Sitting of 22 February 1870

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—William Henry Foster, esquire, for Bridgnorth.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Benefices.
Ordered—First Reading—Suburban Commons [41]; Coroners* [42]; Married Women's Acknowledgments* [43]; Adulteration of Food or Drink Act (1860) Amendment* [44]; Public Prosecutors* [45].
Referred to Select Committee—Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Supplemental * [34].
Third Reading—Dissolved Districts and Unions* [17], and passed.

ARMY—THE VOLUNTEERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. RODENsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, When he intends to arm the Volunteers with breech-loading rifles?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, in reply, that he was afraid that they would not be able to arm the Volunteers with breech-loading rifles until it had been determined what precise kind of weapon should be adopted for the Army. He had reason to believe that the Volunteers themselves were of opinion that it would be desirable to postpone arming them with breech-loading rifles until that decision had been arrived at.

  BRITISH MUSEUM.—QUESTION.
  MR. COWPER-TEMPLEsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether the Government are prepared to take measures for relieving the overcrowded condition of the objects placed for exhibition in the British Museum, by means of the erection of a new Building for the Collections of Natural History?
  MR. AYRTON,in reply, said, the subject referred to in the Question of the right hon. Gentleman had engaged the attention of the Government, who were fully alive to the importance of relieving the overcrowded state of the Collections in the British Museum; but they had not yet arrived at a final determination as to the best mode of accomplishing that object, and until that determination had been come to, he could not further answer the Question.

METROPOLIS—ST. LUKE'S HOSPITAL.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he would bog to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Lunacy Commissioners on the condition of St. Luke's Hospital for Lunatics; and, whether he is prepared to take some action with regard to that charity, either through the Commissioners in Lunacy, or by some Special Commission, so that the object for which the charity was endowed may be properly carried out? He would add that since giving Notice of that Question he had seen a memorandum of the Committee of the Hospital, and understood they were anxious that an impartial inquiry should be instituted.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, in reply, that St. Luke's Hospital had been the subject of the criticism of the Commissioners in Lunacy for the last twenty years. With respect to the present site of the hospital,
  686
  they reported as long ago as the year 1851 that it was most objectionable, and also that the construction of the building was unsuited to the most improved treatment of lunatics. With regard to the structure of 1863, they reported that no amount of expenditure would cure its radical defects as a building for the proper treatment of insane patients. In the Report to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman alluded, they said that the structure was unsuited to the purpose to which it was devoted, that the rooms were dark and gloomy, and there was a difficulty in getting warmth into the wards. They admitted, however, that many alterations had been made with a view to lesson the disadvantages resulting from the incurable defects of the building; and to add to its cheerful-of late, he was bound to say that the churchyard had been enclosed, and was now converted into a lawn. In that condition of things, it was very perplexing, and he might almost add vexatious, to find that in the General Report of the Lunacy Commissioners on the state of the inmates of the asylum it was said that, with few exceptions, none of the patients were suffering from any degree of excitement on either side of the hospital, and that their appearance and general bodily condition were throughout healthy and satisfactory. He had no doubt that the criticisms of the Commissioners were generally correct, and he was also informed that it was the design of the managers of the establishment to submit it to the most searching inquiry. It did not seem to him that any advantage would result from instituting an inquiry by the Lunacy Commissioners. Those Commissioners had repeatedly reported their opinion on the subject, and they could only be expected to embody it again in the same language as they had used during the last twenty years. As to the appointment of a Commission, an application had been made by the Trustees to the Lord Chancellor; but his Lordship informed them he had no power to issue such a Commission. The suggestion had been frequently made that the property should be sold and the hospital removed to the country, where a more cheerful site could be got; but he was told that the property was held under a lease from St. Bartholomew's Hospital, and that the Trustees were not in a position to remove the establish-

  687
  ment. The only effectual mode of dealing with, the matter would seem to be by an Act of Parliament; but he could not say, on the part of the Government, that they were prepared to bring in such a measure.

  LAND TENURE (IRELAND).—QUESTION.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Acts 23 and 24 Vic, caps. 153 and 154, the Act to amend the Law relating to the Tenure and Improvement of Laud in Ireland, and the Act to amend the Law of Landlord and Tenant, has been made use of; and, if so, whether he has any objection to lay a Return upon the Table of the House, or to state the number of persons who have made use of either of those Acts?
  MR. GLADSTONEreplied that a distinction must be drawn between the two Acts to which the Question of the hon. and gallant Member referred. The 23 & 21 Vict., c. 154, was an Act which regulated generally the law between landlord and tenant, and it covered all contracts whatever and every proceeding in relation to land. Consequently, it was not within the knowledge of the Government what number of persons had made use of that Act, but the probability was that persons were every day availing themselves of it. The case of the other Act was quite different. With regard to the 23 & 24 Vict., c. 153, which was said to relate to the tenure and improvement of land, it was possible to find the number of persons who had acted upon it. There were certain Returns upon the subject which were presented in 1863, 1864, and 1865, but he was not aware that they had been continued down to the present time, and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman chose to move for their continuation, there would be no objection to their production.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he would give notice of his intention to move for the production of the Returns.

THE RELEASED FENIAN CONVICTS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to an account in "The Times" of Saturday the 19th instant, of the arrival in Dublin of a
  688
  body of ten released Fenian convicts from Australia; also an account in the same paper of a mob parading the streets of Cork, with a blazing tar barrel, and other uproarious demonstrations, in honour of the same released convicts; whether he is of opinion that such proceedings, arising in consequence of the release of those convicts by Her Majesty's Government, are conducive to the peaceable administration of the law in Ireland, and to the pacification of that Country, having regard to the state of feeling now and for some time past prevalent there; or whether Her Majesty's Government intend to take any action in the matter, with a view to abate the present state of things in that portion of Her Majesty's Kingdom? Whether these released convicts have been brought back from Australia at the expense of the taxpayers of the United Kingdom, or whether the Government have contributed out of any funds at their command, either directly or indirectly, any of the means for the return of these convicts from Australia to this Country; and, if so, what is the amount paid or to be paid for their passage back, and, if otherwise, at whose expense they have been brought back, and in what ship or ships? Whether his attention has been called to the report in "The Globe" Paper of this day, giving an account of a banquet held on Saturday last at Dublin in honour of the released Fenian convicts, at which banquet Mr. Butt, one of Her Majesty's Counsel, was present, and used language which, as well as the general proceedings, seems to deserve the attention of Her Majesty's Government; and, if the report of his; presence be true, especially as to the language and sentiments he is reported to have uttered, whether Her Majesty's Government intend to take any notice of his conduct?
  MR. BRUCE: In the absence, Sir, of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whose duty it would have been to answer these Questions, and who, I am sorry to say, is confined to his house by indisposition, I may state that my attention has been called, since the hon. Gentleman gave his Notice, to the newspaper reports to which he refers. With respect to the demonstration in Dublin, it appears that the Fenian prisoners, on their arrival, went to the theatre in Dublin, where they experienced rather a noisy reception, and

  689
  an attempt was made on their leaving the theatre to get up a procession, which, however, was speedily suppressed by the police. Since then very little notice seems to have been taken of them in Dublin. At Cork, hearing that there would be some attempt on their arrival there to get up a procession, the Mayor issued a proclamation against any such proceeding. The attempt was made by a mob of no considerable number of persons, principally composed of women and children, who were accompanied by a cart bearing a tar barrel, that I believe was lighted, to go to the station. They were met by the police and quietly dispersed. That, I believe, was the only attempt made in Cork to get up any demonstration. It appears that in both cases the civil authorities vindicated the law and sufficiently suppressed any undue display of sympathy with disloyal persons. As to the second question of the hon. Gentleman, whether the released convicts were brought home at the expense of the taxpayers of this country, I have to say that neither the taxpayers nor the Government have contributed any portion of the expenses of their passage home. I do not know either who paid their passage money, or how much was its amount. I have read an account of a banquet to the released convicts at which Mr. Butt presided; but the report that I have seen does not give Mr. Butt's words. It is only a short summary of his speech, and does not enable me to pass an opinion on the language he used; but, no doubt, whatever he said has been locally reported, and if he did make use of improper language it will come, no doubt, under the notice of the Lord Chancellor.

ARMY—COLONELS ON HALF-PAY.

  QUESTION.
  LORT RONALD GOWERsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to a letter in "The Times" of the 7th, signed "H. P.," in which it is stated that the Colonels on half-pay of the purchase Army receive nothing from the Country for their services, and that the interest of their money paid to the Secretary of State for War is more than sufficient to provide their half-pay, and if those statements are correct?
  MR. CARDWELL: Sir, a lieutenant colonel in the Army has three choices
  690
  before him. He may remain in the Army till he becomes a major general, or he may wish to retire by the sale of his commission; or, if he prefer to go on half-pay, he may do so, retaining his rank in the Army and his right to become a major general, with a prospect of employment on the staff. By an arrangement made with the Treasury some time ago, for the convenience of officers, and in order to give promotions in the regiment, the proceeds of the amount for which the commission is sold is paid into a reserve fund. It is quite true that the half-pay of a lieutenant colonel is only a moderate rate of interest on the price of his commission.

  EDUCATION—CERTIFICATED SCHOOLMASTERS. —QUESTION.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he rose to ask the Vice President of the Council, How far any change in the system of certificates to schoolmasters will be rendered necessary by his Bill? And if he contemplates any alteration in the management of or in the grants to Training Schools; and, if so, to what extent?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, in reply, that in the Education Bill no allusion was made directly to certificated masters; but Clause 7 provided that, after a certain date, all schools would receive grants of money, subject to certain regulations and conditions. In the 83rd clause it was stated that one of the conditions referred to in Clause 7 was a compliance with Minutes issued from time to time by the authority of Parliament, and sanctioned by Parliament. Of course, if the Bill passed into law, as he trusted it might, it would be the duty of the Government to reconsider the existing conditions, with the view of adapting them to the altered circumstances of the case; but until the Bill became law it would be impossible to say how the conditions would finally stand. Certainly the Government would consider with attention the modes in which certificates were given, and probably this was a matter in which revision would be required. There was no reference to the training schools in the Bill; but the management and the amount of the grants to these schools were subjects which, after the passing of the Bill, would have to be duly considered.

