the testator, and it purports to apply only to the personalty, it shall be dated and signed by the testator in his own hand-writing, or if the same is not wholly in the hand-writing of the testator." To papers written, he said, wholly by the testator, and signed and dated in his own hand-writing, he would give the same effect as such documents had in other countries. He did not see why a difference should be made between the disposition of real and personal property, but what he proposed with respect to the latter might not be readily admitted in the case of the former, and he therefore, confined his Amendment to personalty. The effect of it would be, that if a will dispose of real and personal
1288
property both, it must be attested by two witnesses; but if it disposed only of personalty, and was in the hand-writing of the testator, and signed and dated by himself, it shall be held valid. He was aware that the hon. and learned Gentleman had the recommendation of the Commission in favour of the clause; but he begged to say, that considerable doubts were entertained on the subject by individuals of high authority in the profession. The Bill required that every will and codicil should be attested by two witnesses—which, in many cases, would be attended with great inconvenience. In some instances, alterations in wills might be prevented by such a provision. It might be said, that holograph wills were liable to fraud, but not so liable as the ordinary attested wills. In his opinion no person would ever attempt to forge a holograph will. It might be easy to forge a signature, or a few words, when it would be impossible to forge lines, or pages of a document, so as to resemble the hand-writing of any individual. Holograph wills, therefore, must be more free from danger of fraud than the common attested wills. With these views he would propose his Amendment.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, the object of the Bill was, to remove the reproach arising from the anomalous condition of testamentary law and power at present existing. A will, conveying a trifling freehold, was not good unless attested by three witnesses, while copyhold might be conveyed by a will to which there were no witnesses, or by a will sufficient to bequeath personalty; and a will disposing of l,000,000 l. would be good if in the handwriting of the testator although unsigned. There was as much danger of fraud in wills conveying personal as in those conveying real property, and each species of property required to be guarded alike. The clause as it stood declared that every will should be in writing, and signed by the testator in the presence of two witnesses at one time, who shall subscribe their names in his presence. To the clause, the hon. and learned Gentleman offered no opposition, but he proposed, in addition, to allow a holograph will to stand valid, if signed and dated in the hand-writing of the testator. He could not consent to this proposition. It might appear a hardship upon a testator to oblige him to employ a professional man, and to call in two or three of his

1289
neighbours to attest his will; but this was the best practice, and holograph wills, such as the lion, and learned Gentleman proposed, ought not to be allowed to stand. The learned Civilian admitted that, as regarded real property, they could not allow of holograph wills; and he did not see why a rule which could not be applied to realty, should be adopted in the case of personalty. Doubts sometimes arose whether property of a certain description was real or personal; and if a testator should by mistake dispose of real property, thinking, at the time, that he was merely bequeathing personal property the will would be void, in the event of the learned Civilian's Amendment becoming embodied in the will. Some danger and confusion, then, would by the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposition be introduced. If holograph wills were allowed at all, they ought to be allowed in every case; but for this the hon. and learned Gentleman did not at present contend. Men ought not in his opinion to make their own wills, but should have the assistance of professional men. A clearer and calmer disposition of property would be effected in this way. Upon the whole he thought that they ought not to render wills valid unless duly signed and attested.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonthought, that a holograph paper, duly signed and dated by the testator was a more solemn act than any will which could be drawn by professional men. Such documents too afforded little room for fraud; and he had never heard of a holograph forgery. It was clearly much easier to force a single signature than an entire instrument, which was in favour of holograph wills. Exclusively of this consideration, a holograph was the authentic will of the testator, not dictated by others. He approved therefore of giving validity to holographs.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, that as he understood the Amendment of his learned Friend, (Dr. Nicholl) it was, to recognize the validity of a will, signed and dated by the testator himself, in his own hand writing, purporting to be his own words; and that such Bill, should be valid, and of full effect. He objected to it, inasmuch as it created a distinction, with respect to the disposition by will of real and personal estates, which had no foundation whatever. He objected also to the words in his hon. and learned Friend's Amendment—"purporting to bequeath personal estate," for
1290
in respect, to any sort of property, if any doubt arose, as to the nature of the property, the will would be, to all intents and purposes, void. If there was any one act of life which ought to be done with more solemnity and deliberation, than another, it was the making of a will: but, the necessary consequence of a man's making his own will, would be that, while supposing as he thought that he was disposing of his property in a certain way, he would be doing no such thing. On all those grounds, then, he opposed the Amendment.
Mr. O'Connellsaid some alteration must take place, the clause gave only the same power in both kinds of property: it simplified the case, as it respected real property, and established that which related to personal, and on these accounts was very advantageous: learned Members wished to facilitate the making of wills: he did not. A man was called upon to make a will, just at the time when he was least able, and most liable to undue influence. He thought, therefore, the clause as it then stood, was an excellent one, as simplifying the process and diminishing the number of wills.
The remaining clauses of the Bill were agreed to, and the House resumed.

SEAMEN ENLISTMENT BILL.
Sir James Graham Sir James Graham moved the second reading of the Seamen Enlistment Bill. He was aware that it was the intention of the hon. Member for Sheffield to take the sense of the House upon one point of the Measure; but as that hon. Gentleman had determined to postpone the Motion to that effect, of which he had given notice, until another stage of the Bill, he (Sir James Graham) was sure that the House would agree with him in the propriety of postponing any observations on the subject until that stage.
Mr. Wallaceobjected to the principle of the Bill altogether. He could never consent to the sanction of that House being given to the clause, declaring that Impressment was part of the law of the land. It was a practice to which no class whatever of his Majesty's subjects should be liable; but if any one class were to be liable to it, all classes should be so. He was persuaded that in the event of a war, it would be impossible to enforce Impressment, without the occurrence of scenes which it made the blood curdle to think

1291
of. The sentiments which he felt and expressed on this subject, were in strict conformity to those of his constituents.
Mr. Buckinghamobserved that he had given notice of an Amendment on the second reading of the Bill, but it had since occurred to him that it would come with more propriety at another stage of the Measure. He entirely agreed with the honourable Member who had just spoken; and he would now give notice that on the Motion for the Bill's going into the Committee he would move that it be an instruction to the Committee to omit all that part of the Bill which gave any legal power to the Crown to enforce the practice of Impressment against any class of his Majesty's subjects.
The Bill read a second time.