  ENDOWED SCHOOLS BILL.—QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether he intends to bring in, during this Session, the second part of the Endowed Schools Bill of last year?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, his right hon. Friend would remember that the Bill of last year was one affecting the teachers of secondary schools, rather than those of primary schools. After a full consideration of the subject the Government had resolved not to bring in this year such a Bill as that referred to by his right hon. Friend. The very great pressure of Public Business would prevent it; but in the interests of education he did not regret the circumstance, and for two reasons. First, because from information which had been afforded the Government by the managers of endowed schools it would appear that the Government would be in a better position to deal with the subject after this year had passed, because after that time they would be in a position to consider all the schemes which had been sent in after the Act of last year by the governors of endowments. And here perhaps he might be allowed to express the pleasure he felt at the manner in which, generally speaking, the governors of endowed schools had met the desire expressed by Parliament last year. His second reason was that he thought Parliament would be better enabled to go into the subject in a satisfactory manner after the discussions on and the passing of the Education Bill.

  DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR EXPENDITURE —QUESTION.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, When the Return moved for on the 9th of August last, in relation to Diplomatic and Consular Expenditure, will be laid upon the Table?
  MR. OTWAYreplied that the Return would be produced in a few days.

  LORD CAMPBELL'S ACT.—QUESTION.
  MR. HANBURY TRACYsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill dur-
  692
  ing the Session to modify Lord Campbell's Act, 9 and 10 Vic. c 93?
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVREreplied that it was not the intention of the Government to do so.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. J. B. SMITHsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether he is prepared to state in what manner the Government intends to deal with the present anomalous state of the Laws relating to Weights and Measures. In 1864 an Act was passed "to render permissive the use of the Metric system of Weights and Measures," but which, in the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, was so incorrectly drawn that any person using Metric Weights and Measures, or having them in his possession, is liable to have them seized, and to a Cue and forfeiture. And is it the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring in a Bill during the present Session of Parliament with a view to remedy the defect in the existing Act, and to establish the Metric system in the place of the existing system of Weights and Measures in the United Kingdom?
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, in reply to the hon. Member, he had to state that the Royal Commissioners for Weights and Measures had, in a recent Report laid before that House, pointed out the anomalous state of the law to which the hon. Member had adverted—namely, that although the use of the Metric system is legalized by the Act of 1864 for contracts, yet the actual use of the weights and measures themselves is illegal, and the weights are liable to seizure and forfeiture. The Commissioners recommended legislation for the purpose of introducing the Metric system, not as a substitute for our present system, but as an addition to it. They recommended, however, that legislation should be postponed until their final Report was presented. He had ascertained that this might be expected before Easter; it would then be for the Government to determine whether to deal at once with this question only, or to wait until they could deal with all the other recommendations of the Commission.

TELEGRAPH COMMUNICATION BETWEEN GERMANY AND AMERICA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, he wished to ask the Postmaster General, Whether he is aware that a Concession has been granted by the North German Confederation for a line of Telegraphic Communication between Germany and America, and that the Board of Trade have authorized the landing at Lowestoft of a cable from North Germany as one of the links in that line; and whether a request has not been made to him on behalf of the purchasers of the Concession to make arrangements for the connection of the cable to be landed at Lowestoft with the wires of the Anglo-American Company in London; and whether he is prepared to accede to that request?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONreplied that such a request as that alluded to by the hon. and learned Member had been made. There was some doubt as to whether the sanction of Parliament would not be required, and the matter was under the consideration of the Government.
  MR. PELLsaid, he wished to ask the Postmaster General, When the town of Hinckley, in (South Leicestershire, is likely to have the benefit of the Postal Telegraph system?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, in reply, that he would make inquiries on the subject with the view of answering the question of his hon. Friend.

IRELAND—TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN.

  QUESTIONS.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, if the statement in the "Pall Mall Gazette" was true that Lord Cairns had had a personal interview with the noble Lord and presented a Memorial from Trinity College, Dublin, praying that all the offices might be thrown open to persons irrespective of their religious creed?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, in reply, that a Memorial had been received from the Fellows and Scholars of Trinity College, Dublin, on the subject of throwing open offices in the University of Dublin to persons of all religious persuasions; but if his right hon. and gallant Friend wished to know what the contents of the
  694
  Memorial were it would be better for him to move for it, and then the document itself might be laid before the House.

  EPPING FOREST.—HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
  Answer to Address [14th February] reported, as follows:—
  I have received your Address, praying that I will take such measures as I may deem most expedient, in order that Epping Forest may be preserved as an open space for the recreation and enjoyment of the public.
  Concurring with you in the desire that open spaces in the neighbourhood of the Metropolis may, as far as possible, be preserved for the enjoyment of My people, I will carefully consider how effect may be given to the prayer of this Address.

  BENEFICES BILL.—LEAVE.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to render void the sale of the next indentation to a Benefice, said, it was not his intention at the present stage to raise any discussion, because that would be better taken at a future time. He would only explain that nothing could be further from his intention than to interfere with the exercise of lay patronage or the power of laymen to hold advowsons and next presentations to benefices. He did not propose to examine how advowsons came to pass into the hands of laymen, because the House was aware of the circumstances; but to his mind it was of the greatest possible advantage, not only to the Church but to the country, that laymen should hold advowsons as well as corporate bodies, and so long as that was the case advowsons must be the subject of sale like other property. With that state of things it was not his intention to interfere. There was, however, a great difference between the sale of an advowson and that of the next presentation—that was, between the sale of the right to present, and the sale of the exercise of that right. The right to present to a living was practically a public trust of the most serious character, and threw upon the patron of the living a responsibility which he certainly ought not to allowed, in consideration of a money payment, to put off his shoulders. The law gives a man a right to purchase property to which the right of voting

  695
  was attached, and he could soil that property, together with the right to vote; but, so long as he hold the property, he could not sell the exorcise of his right to vote in respect to that property without being guilty of bribery. Just in the same way with the right of presentation to a living. If the patron desired to part with it, he should only be allowed to do so by the sale of the advowson; but so long as he held the advowson, so long was he bound to exercise the right of presentation as a public trust, nor could he morally dispose of it for a money value. The legislation he proposed was by no means new. It was but another step further in the direction in which the Legislature had often gone, to the great advantage of the Church and the country. In fact, the sale of the right of presentation was a usurped right, although it had at present the force of law. Anyone who would refer to the canons of Archbishop Richards and the Legatine Constitution of Othobon, in the reigns of Henry II. and III., would see that the sale was a usurped right. So again the Bishop has in many cases the power to refuse, and so of rendering the presentation void. So again, for instance, when a patron does not present a clergyman within a certain time the right of presentation lapses. All that shows that the trust was a public one, and to be exercised for the public benefit. So again the statute of Elizabeth prevented the sale of the presentation during the avoidance of the living. What could be stronger, again, than the statute of Anne, which, for public reasons, forbade the purchase of presentations by those who were most likely to make the purchase, when the living was not void. That Act prevented clergymen from buying livings for themselves, whether the livings were vacant or not. He therefore asked the House to consider the present state of the law, bearing in mind the difference between the sale of the right to present, and the sale of the next presentation; and also remembering what had been already done in this direction. Was the present state of the law satisfactory either to the Church or the country? At present, if the patron sold the next presentation, concealed under the form of selling the advowson, at the very moment before the vicar or incumbent died, the sale was good. In the last
  696
  case in which that point was decided—namely, that of the rectory of Winslow, the rector was known by the patron to be at the very point of death. At three o'clock in the afternoon the patron found a clergyman, who knew nothing of the state of the incumbent, and he sold the living to him for the sum of £6,000. The rector died at eleven o'clock the same night. The Court of King's Bench held that the sale was one of the grossest evasions of the statute of Elizabeth, and set it aside. The House of Lords, however, on appeal, was obliged to find that the sale was good, having been effected in the lifetime of the rector; and that unsatisfactory state of the law still continued. That was, no doubt, a strong case, and one which would not very often occur; but was it not a scandal to religion, and an insult to the parishioners to see the advertisements which now appeared, week after week, in the newspapers, holding forth the great advantages of the next presentation to be sold, and stating in bold figures and large letters the age and infirmities; of the present holders of the living, in order to induce persons to give a larger sum of money for it? He should like to read the observations made by one or two of the most learned Judges who ever sat upon the Bench upon this subject. Chief Justice De Grey, in delivering judgment in the case to which he referred, used these remarks—
  "An advowson was a temporal right, not indeed jus habendi, but jus disponendi. The right itself is a valuable right, and properly the object of sale, but the exercise of this right is a public trust, and therefore ought to be void of any pecuniary consideration either in the patron or in the presentee."
  Chief Justice Best used still stronger language, and said that much simony was indirectly committed by the sale of the next presentation. If, he added, it were proper to prevent the giving of the next presentation, it was equally proper to prevent the sale of the immediate right to present. Having these high authorities in his favour, he asked the House to go one step further in the direction in which they had already gone, and prevent that which had been held to be a scandal to the Church. Would it be tolerated for one moment that the next presentation to livings in the hands of the Crown, the Lord Chancellor, the Universities, the Colleges, the Bishops, or the great Corporations,

  697
  should be put up to sale? And if all these were excluded, some by statute and some by public opinion, why was lay patronage in the hands of individuals to be placed on a higher footing, and why was that to be allowed in one case which was not in the other? He was glad to learn that no opposition would be offered by the Government to the Motion which he now made for leave to introduce his Bill.
  MR. HINDE PALMERsaid, he was apprehensive that the Bill which the hon. Member was seeking to introduce did not go quite far enough, because, as he understood the statement of the hon. Member, he did not propose in any way to affect the sale of advowsons. Now, everyone knew that incident to the sale of an advowson was the sale of the next presentation, and it curiously enough happened that the accident of the clergyman dying at half-past cloven at night when the sale had been effected at three in the afternoon occurred in a case where the advowson, and not the next presentation, was sold, and the observations of Chief Justice Best were made in a case of the sale of an advowson. He quite agreed with the hon. Member that it was a great disadvantage to the Established Church, and to religion generally, that next presentations should, be made the subject of traffic and auctioneering advertisements. All the reasons in favour of the Bill applied with equal force against the sale of advowsons, which carried with it the right of presentation, and which might be made even when the incumbent was almost in extremis. He had no wish to discuss the subject at present; but on a future occasion he should wish to insert in the Bill an Amendment extending its provisions to advowsons in cases where the sale would carry with it the virtual sale of the next presentation, which was a direct and palpable evasion of the law of simony.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to render void the sale of the next presentation to a Benefice, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CROSS, Viscount SANDON, Mr. HIBBERT, and Mr. BIRLET.

REVENUE OFFICERS.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. MONKrose to call the attention of the House to the disabilities under which the Revenue Officers labour in
  698
  reference to Parliamentary Elections, and to move—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire and report as to electoral restraints and disabilities affecting the Civil Servants of the Crown in the several branches of the Revenue Department, and to consider the expediency of removing them in certain cases."
  Iii proposing that inquiry should be made into the electoral disabilities under which Civil Servants in the Post Office, the Excise, and the Customs now laboured, it would be unnecessary for him to remind the House that by an Act passed in 1868 the revenue officers were empowered to record their votes at the election of Members to serve in Parliament. It was doubtless also in the recollection of hon. Members that a Bill was introduced in the course of last Session by the hon. Baronet the Member for Buckingham (Sir Harry Verney) and himself, having for its object the repeal of certain disabling enactments contained in Acts passed in the reigns of William and Mary and of Queen Anne, which imposed restrictions and inflicted heavy penalties upon all revenue officers who should take part in an election by persuading persons to vote or dissuading them from voting for any particular candidate. In addition to a fine of £100 any revenue officer who might be convicted of having taken part in an election was thenceforth disqualified from, and rendered incapable of, ever holding any office of trust or emolument under the Crown. That Bill was opposed by Her Majesty's Government, and was thrown out on the second reading by a large majority—about two to one in a full House. He did not think that he was over-stating the case when he said that by that decision the House had expressed its deliberate opinion that the mouths of the officers of the Revenue Department ought to be closed with reference to political subjects, in the same manner that it was deemed expedient to close them 170 years ago, and that they ought to be debarred from taking any part in the promotion or move in the discussion of any subjects of interest which might happen to be before the country. He had abundant evidence to show that many of these officials who had passed a competitive examination, who had risen to the highest rank in their profession, and had grown old and gray in the service of their country, felt

  699
  very keenly the stigma which, the decision of that House had placed upon them by refusing to restore to them the full rights of citizenship. They argued that no body of men were more interested than they were in the stability of our institutions, and no class of electors so likely to oppose violent and revolutionary changes, while the imputation that they might be influenced by political motives, or by any other motive than a desire properly to perform their duties in collecting the public revenue was unworthy of those who made it. He had, however, no intention to revive the discussion of last year, neither did he then; seek to reverse the decision which was then arrived at, although he availed himself of that occasion to say that he should lose no opportunity of doing all in his power to complete the enfranchisement of the civil officers in the Revenue Department. The object of his Motion was, first and foremost, to ask the House to appoint a Committee to investigate and ascertain which of the three branches of the Revenue Department still laboured under statutory restraints and disabilities; and, secondly, to consider whether any branch of the Service, or any class of officials so affected, might not in the present day be appropriately relieved from those disabilities. He begged to repeat the assertion which he had made last year, that one, at least, of the three branches of the Revenue Department was in reality politically free. He then stated that the disabling Act of 5 William and Mary, c. 50, s. 48, which imposed the minor penalty of £100 on any officers in the Excise who presumed to take part in an election, and which disqualified them from ever holding office under the Crown, had been repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act of 1867. The Act of 7 & 8 Geo. IV., c. 53, s. 9, increasing the penalty to £500, was repealed in 1868 by the Act of 32 Vict. c. 73, commonly known as the Revenue Officers' Disabilities Removal Act. He submitted to the House that it was a matter of grave public importance that the political status of the officers in the Revenue Department should be distinctly ascertained, and that no reasonable doubt should be allowed to remain as to whether the disabilities and penalties imposed by the Act of William and Mary, already repealed, had been revived or kept alive by any subsequent
  700
  Act. He understood that it was alleged by those who advised the Inland Revenue Department that those disabilities and penalties were kept alive by the Act of 55 Geo. III. c. 184, but he entirely dissented from that opinion, believing that the advisers and the officials of the Inland Revenue Department had made a mistake with reference to that Act, which referred to and affected the public only, upon whom the duties were levied, not the officers who levied them. Under these circumstances, he thought he had made out a case, so far as the Inland Revenue Department was concerned, at all events, for further inquiry. He came next to the Department of the Post Office, and here he at once acknowledged that he entertained no doubt whatever as to the political status of its officials, inasmuch as he had discovered no Act which repealed the penalties under which they laboured. He had, however, the less reason to regret that circumstance, because in the debate which took place last year on the Revenue Officers Bill the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, in reply to a Question from the right hon. and learned Member for Southampton (Mr. Russell Gurney) who was pleading the cause of the Post Office Department, said if that right hon. and learned Gentleman would move for a Committee to institute a careful inquiry, with the view of seeing whether there were any persons labouring under disabilities to whom they should not be applied, he did not know that he should resist such an investigation. So far, therefore, as the Post Office was concerned, he believed the Government would scarcely wish to oppose his Motion. He would ask the House to bear in mind that no argument was brought forward last year to show that the public service could suffer from a relaxation of the restraints upon the officers in the Post Office, and he would remind his right hon. Friend the First Minister that in the Report presented to Parliament from the heads of the Revenue Departments in 1868 there was no report against 1he enfranchisement of that branch of the Civil Service. As regards the Customs, perhaps, the House would be somewhat surprised to hear that he was prepared to lay before the Committee, if appointed, evidence which he believed to be of a conclusive character that the officers in the Customs were

  701
  absolutely free, politically speaking, because all the disabling Acts affecting them had been repealed, either by the Customs Consolidation Acts of George IV. and William IV., or by the Revenue Officers' Disabilities Act of 1868. He believed he had made out a case to justify inquiry into the political status of each of the three branches of the Civil Service. As regards two of them, very considerable doubt remained as to their political status. With regard to the third no argument was advanced last year to show why they should not be completely enfranchised. He made no appeal ad misericordiam to the House on behalf of the Civil Servants whose cause he had taken up; but he did appeal to the Government not to refuse a Committee to inquire, with a view of setting at vest all doubts on a subject not only of deep interest to the revenue officers themselves, but of much importance to the public service. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Resolution.
  MR. GRAVESsaid, the request made by his hon. Friend was so reasonable that he could not but anticipate the Government would accede to it. Considerable interest was felt on the question in Liverpool, and the revenue officers at that port were very grateful for the franchise that was conferred on them last year, but they felt that so long as restraint and disabilities were imposed upon the expression of their political opinions, they were in an unfair position with regard to the rest of the community. No doubt there were reasons for imposing these restrictions when they were first adopted, but he could not help thinking that it was undesirable they should any longer exist. Besides, the statement of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), that it was questionable whether some branches of the Civil Service were really disqualified from canvassing, made action in the matter really urgent. He had no wish to make the officers of the Crown public agitators, and that might be prevented by departmental regulations instead of by statutory enactment. He should have thought that the decision of the House on a former occasion would have been sufficient for dealing with this question. It seemed to him so simple a one that there was no occasion to refer it to a Select Committee; but as the hon. Member for Gloucester, who had taken
  702
  so great an interest in the subject, thought it was the best mode of dealing with it he had great pleasure in seconding the Resolution.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire and report as to electoral restraints and; disabilities affecting the Civil Servants of the Crown in the several branches of the Revenue Department, and to consider the expediency of removing them in certain cases."—(Mr. Monk.)
  MR. GLADSTONE: I cannot but help expressing my regret that the zeal and fervour of my hon. Friend (Mr. Monk) in the cause that he has taken up is so great that he cannot endure, after the debate and decision of last year upon this subject, to allow it to sleep for a year. I think, when the House has come to a decision on a matter of no very great concern, after a full discussion, and has come to a very decisive expression of opinion upon it, I would almost say that common humanity on the part of the promoters of this cause ought to induce them to give the House a short lease of tranquillity before we are again almost driven by tenacious and repeated attacks into the resumption of a question under the hope that ultimately, through sheer weariness, like the unjust judge in the parable—not because he considered it just—but by continued application so wearying us that we shall accede to the Resolution. The two hon. Members who have spoken have not covered the Motion with any disguise; but when come to look to the terms of the Motion, I one might think there was something like tactic about it, and I am going to acquit the hon. Mover of that, because if there is any reservation in the terms of the Motion there is none in the remarks of the Mover and Seconder. There are but three great branches of the public service that are affected by these restraints, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester first shows why they should not apply to the first, then to the second, and then to the third, and that in the certain cases in which he wishes to remove restraints are the whole of the cases embraced by the present disabilities. The Seconder of the Motion was rather more ingenuous. He expressed his regret that a Motion for a Committee had been resorted to instead of grappling with the question by a distinct proposal; but out of deference to the Mover

  703
  of the Resolution he thought it was not safe to abandon his company and association, and support what he regards as an unsatisfactory proposal. This is, in reality, a Motion to reverse the vote of last year. No ground has been laid for a partial inquiry. It is true that when last year the question was under discussion, I understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Southampton (Mr. Russell Gurney) to state that there were certain cases which he thought were invested with a special character, and said if he thought inquiry was necessary into them let it be made. But it was not prudent to do so on the present occasion, nor does he conceal the question whether the whole of these disabilities should be removed. I must say I dislike to revert to questions which were thoroughly sifted last year. The principle applied in these disqualifying provisions is not peculiar; it is applied in many ways, and in no way more rigorously than within the walls of this House. We do not allow a Government contractor to take a seat here; and why? Not that contractors are impure, but because we think the combination of influence they exercise on persons employed for the public service in matters of money with their duties as Members of Parliament, deciding on matters of expenditure, is not calculated as a general rule to secure perfect integrity and freedom from suspicion, and reasons of sound policy make it right to place them under a certain amount of disability. I might refer to other cases, but when I appeal to the case of a body elected in this House—every man who sits in it being dependent on the scrutiny and deliberate choice of a large number of his fellow-countrymen—it is obvious that I establish the strongest possible case, more particularly because those persons after being elected are compelled to do everything in the light of day, but revenue officers are of necessity entrusted with matters to which the check of publicity cannot be applied. The revenue officers have necessarily to discharge their duties in secret, but they conduct them with the utmost privity and with as absolute freedom as anyone can possess from the remotest approach to guilt. Yet if they are placed in situations of political association with those whom it is their business to control, and check, and arrest in matters
  704
  of great pecuniary importance relating to the public, it is quite evident you compromise their independence and reputation before the public by deliberately placing them in a false position. I think if the hon. Member for Gloucester had interfered in one of those neutral and colourless Sessions, when the House appears to have nothing to do, when the House is thankful to any Gentleman who finds them a topic of interest to discuss, then there might have been something to say in favour of his bringing forward this question. But really, when we consider what is the amount of work cut out, and we are cutting out, in the Session now opening, I do make an appeal ad misericordiam to him, and beseech and entreat him to give a little compassionate consideration to our overburdened shoulders and our failing knees, and give us time to rally from these repeated assaults, and enable us to bring to a conclusion other and more important business; and after which the hon. Gentleman would be all the better, as it would bring him longer rest and repose, for which all, in fact, would be the better. I hope, however, whenever he comes back to the question, the soundness of the arguments against it will be sufficient to repel it. It will be better for us all to allow a short and decent interval to elapse before we occupy ourselves with questions which have been thoroughly sifted and decorously disposed of as this was in the last Session of Parliament.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had brought the Motion on himself by the remarks he made last year. If the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) had proposed the same measure which he brought forward last Session for the removal of these disabilities, he should himself have been disposed to tell the hon. Member, as the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government had just done, that such an application was premature after the decision arrived at last Session. A decisive division was then taken, and it would not be respectful to the House to renew the same question now. In point of fact, however, the present Motion was very different from that made last year, and after the remarks which fell on that occasion from the lips of the right hon. Gentleman it was quite natural that the present Motion should be brought for-

  705
  ward. The House was then distinctly told that if a Motion for inquiry were made the right hon. Gentleman would probably not raise any objection to it.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I said an inquiry with regard to certain special cases.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, it was not limited in that way. It was to be a Motion for a Committee to inquire whether there were certain special cases. His hon. Friend no doubt thought that in almost every instance the officers should be relieved from these disabilities; but his Motion was merely for a Committee to ascertain whether there were any special classes which ought to be relieved from them. With that view he should support the Motion, which was so reasonable that he thought even the "claims of humanity" would not be sufficient to prevent the House from acceding to it.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONsaid, he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman should have likened himself to the unjust judge, because he was sure no one else would have ventured to do so, even although the likeness were true. He was also glad the right hon. Gentleman had not been able to advance a single argument against the case that had been made out for inquiry, but that he had merely called for "rest." He would, however, remind the right hon. Gentleman, that the same authority which told them about the unjust judge also said that "there was no rest for the wicked." If a large number of Her Majesty's subjects had a grievance the House ought to grant an inquiry in order that all the parties concerned might have an opportunity of showing the goodness or badness of the cause they advocated. He should support the Resolution.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had made a very good speech against the Bill introduced two years ago by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk); and, indeed, if his memory did not deceive him, it was almost the very same speech which the right hon. Gentleman delivered on one of the stages of the Bill of 1868. But the House did not then think proper to endorse the right hon. Gentleman's opinions on the subject, which he failed to support by his vote, and the Bill became part of the law of the laud. What was now wanted was an inquiry into the present state of the law. At present people were in a state of
  706
  confusion, and did not know what were the rights, privileges, and disabilities of these officers. But his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had not addressed a single remark to the subject of the desired inquiry. Great confusion now existed as to the state of the law in reference to these officers. Any officer who held his appointment direct from the Crown was directed by the head of his Department not to interfere in any election beyond merely recording his vote. If a collector of taxes or distributor of stamps—in Scotland, at all events—other-wise interfered in an election he would be breaking the law if the instructions of; his superior were well founded. But if any clerk in the officer's service chose to interfere and canvass to any extent as a paid agent nobody could touch him, because he did not receive his salary direct from the Crown. Ought such a state of things to be allowed to continue? All cause for quibbling ought to be got rid of, and a uniform rule applied to all the service. At present the small men might exercise influence, while the great men were not allowed to do so, although they were more independent, more respectable, and loss likely to use their influence improperly than their subordinates. The hon. Member for Gloucester did not ask the House to prejudge the question, but simply desired an inquiry which he hoped the Government would not persist in refusing, especially as it would not in the least interfere with the important; measures to be discussed during the present Session. The Committee would collect evidence, and if it showed that legislation was necessary to remedy the existing defects and remove the existing doubts, it would, in his judgment, have performed a very useful work.
  MR. MONKremarked that his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had passed over in silence the chief part of his argument. He would merely point out that his right hon. Friend had confined his remarks to the second part of his Motion only which asked for an inquiry as to whether these disabilities should be removed in certain cases. He should not have placed that portion of the Motion on the Paper had it not been for the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman on the subject last Session. All the Motion asked the House to assent to was that an inquiry should be instituted as to the political status of the

  707
  officers in the Customs and Excise. He thought the result of the rejection of his Motion would be that the officers in the Customs would avail themselves of the information that they were politically free, as were also, he believed, the officers in the Excise. Whether such was the case or not might be determined either in a court of law, or by the Committee he was asking the House to appoint. He would again express a hope that the House would not refuse to grant a Committee to ascertain the political status of the three branches of the Revenue Department, although if the House wished it he would not press his Motion to a division.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SUBURBAN COMMONS BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. COWPER-TEMPLE, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to provide for the improvement, protection, and management of Commons and Waste Lands near Cities and Towns in England, said, the object of the measure was to secure to the inhabitants of towns a fuller enjoyment than they at present possessed of the commons and open spaces near those towns, and to give increased efficiency to a clause in the General Enclosure Act of 1845, and the preceding Act of 1835. The General Enclosure Act had for its object the promotion of agriculture, and the production of a larger quantity of food in the country, by enabling the lords of the manor and the commoners to divide the commons to which they had joint claims. This purpose of promoting agriculture was felt by the framers of the Act of 1845 to be one which would probably not be attained in regard to commons in the immediate vicinity of towns, because the land was so valuable that it would not be used for ordinary tillage. A provision was consequently made that the enclosure of commons within a certain radius of towns varying with the population should be specially brought under the notice of Parliament, a distinction being thus made between them and other commons. This distinction was, however, obliterated by an Act passed in 1853, which brought all enclosures under the supervision of Parliament. His object was to withdraw all commons within a definite radius of large towns
  708
  from the operation of the Enclosure Act of 1845, and in doing so he did not propose to take away any of the rights which any lords of manors or commoners might possess at present, but withdraw from them the facilities obtainable through the Enclosure Commissioners of converting joint property into private property. The Enclosure Commissioners would have to devise a Board of Management to improve the surface of the commons, and carry into effect by-laws and regulations for preventing nuisances, depredations, and disorder, and to give the police jurisdiction over those commons. It might be objected that this measure was too small, considered in relation to so extensive a subject. His reply to that was, it would doubtless be very desirable, if it could be carried out, for the Legislature to provide for every town adequate pleasure grounds and places of recreation for the people. No one could fail to perceive that they were calculated to have a most beneficial effect on the health, the morals, and the happiness of the people, and that they indirectly operated to do away with the temptation to visit the public-house. The House, therefore, would, he felt sure, not object to the introduction of a measure the object of which was to place such grounds upon a more satisfactory footing.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to provide for the improvement, protection, and management of Commons and Waste Lands near cities and towns in England, ordered to be brought in by Mr. COWPER-TEMPLE and Mr. BUXTON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 41.]

  CHELSEA BRIDGE.—RESOLUTION.
  MR. PEEKrose to call the attention of the House to the toll charged on Chelsea Bridge, and to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the Government Bridge at Chelsea should henceforth be freed from toll."
  The hon. Gentleman said the subject was of great importance, and excited considerable interest among the inhabibitants in Battersea Parish and neighbourhood. An Act of Parliament was passed in 1846 to form a Park in Battersea Fields, and another to build a suspension bridge, with approaches; it being stated in the Preambles of both Acts that the object was to endeavour to

  709
  provide the most effectual means of improving the metropolis and increasing the facilities of communication. An Act had also been passed in 1858 to abolish the foot-passengers' toll on Chelsea Bridge after the payment of a sum of £80,000 with interest, and in 1865 a Bill had been brought in by Sir John Shelley. Mr. Locke King, and Mr. Locke, which was referred to a Select Committee, to abolish the tolls taken from foot passengers passing over the bridge. That Committee had sat in the months of May and June in that year, and had collected a very valuable amount of information, but it had, unfortunately, made no Report, being unable to arrive at any definite conclusion, and ended its labours by merely recommending that it should be re-appointed in the ensuing' Session. It had, however, never been be re-appointed, and the matter dropped. Since then Papers had been moved for by the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) on the subject, a Petition, signed by 388 tradesman and 2,010 mechanics, had been presented last-year with respect to it, and a large deputation had waited on the late First Commissioner of Works, calling his attention to the matter. As regarded the financial position of the bridge, he had to state that it had been open eleven years, and that in those eleven years the net annual revenue derived from the tolls was £1,575, the cost of collection and maintenance being deducted. The gross amount of the tolls for the eleven years was £51,069, and the debt, including principal and interest, was £97,500, so that the Act of Parliament passed in 1858 in reference to its liquidation remained, and must always remain, a dead letter; for the revenue, which had been decreasing for three years past, would be thirty-eight years paying off the single principal, or—the principal being left a continual burden—interest at 2½ per cent would swallow it all up. It would, therefore, be seen at once that the receipts from the tolls would never pay principal and interest taken together. The bridge, as he had already stated, had been opened eleven years, and at the end of the first five years, according to the latest information obtainable, 957,000, or nearly 1,000,000 foot passengers had passed over it at a half penny per head, and 198,000 horses and vehicles, averaging 2d. each, yielding together for the year end-
  710
  ing March, 1864, £3,681. Five years later, the revenue of last year—£5,700—being taken as a guide, the bridge would have been used by about half as many more; but from the inquiries he had made he had found that the increase was in the number of carriages and horses, and that the number of foot passengers had undergone little or no increase, proving that the action of the toll was very detrimental so far as they were concerned, for Chelsea and Battersea were both much more thickly populated now than five or six years ago. Again, it was worthy of remark that, although both parishes had largely increased in population, and Battersea Park had become more attractive than ever, the gross tolls of the bridge for last year were £300, or 6 per cent, less than either in 1867 or 1868. The grievance arising from the exaction of the toll was, he might add, felt by three classes of the people. The first class comprised owners of property. At present there were no fewer than 3,000 houses to let in the parish of Battersea, and its immediate neighbourhood. Although the bridge, as regarded the object for which it was opened, was a complete failure, the ratepayers had to provide for maintaining and lighting the roads, providing police, &c. The grievance was most felt by the artizan class, on whom the toll pressed heavily. A halfpenny might seem a small sum to Members of that House, but it became a serious matter to the poor man when he had to pay at the rate of 2 per cent on his wages for passing over this bridge, to say nothing of wives and children. Besides, the matter was one in which the general public were very much interested, for it was clear that the principal object for which the bridge had been built had been in a large degree frustrated. All the suburbs of Battersea Park were in striking contrast to its beauty, and the Government were acting in the present instance in direct opposition to the spirit of the age, which was to set all thoroughfares entirely free—now, the bridge was a convenience only to the rich, the poor in the neighbourhood were, to a large extent, deprived of the various benefits which the Park, as a public recreation ground, was intended to confer, to say nothing of being better housed, which they undoubtedly would be if they could avail themselves of the accommodation afforded by the 3,000

  711
  houses now lying empty on the Surrey side of the River. But was there no way in which the difficulty could be met? Was it impossible to recoup any part of the £97,500 standing to debit when the accounts were made up last year? The way was quite simple. The Returns, which had been moved for last year by the hon. Member for Westminster, showed that about sixty acres of land surrounding the park remained for sale in the parish of Battersea. That land was, probably, not so valuable now as it was a few years ago, before the comparatively wretched, outskirts came into existence; still, as the land which had been already sold had produced, on an average, £2,400 per acre, the remaining sixty acres would, if sold even at two-thirds of that price, realize nearly sufficient to wipe away the whole outstanding debt and interest. He hoped he had made out a case, showing that the abolition of the tolls would be of immense benefit to the inhabitants on both sides of the water, and especially to the poor people, who would avail themselves largely of the privilege of passing over the bridge as soon as the tolls now upon it were removed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would, he thought, by looking a bad debt boldly in the face, be only taking a common-sense view of the question, and he bogged, therefore, in conclusion to move his Resolution.
  Motion made, and Question proposed.
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the Government Bridge at Chelsea should henceforth be freed from toll."—(Mr. Peek.)
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the case of this bridge was exceedingly peculiar; it had been erected by Government, was maintained by Government, and a toll, was exacted by Government. Whatever inconvenience there might be in the creation of works of this kind by Government, there could be no doubt that this inconvenience was increased when, simply with a view to obtaining revenue, a toll was exacted for passing to and, fro between great thoroughfares, and the inconvenience became almost a great public anomaly when the Government itself maintained a park at a larger cost than the benefit derived from the toll, and practically imposed a charge on the entrance of people into the park. Would it be tolerated if a toll were charged for entrance into Hyde Park? He main-
  712
  tained there was very little difference between maintaining a toll for entrance into a park and for passing over a bridge into the park itself. But there was another ground upon which this toll ought to be remitted. In the district of Pimlico and Chelsea there was a great want of houses for working men, and it was impossible to build houses which working men could afford to occupy. But at Battersea there was land which at present was wholly unproductive, but might be very advantageously used in affording house accommodation. Upon these grounds he gave his cordial support to the Resolution of his hon. Friend.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, that in 1857 the question of the propriety of remitting the tolls on Chelsea Bridge was submitted to a Select Committee, of which he was a member, and the Committee reported that funds had been advanced by the Government for building the bridge on the faith that tolls would be charged. Under these circumstances, and finding that the money could not be otherwise recouped, the Committee expressed an opinion unfavourable to the remission of the tolls. This question of the bridge was not to be taken alone, but in connection with Battersea Park, upon which the Government had expended upwards of £400,000. At the time the park was made it was said that it would, not be a burden on the public, but that the value of the adjacent land would be so much enhanced as to repay the cost both of the bridge and the park. It might appear invidious for any individual Member of the House to oppose what might be of advantage to the people, but there was a larger question under which this one was comprehended, the question whether purely metropolitan improvements were to be paid for by other persons than the taxpayers of the metropolis, and upon that question, and upon that alone, this Motion had been opposed for years in that House, and successfully. He thoroughly agreed with all that had been said as to the impropriety of tolls being placed on bridges, but the present claim he viewed not in regard to the general question, but as to whether faith was to be kept with the country. He would, therefore, oppose the hon. Gentleman's Motion.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid, though this bridge had not in a financial point of

  713
  view been a success, he would remind the House that it stood in a very different position from other bridges upon which tolls were now exacted. These bridges belonged to private companies, and were generally subject to large mortgage debts, but the Chelsea Bridge was in the hands of the Government, who had power to throw it open or to keep it closed, as they thought proper. He was prepared to contend that there was a reasonable prospect of considerable advantage accruing to the Government from their throwing the bridge open to the public free of toll. He found, from the Return obtained less than twelve months ago by the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), that there were fifty-six acres of land which were totally unproductive on account of the exaction of the tolls deterring the people from living on the Battersea side of the river. Now, if that land were sold for about the same price as had been realized for sixty-five acres, the residue of the original purchase, it would actually pay off the whole debt and leave some money over and above. But that was not all. The land would be enormously increased in value by the fact that the bridge was thrown open. He had heard various estimates made on that point, none of which placed the increased value at less than from 20 to 25 per cent. By throwing open the bridge they were literally improving the property of the Government, and giving better security for the debt which still remained upon it. Turning from the financial to the social and moral aspect of the question, how did the case stand? There was a large and dense population on both sides of the river, and employer: on the one side and employed on the other had at present no access for four miles along the river frontage without paying toll. Westminster Bridge, which was two miles distant, was the nearest by which workmen living on the opposite side of the river could reach their daily place of labour without being subject to a daily impost, and hon. Gentle men could scarcely be aware how serious a question that was now becoming. It had been his lot for sixteen years to reside in a parish on the Middlesex side and from that parish, out of a population of 10,000, no fewer than 2,000 the poorer classes had been removed in consequence of improvements affected
  714
  within the last three years. Some provision in the shape of model lodging-houses had been made for these poor people by a noble Lord who had been recently removed from that House to "another place;" but more than half of them had been driven across the river because it was impossible for working men to find suitable house accommodation at this side. What was going on in his parish was also going on in surrounding parishes. He had had the honour that day of attending with a deputation on the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, and on that deputation there was a clergyman who had in his parish a still larger number than that he himself had named, who were in a similar position, living, however, still closer to Battersea Bridge, and there the demand for houses and house-rent was increasing daily. Numbers were crowded in houses, while numbers more were driven across the river into the parish of Battersea. Nor was this all. There was a population about Chelsea Bridge on the Middlesex side who were without any place of recreation, any place where they could take the air, without crossing the bridge. They were a mile and a half or two miles from the Royal Parks. Battersea Park was formed for the express purpose of their recreation and enjoyment, and they were simply cut off from it by the fact that a toll was still exacted for crossing the bridge. The Resolution of his hon. Colleague was one which should recommend itself to the good sense and good feeling of the House; it had, if he mistook not, been passed once before and he trusted the House now would follow so good an example.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, that his constituents very much grudged the immense outlay of public money upon London, and he believed the country generally shared that feeling. If the people of London wanted to have a bridge thrown open, let them pay for it. At Glasgow they had pontages on bridges, and some of those pontages had been removed, not out of the general taxation of the country, but at the cost of the locality. He should, if required, support, the hon. Baronet the Member for King's County (Sir Patrick O'Brien.)
  MR. CUBITTsaid, there was a considerable portion of Government land near the bridge, and if they abolished

  715
  the tolls they would materially improve the value of that land, and thereby recoup the public accounts. Moreover, by doing away with the tolls, they could give much increased comfort and enjoyment to the London poor. These considerations combined would induce him to support the Resolution. When the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) was First Commissioner of Works a similar Motion to the present was made, and it was met by throwing open the bridge on Christmas Day, Easter, and Whit-Monday, and on Sundays—a boon much appreciated by the working classes. As the Saturday half-holiday had now become very general throughout London establishments, he would suggest that the Government might at least go a step further, and throw the bridge open every Saturday afternoon at two o'clock.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he was not at all surprised that hon. Members representing Westminster and that division of Surrey, comprising the part of the metropolis in which that bridge was situated, should join in pressing that Resolution upon the House. That Resolution was, in fact, a political inheritance which they derived from their predecessors in those seats, who had always been desirous that the House should make to that portion of the metropolis a present of the tolls now levied by law on the bridge referred to in the Motion. He entirely sympathized with those hon. Gentlemen as to the advantage of free communication between both sides of the Thames, and especially of free access to a park so delightful as that at Battersea. But the question now to be considered was whether the national Exchequer was to make a gift to a particular portion of the metropolis, and whether it was to take over to itself the obligation solemnly undertaken on the faith of those tolls from the particular fund now charged with that obligation. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Peek) had not very clearly explained the nature of that transaction, but had rather confounded two or three things that ought to be kept perfectly distinct. About twenty years or more ago a general project was submitted to the House that land should be bought and laid out as a park, a bridge built across the Thames leading to that park, and approaches made on the north, side, including the embankment of a part of
  716
  the river near the bridge—a large undertaking, involving a great outlay. Parliament, regarding the project favourably, voted considerable sums from the national revenue to aid in carrying it out. It limited its assistance to a certain amount, and then enacted that the rest of the cost should be raised by loans, to be obtained by the Commissioners appointed to execute the Act from the authority intrusted with the duty of making loans for public works. Under that Act a sum of £80,000 was borrowed for the construction of the bridge and the approaches; and the tolls to be levied on the bridge would be mortgaged to the Public Works Loan Commissioners, as a security for the repayment of the £80,000, with 4 per cent interest. Under that arrangement, the sum of no less that £165,000 having been voluntarily contributed by the Votes of Parliament, the bridge and the approaches on that side were completed. No sooner, however, was the bridge opened for traffic than hon. Members, interested in the metropolis, commenced an agitation in that House; not, indeed, to abolish the tolls entirely—because that was looked upon then as rather an extravagant demand—but to remit the portion raised from foot passengers, under the notion that the tolls derived from horses and carriages would be sufficient. That proposal was supported by all the arguments urged that night in favour of the present Resolution; but the House referred it to a Select Committee, which, after inquiry, came to the conclusion that it was not expedient to remit the tolls pledged to repay the debt, and that it would be a violation of good faith to recommend that course. Moreover, the Committee reported that they did not concur in the reasoning put forward several times that evening, that the land connected with Battersea Park would be so greatly improved by the remission of the tolls that little or no loss would result from it to the public Exchequer, and, further, that they did not understand why the Government should be owners of the bridge over the Thames, and thought the trustees, represented by himself, ought to get rid of it as soon as practicable. That proposal dropped, but the agitation continued, and another Bill was introduced for the purpose of relieving the public from the tolls after a less sum had been repaid than was

  717
  stipulated for in the original Act. The House was strongly opposed to any such proceeding, and finally the Act was passed in the very modified form of making the bridge free for foot passengers on Sundays, it being thought that the whole of the tolls for the rest of the week, with those derived from horses and vehicles on Sundays, would be sufficient to meet the obligation that had been incurred. Another concession was made, because the reversion of the tolls, after paying the debt, was pledged to the Government as a fund to recoup the money advanced for public improvements in the metropolis; but the Act of 1858 relieved the tolls of that obligation, and declared that as soon as the debt of £80,000 and the interest were paid, the toll on foot passengers should cease. Still, the former Member for Westminster again agitated the question, but, enlightened by what had previously occurred, he no longer asked for a present of £80,000 of the public money for the inhabitants of Westminster and Battersea, but made the more rational proposal that the Metropolitan Board should be empowered to purchase that and the other bridges over the Thames on which tolls were levied, in order that by raising an additional tax on coal, it might be enabled to make free all the bridges within their area. That was a comprehensive scheme. It was referred to a Select Committee, which, however, did not find it easy to adopt; but, after sitting throughout the Session, reported that they had not been able to arrive at any conclusion. From that day to this the subject had been entirely dropped The deliberate and consistent opinion of the House, then, during the last ten years having been, that it was expedient that public faith should be maintained when money was advanced by the Public Works Loan Commissioners on the security of the fruits of an improvement, it would now be in the highest degree impolitic to sanction a proposal that the fund pledged as a security in this case should be altogether wiped out by a Resolution of that House, or even by an Act of Parliament. It was, therefore, his duty to ask the House to adhere to its previous decision; for nothing could be more injurious to the general cause of improvement than to hold out the expectation that after money had been obtained from the Exchequer on the se-
  718
  curity of the fruits of improvements any hon. Member might, by indirect means, get a loan converted into a gift. It would not be competent, by the rules of the House, for the hon. Member to ask for a direct grant of money for the benefit of his constituents. Yet that was realty what he was aiming at by an indirect process; and that, too, after the great amount of assistance already given to the inhabitants of that part of the metropolis by means of large Votes in Supply. He had no desire to continue master of Chelsea Bridge, Battersea Park, or the Embankment. He had not the least desire to interfere with them. They formed no legitimate part of his duty. Personally, he felt that he ought to get rid of this bridge as soon as possible; but how was he to do it? They had established a local Board in the metropolis, with power to tax the inhabitants, for the purpose of supplying all their wants, requirements, and enjoyments, so far as they could be supplied by law; and the Metropolitan Board, therefore, was the proper representative of the ratepayers for the purpose of embarking in questions of this character. They were invested by law with the power of providing bridges, parks, and places of recreation; and if it were desired that there should be free communication between the Wandsworth and Westminster districts, the duty fell on them to provide the means. When they were prepared to make any proposal to the Government by which they might take over this bridge the Government would be prepared to meet them.
  MR. PEEKsaid, he had shown that the revenue of the bridge was declining. It brought in no more than £1,600 per annum, while there was £97,500 to be paid off. The bridge, therefore, never could be free; and he only asked the Government to give up what really came to very little after all. He must press the question to a division, as there were a great many on both sides of the river who felt very strongly upon the subject.
  Question put,
  The House divided:—Ayes 21; Noes 162: Majority 141.

  MARRIED WOMES'S ACKNOWLEDGMENTS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. DODDS, Bill to facilitate the execution and acknowledgment of deeds by Married Women, ordered to be brought in by Mr. DODDS and Mr. GOLDNEY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 43.]

  CORONERS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. GOLDNEY, Bill to amend the Law relating to the Election and Office of Coroners, ordered to be brought in by Mr. GOLDNEY, Mr. WALTER, Mr. THOMAS CHAMBERS and Mr. PEASE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 42.]

  ADULTERATION OF FOOD OR DRINK ACT (1860) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. MUNTZ, Bill to amend "The Adulteration of Food or Drink Act (1860)," and to extend its provisions to Drugs, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MUNTZ, Mr. GOLDNEY, and Mr. DIXON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 44.]

  PUBLIC PROSECUTORS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. EYKYN, Bill to provide for the appointment of Public Prosecutors, and for the more effectual prosecution of indictable offences, ordered to be brought in by Mr. EYKYN, Mr. VERNON HARCOURT, Mr. RATHBONE, and Viscount SANDON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 43.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after Seven o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—Second Reading—Sunday Trading (5).

PRIVATE BILLS.
Ordered, That this House will not receive any petition for a Private Bill after Monday the 21 st of March next, unless such Private Bill shall have been approved by the Court of Chancery; nor any petition for a Private Bill approved by the Court of Chancery after Monday the 9th of May next:
Ordered, That this House will not receive any report from the judges upon petitions presented to this House for Private Bills after Monday the 9th of May next:
Ordered, That the said Orders be printed and published, and affixed on the doors of this House and Westminster Hall. (No. 12.)

SUNDAY TRADING BILL—(No. 5.)
(The Lord Chelmsford.)
SUNDAY TRADING BILL—(No. 5.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD CHELMSFORD, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, he desired, as briefly as possible, to recall to their Lordships' recollection the circumstances in connection with Sunday trading, which called imperatively for legis-

  671
  lative interference. The law on the subject, as their Lordships were aware, was contained in a statute of Charles II., entitled "An Act for the Better Observance of the Lord's Day, commonly called Sunday." This statute was divided into two parts; one of which he might call commanding, and the other prohibitory. The former, which related to the manner in which Sunday was to be observed by all persons, was in these terms—
  "That all and every person or persons whatsoever shall, on every Lord's Day, apply themselves to the Observation of the same by exercising themselves thereon in the duties of piety and true religion, publicly and privately."
  The prohibitory part was as follows:—
  "That no person should exercise any worldly labour, business, or work of his ordinary calling on the Lord's Day, under the penalty of 5s. and forfeiture of all goods shown forth or exposed to sale on that day."
  There were certain exceptions in the Act, but they were very few, being confined to the dressing of meat in families, the dressing or selling meat in inns, cookshops, or victualling-houses, "for such as otherwise cannot be provided," and the crying or selling milk before 9 a.m. and after 4 p.m. Dismissing the first part of the Act of Charles with the remark that it was an attempt—to use a hackneyed expression—to make men religious by Act of Parliament, and therefore had, probably, produced very little effect; it was notorious that the second part, whatever its original efficacy might have been, had in modern times been flagrantly and openly violated, and that its enforcement had proved impracticable. He apprehended that the reason for this was, first of all, the construction which had been put upon the Act, by which it was held, that no person can be convicted for having kept open shop on Sunday, unless it is distinctly proved that he has sold something—which, as their Lordships might imagine, was frequently impracticable; and as to the forfeiture of the goods, that can only take place upon conviction before a magistrate, and no summons can be taken out till the following day, when the goods have either disappeared or been consumed. Moreover, the single penalty of 5s. for a whole day's transactions, whatever it might have been originally, was so insignificant, considering the present value of money, and in comparison with the profits derived from Sunday trading, that persons, he was told, had,
  672
  on being challenged, jeeringly offered to pay it to the policeman at once, or even in advance. Under these circumstances, it was not to be wondered at that Sunday trading was carried on in the metropolis to an extent hardly conceivable by those who had not turned their attention to the subject. He was informed, as the result of careful examination, that not less than 10,000 shops were open every Sunday in the metropolis and its suburbs, the traffic not being confined to things perishable, but including miscellaneous articles, which might be as easily and conveniently bought on a week-day. Tradesmen, indeed, in what he might call the infected districts drove a brisker trade on the Sunday than on any other day; and purchasers, on the other hand, liked to go to market on that day, because, in addition to buying what they wanted, they could go to the various exhibitions that were open. Sunday after Sunday, thousands on thousands of persons went to these places, where they enjoyed at once the convenience of a market, and the pleasures of a fair; and thus these places were scenes of tumult and confusion, which caused serious annoyance to those who were desirous of spending the day in a more becoming manner. There appeared in The Times, during the year 1868, a graphic description of the state of things prevailing in the neighbourhood of Shoreditch, which he had reason to believe was still applicable both to that and other parts of the metropolis. After referring to the way in which Divine Service was interrupted, and to a letter addressed by the Bishop of London to the Superintendent of Police, urging the suppression of the evil, the writer said—
  "Since that time the police have been much more energetic than before in preventing the congregation of persons in the immediate vicinity of the churches to which we have alluded, but in the present state of the law the authorities, though able perhaps to modify, are powerless in their efforts to destroy what the most indulgent observer must confess to be a flagrant violation of Christian feeling and social decency. … The operations of the lair extend over five streets—Club Row, Bacon Street, Brick Lane, Sclater Street, and Hare Street. Hare Street is an extension of Sclater Street, and the four other thoroughfares form an irregular quadrilateral. … Every Sunday Rotherhithe and Bermondsey send up their contingents; the commercial interests of the Borough, Chelsea, and Wandsworth are carefully regarded; and even such remote places as Norwood and Croydon are not entirely unrepresented. For the most part these men have no definite

  673
  occupation. The predilections of the bird-fanciers however, cannot be mistaken, for their short thick necks, their closely-cropped hair, and their supercilious contempt for a display of collar or shirtfront display an hereditary admiration for the gladiators of the ring."
  After describing some of the features of the fair, the writer proceeded thus—
  "A moment, and one hears words of ejaculation or disappointment, as the result of a pigeon match which has just been decided is known, but the expressions are intensified by the most terrible blasphemy. Of particular incidents of obscenity, which cannot fail to meet the eye on a visit to the fair, we cannot, for obvious reasons, speak. …. The Rev. Isaac Taylor and other clergy are exerting themselves energetically to diminish the evils of which this Sunday market is the cause; but in the present state of the law, while they may be successful in preventing an increase of the scandal, an attempt to suppress the fair altogether would be absolutely hopeless."
  This was no new evil. For nearly forty years the attention of Parliament had Loon directed to it, and Committees of both Houses had recommended legislation. In 1847, though the evil had not then attained such enormous dimensions, a Committee of the House of Commons made this Report—
  "Your Committee have examined many witnesses, of a great variety of opinions, who nearly all agree that Sunday trading is carried on to a great extent in the metropolis, and that in many parts it has been on the increase for several years past. Evidence has also been given which goes to prove that it is not confined to articles of a perishable nature, or of necessity, but extends to many things that may be purchased on any other day of the week; as boots and shoes, hats, clothes, drapery, toys, furniture, crockery, ironmongery, and grocery, &c. … Your Committee have no hesitation in expressing their conviction of the injurious effects of Sunday trading. They have reason to believe that more than 5,000 tradesmen in the metropolis, with probably three times that number of journeymen and boys, are almost entirely deprived of the benefits derivable from one day of rest out of the seven days of the week. … Though your Committee do not consider that the penalties of the law can be properly applied to the strict and complete observance of the Sunday, yet they feel called upon to recommend the introduction of a measure for effectually prohibiting public marketing and the open exposure and sale of goods on Sundays; the penalties to be enacted not being applicable to the sale of necessary articles of food for a certain period of the day, previous to the customary hours for the celebration of Divine worship. Your Committee are encouraged to believe that a Bill founded upon the above principles would be beneficial to all the parties interested, and most useful to the community at large. The wish of your Committee is to liberate (not to fetter), and to give the different classes engaged in Sunday trading a day of rest, without interfering with the necessary comforts of the other classes of society."
  Several Bills had been introduced from
  674
  time to time both in this House and in the House of Commons dealing with the subject. In 1850 his noble Friend the Earl of Harrowby introduced a Bill in this House which was referred to a Committee which reported in its favour, with some alterations. Bills were introduced also in 1832, 1845, 1855, 1860, and during the last four successive years, from 1866 to 1869, all based on the recommendations of the Committee of 1847. All of these were intended, not as some people supposed, to force people to be religious, but to give them the opportunity of employing the Sunday in a becoming manner. These Bills had invariably been thwarted by the combination of two opposite classes. One class objected to legislative interference altogether, thinking that every man should e allowed to do what was right in his own eyes; while the other, composed of very conscientious men, were unwilling to admit of any exceptions being made in the Bill, as amounting to a legislative sanction for the desecration of the Lord's Day. Now, to the first class he would say—"Your objection comes rather too late, because for 200 years there has been an Act directed to this object. It is impossible, therefore, to say, that the question of the propriety of legislative interference has not been determined. Your real objection to the measure is that being breakers of the law, you do not like a proposal to make that law more efficient." With regard to the other class, he was bound to respect their opinions, but he must say that they entered into a strange combination with men of opposite sentiments to their own for the purpose of defeating Bills of this description. He would say to them—"Your objection has been anticipated, because in the Act of Charles II. there are exceptions, and therefore you must object that the exceptions contained in the Act of Charles II. are quite sufficient, and render the introduction of any others unnecessary." He would address himself seriously and earnestly to this class, and ask whether they did not witness with deep concern the scenes which took place every Sunday at the different fairs and markets where Sunday trading was carried on, and he would ask them whether, after the experience of several years, they could hope to carry a Bill through both Houses unless such exceptions as were found in this Bill were introduced in it? He would call

  675
  their attention to the remarks of the Edinburgh Witness, the organ of one of the most Sabbath-observing bodies in Scotland, with reference to the Bill of Lord Robert Grosvenor, now Lord Ebury, but equally applicable to all Bills of this kind—
  "Its provisions are not too strict upon Sunday dealers. … It may seem that these are no great reforms to be accomplished, and neither are they; but the authors of the Bill are in the right to proceed cautiously. It is an axiom that can never be safely overlooked, that laws ought never to outstrip the manners of the people, if they are to be operative at all; and in no case is this more true than in the laws which are to interfere with the private and domestic habits of the people. There are large districts in this semi-heathen metropolis where the markets are in full swing just as a few stragglers in the neighbourhood are on their way to church, the wives of the workmen never thinking, apparently, of corning out to market till between ten and eleven on the Sunday forenoon. Suddenly to close all these shops together would cause a revulsion which the enemies of Sunday observance would know well how to take advantage of, and would throw the cause back further than ever."
  These were words of prudence and wisdom; and he (Lord Chelmsford) would ask these conscientious persons whether some responsibility may not attach to them if by opposing such Bills—merely because though advancing in the right direction they did not go as far as they; desired—they prevented a mitigation of the evil. He disclaimed any intention of forcing men to be religious; but there were thousands of tradesmen who, with their wives and children, apprentices and servants, were now debarred the blessed privilege of a day of rest. He had heard it said, indeed, that they had only to agree together that they would close their shops, and the thing would be done without an Act of Parliament. But the experiment of making arrangements in different districts had been repeatedly tried and failed, through the refusal of some persons to enter into the agreement, and thereby reaping the benefit of a monopoly. It had also been said that if persons wished to attend church and duly observe the day, they had only to close their own shops. But though, strictly speaking, men ought to sacrifice their worldly to their spiritual interests, the infirmity of human nature must be considered. Many of them were carrying on a humble business, which barely sufficed for the support of their families. If any portion of their trade was diverted from them distress would come upon them, and to expect them to throw into the hands of their rivals an
  676
  entire day's business would be putting a yoke on their necks which they were unable to bear. Thousands of these tradesmen had petitioned Parliament ever and over again to interfere for their protection; and the apprentices and servants, who were compelled to work because their masters did so, were still more entitled to protection. He might, however, be asked, what better prospect there was than in former years of carrying a measure of this land. Now, recent circumstances had led him to feel a sanguine expectation of success. When in 1866 he introduced such a measure into this House, an Amendment was moved to read it a second time that day six months; but the second reading of the measure was agreed to without a division. In Committee, the several clauses had been carried, some upon divisions; but on the Report, the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees, without having given him the slightest warning, proposed, as the sole provision, that Sunday trading should be prohibited between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. That Amendment was earned by a majority of 14; whereupon, this being contrary to the principle of the measure, he (Lord Chelmsford) declined to persevere with the Bill. The noble Lord the Chairman of Committees thereon, said he would carry it through himself, and proposed the third reading. That kind and good man the late Lord Taunton divided the House, and there being a majority of one for the third reading, he divided again on the Motion that it should pass—the result being that the Bill was thrown out by a considerable majority. At that time, thinking he had had rather hard measure, he (Lord Chelmsford) was not disposed to raise the question again. In 1867, however, Mr. Thomas Hughes, then Member for Lambeth, at the request of many of his constituents, introduced a similar Bill in the House of Commons. It was read a second time without a division, the Home Secretary, Mr. Walpole, stating that it deserved attention, and would effect a considerable improvement. It was committed, but had not got through Committee on the 24th of July, and was not proceeded with. In 1868 Mr. Hughes re-introduced it, and the then Home Secretary, Mr. Hardy, expressed an opinion that it ought to go into Committee, and there was a majority of 68 to 31 for the second reading; but the pressure of

  677
  other business again prevented its proceeding further, and it was withdrawn. Nothing daunted, but rather encouraged, Mr. Hughes revived it last Session, when the second reading was unopposed; and in Committee the present Home Secretary said—
  "It was impossible to deny that there was good reason for dissatisfaction with the laws which had been made to enforce the observance of the Sabbath, the Acts already passed for that purpose being notoriously violated. As regards the present measure, which, to a great extent, was one of detail, he had thought that the best course was to allow its passage through Committee, and to decide, on its coming out of Committee, whether the Government should give it further support at the next stages."—[3 Hansard, cxcv. 801.]
  He thought that, after the approval of its principle thus repeatedly expressed by the other House, and by successive Home Secretaries, he was warranted in anticipating a successful result this Session; but he had hitherto refused to introduce it in their Lordships' House, and had only consented to do so now on the assurance that if their Lordships should send it down to the other House before Easter its chance of passing would be greatly increased. He trusted that this anticipation would be realized, and that the earnest prayer of tens of thousands of tradesmen would be at last heard—for it was almost a reproach to Parliament that it should be still considering a measure recommended by a Committee of the House of Commons nearly forty, and by one of this House twenty years ago, although during that interval the evil had considerably increased. Unless a remedy is applied, Sunday trading is allowed to go on increasing without cheek, and the result will probably be that predicted by Earl Russell in 1866—
  "There is some reason to fear that this will go on until the question of buying and selling on Sunday is looked upon as a matter beyond legislative interposition, and it will be supposed that the law allows both buying and selling on Sunday just as on any other day."—[3 Hansard, clxxxiii. 1012.]
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Chelmsford.)
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONwished, in the absence of the Archbishop of Canterbury, to thank the noble and learned Lord for having introduced this Bill. It appeared to be a moderate and well-considered measure, directed against a very serious evil. The demoralizing influence of Sunday trading could be
  678
  doubted by none who had observed it, as anyone might easily do by going into the Now Cut, or even into some of the back streets of Westminster, or the eastern part of St. James's. This was, to a great extent, a traders' Bill, for the Sunday traders themselves as a body were most desirous of relief from what they felt to be a burden. Some, no doubt, from conscientious scruples, but most from a desire to have one day's rest in the week, were anxious for the assistance of Parliament in what they, rightly or wrongly, thought themselves unable to do unassisted. There were those who did not feel that duty was in the end its own reward, and others desired the protection of Parliament against less scrupulous rivals. He could give an instance where, as the noble and learned Lord had pointed out, the neighbourhood had agreed among themselves to abstain from Sunday trading. All went on well for several weeks, and they were congratulating themselves on their freedom; when one, more needy or unscrupulous, re-opened his shop; another and another followed, until at last everything went back to its former state. But it was a mistake to suppose that it was only the sellers to whom Sunday trading was an evil. Buyers, it should be borne in mind, were almost equally injured, for the facility of Sunday trading enabled and encouraged the working man to return home late on Saturday night, with his wages in most cases diminished by the places he had been visiting. Sunday trading made the Sunday home uncomfortable, for it induced the wife to go out shopping on a Sunday morning, leaving the room untidy, so that when the husband came down, after, perhaps, a lengthened slumber, he found his home so uncared for that he went to seek comfort elsewhere. It also put attendance at Divine Service out of the question; and often prevented the children from being sent to school. Working men were fully aware of those evils; and last year he was one of a large deputation that waited on Mr. Gladstone respecting the Sunday opening of places of amusement, when many working men spoke strongly on the moral and physical necessity to the well-being of their class of a day of rest. The present Bill fairly met every objection to which a measure of this kind was liable. It would prevent Sunday trading, which the present law did not, while it would exempt

  679
  everything which the most indulgent construction could regard as a necessity, and it would inflict no hardship on the buyer, for the markets were open late on Saturday nights. At these most of the articles the poor required could be procured; and though there were some, doubtless, which in their crowded and ill-ventilated dwellings could not well be; kept, there would be ample time to purchase these in the hours allowed by the Bill on Sunday morning. There was, of course, the objection which one could not but respect—that by confining the penalty to certain cases the Bill appeared to legalize those excepted: but, strictly speaking, this was not the fact. It did not repeal the Act of Charles II., it left the law with regard to articles not exempted as before; but it did not endeavour to inflict penalties which experience had shown could never be exacted. It was surely worse practically to sanction wholesale Sunday trading by the mere maintenance of a law which could never be enforced than by moderate restrictions to mitigate evils which could not be entirely suppressed. Nobody pretended that men could be made religion, temperate, or chaste by Acts of Parliament; but legislation could diminish temptation by restricting the opportunity; and this was the principle of our licensing system, as well as of the recent proceedings against betting-houses. The Bill, though it would not put an end to Sunday trading, would considerably diminish it, it would help those who desired to help themselves, it would lesson temptation, and encourage the formation of habits which growing slowly, like all habits, might bring about a much better observance of the Lord's Day and be of incalculable good to the religion, morals, and health of the people.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he acknowledged the extent to which Sunday trading at present prevailed, but he was not sanguine enough to think that this Bill would effectually stop it; its principle had, however, been several times before Parliament, both in this and in the other House, and it had commanded a certain amount of support. The present state of the law was certainly far from satisfactory, for magistrates scarcely knew how to act, whether to enforce the existing law or to consider it in abeyance; and the noble and learned Lord (Lord Chelmsford) had shown that the sellers, at any rate, ought to be protected. There
  680
  were, however, one or two points in the Bill to which he desired to call the noble and learned Lord's attention. As he understood it, it did not repeal the statute of Charles II., which therefore would still apply to the metropolis and other large towns included in the Bill.
  LORD CHELMSFORDexplained that the measure would apply to the metropolis and towns with 10,000 inhabitants, and that elsewhere the old statute would remain in force.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYthought that in that case the old statute should be repealed as regarded those places.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, that the Bill introduced last Session contained a proviso that nothing therein contained should interfere with the Act of Charles II., except as far as the two measures were inconsistent. This, however, was un-necessary, for, if the affirmative part of an Act was inconsistent with a prior one, it was thereby virtually repealed.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYstill thought it would be advisable in Committee to make the point clear. In order to facilitate the operation of the measure, it was desirable to make the hours fixed for closing as uniform as possible; but he observed that the sale of some excepted articles was to cease at 9 and others at 10 o'clock.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, this was an oversight. It should be 10 in both cases.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYwished also to point out that in case of a second conviction, the penalty of not less than 20 s. and not more than 40 s. for each transaction would be rather severe; for a person who, during a single quarter of an hour after the prescribed time, had sold twenty oranges or twenty boxes of lucifers, would thus be fined not less than £20, and there was no alternative in default of payment; and he did not think penalties of so severe a character calculated to ensure conviction, but rather would defeat the object of the Bill. The object of the Bill all their Lordships must approve, for it was to secure to the lower classes a weekly day of rest; and while thinking that Amendments might be made in Committee, he, on the part of the Government, should offer no objection to the second reading.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, that remembering the noble and learned Lord's (Lord Chelmsford's) declaration in 1866 that he would have nothing to do

  681
  with Sunday Bills again, he was surprised at his taking up the question once more; but presumed that, after the recent complaint that the House had nothing to talk about, he had thought it a good opportune for again presenting his little Bill. For his own part, however, considering the press of other measures, he saw no chance of its passing through both Houses this Session, and, if so, it was unwise to revive it. He should be inclined to support an Amendment like that moved by the noble Lord (the Chairman of Committees) on a former occasion, for that was a clear and distinct course; whereas, the Bill, as it stood, was unsatisfactory. While forbidding the sale of vegetables, fish, and poultry after 9 a.m., it permitted the sale of fruit in the afternoon. Now, in the districts affected all these things were often sold in a single shop—so that it would be open in the morning for some articles and in the afternoon for others. This evidently would not work. The delay in carrying out the recommendations of the Committees might be attributed to Parliament having thought better of the subject. And so far from the evil having increased during the last thirty years, he was convinced, having regard to the whole country, that the Sunday was now much better observed than at the earlier period. Remembering that the introduction of measures on this subject had some years since led to not and disturbance, Parliament no doubt felt that it would be wiser not to proceed with this kind of legislation. He believed that this measure would give rise to great discontent; but though he deemed it unwise, he was not prepared to oppose the second reading, but would trust to its being amended in Committee, unless, indeed, the noble and learned Lord who had introduced the measure would consent to its reference to a Select Committee.
  THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOLtrusted that the noble and learned Lord who had charge of this Bill would not consent to any proposal to refer it to a Select Committee. There was no doubt that the objections which might be urged against the Bill were very strong. This was sufficiently shown by the fact that there had been already so many failures in attempts at this kind of legislation within the last few years. These objections were of a character that could not and ought not to
  682
  be passed over in silence by any candid speaker. He would shortly notice them. The chief objection to a measure of this nature was that it was a Bill of class legislation; and those who belonged to clubs, of which they could make full use on Sundays as well as other days, unrestrained by anything except the rules of the establishment, could not but acknowledge that there was much that was true in this charge. They could not, also, lose sight of the fact that a Bill of this kind, if it passed, must greatly interfere with the means of livelihood of a great many of the poorer classes. Again, another objection was that they were trying to do by legislative enactment that which they should endeavour to secure by moral influences. Having thus stated the objections which might be urged against a Bill of this character, he still could not help feeling that, great as they were, the arguments in its favour preponderated. It had been shown that Sunday trading was seriously on the increase; and that being the case, when no reasons founded on increased necessity could be specified, it became their duty to consider whether there was not now a positive danger of a gradual desecration of the Lord's Day, whether this ought to be left unchecked in a Christian country, and whether, moral influences having failed, it was not now the right time to turn their attention to legislative and repressive measures. The noble and learned Lord who introduced the Bill (Lord Chelmsford) had called attention to the scenes of license and iniquity to which this system of Sunday trading gave rise, and it was for them to consider whether it was not their duty to endeavour by some such measure as this to suppress a traffic which led to evils so grave and serious, even in the face of the arguments, strong as they were, which might be urged against the Bill. Again, he felt that they were bound to protect the honest God-fearing tradesman, and to some extent to assist him in his struggle to do his duty, and to resist the temptations to which he was exposed: because the retail tradesman in the poorer districts, though frequently anxious to close his shop on the Sunday, was often prevented from doing so, not only by the disinclination to losing the small gains he might otherwise make by the additional day's trading, but by the real and positive fear of offending, and so of losing his week-day customers.

  683
  The evils, then, were therefore, so great that he felt himself bound to give his support to the noble and learned Lord in his desire to pass a measure for which he believed the time was no more propitious than before, and for which the extension of the Saturday half-holiday had done much to pave the way.
  THE EARL OF WINCHILSEAthought that restriction should be placed upon the buyer as well as the seller.
  LORD CHELHSFORDreplied, that if an obstacle were put in the way of the seller the would-be buyer could not possibly make any purchases.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was as anxious as any of their Lordships could be that the means should be afforded the working-classes of having at least one day in the week to themselves. How they should spend that day it was, of course, beyond the power of Parliament to determine; but he thought it desirable that they should have the opportunity of self-cultivation,—of cultivating their hearts if not their heads,—some portion of their time to devote to their families and their homes. All this was plainly desirable; but, further, any means that could be devised for securing to the working-man his one day of rest, would secure him from the fate into which he feared he must fall—that the system of continuous labour would end in his having to work seven days for the wages which would otherwise be paid for six. He believed moral suasion and education would give the people a taste for home pursuits and rational recreations, and, it was to be hoped also, for something higher and something better; but he felt considerable misgivings as to whether any legislation would. He certainly should not oppose the second reading of a Bill introduced with so excellent an object; but when they approached the consideration of the clauses, he greatly feared it would be found extremely difficult to give effect to the objects aimed at; for if, by any apparent severity of its provisions, the measure were rendered odious to those whom it was intended to benefit, or if, by those who wished to mislead the people, unfounded contrasts were drawn between the mode in which rich and poor were dealt with—although he believed that no one was benefited so much as the poor man by securing to him a day of rest—yet, knowing that such arguments could be used, and, no doubt, would be
  684
  used, he greatly feared that, as the result of such a measure, some of those means which now existed of prevailing upon the bulk of the people by moral influence to enjoy the day of Sunday rest would be lessened or withdrawn. No doubt there were still. and would, districts, continue to be, large districts in which, whatever might be done in the way of the larger education of the people—and this year he hoped that something would be done in that direction—large numbers would refuse to be brought within the sphere of its influence; but he very much doubted whether their own happiness or good would be promoted in the end by any compulsory effort of legislation. Nevertheless, he should approach the measure of the noble and learned Lord with the most earnest desire to discover if anything were practicable in the direction in which he desired to lead them. As regarded the Act of Charles II., discussions which had been held in their Lordships' House within the last two or three days as to the exact effect of repealing an Act of Parliament by implication showed that, if they intended to deal with that Act at all, it ought to to be by plain words and by direct enactment.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
  House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.