The Sun.
London, England, 1837-06-08 00:00:00

LORD'S DAY OBSERVANCE BILL.

Sir A. AGNEW, after presenting a bundle of petitions
in its favour, moved the second reading of this all.
Mr. PLUMPTRE seconded the motion, and said that
a large and influential body of his Majesty's subjects were
anxiously desirous of seeing some measure of protection af-
forded to the devout portion of the community in the exercise
of their devotions. He was not an advocate for mixing
up the great truths of religion with what might ap-
pear comparatively trivial matters, but he was very strongly
impressed with the opinion that a nation blessed as this
nation was at the hand of Providence was bound to do all
that lay in its power to promote the facilities for hallowing
the Lord's Day among all clas3es of the community. The
Hon. and Learned Member for Bath the other night read
an extract from the Holy Scriptures against the principles
of Vie present measure, but he begged now to draw the
Hon, and Lea Toed Member's attention to another from
Soripture, namely from the prophet Jeremiah :
Hear ye the word of the Lord, ye Kings of JAdali, and
all Judah, and all the ik4ltabitants of Jerusalem that enter
in by the zttoat
tt Thus saith the Lord, take heed to yourselves, and bear
no burden on the Sabbath day, nor bring it in by the gates
of Jerusalem'

it Netther carry forth a burden out of your houses on the
Sabbath-day, neither do ye any work ; but hallo.v e the
abb.ith,dAy, as I commanded your fathers.
" iAltt they obeyed not, neither inclined their ear ; but
trade their neck stiff that they might not hear nor receive
4,itrai3tions.

" And it shall come to pass, if ye diligently hearken unto
me, saith the Lord, to bring in no burdon through the gates
of this city on the Sabhath..day, but hallow the Sabbath-
toclo no work therein.

if Then shall there enter into the gates of this city kings
and princes sitting upon the throne of David, riding in
chariots and on horses, they and their princes, the men of
Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem ; and this city
shall remain for ever.

" And they shall come from the cities of Judah, and from

the places about Jerusalem, and from the land of Benjamin,
and from the plain, and from the mountains, and from the
seuth, hringing burnt-offerings, and sacrifices, and meat-
offerings, and incense, and bringing sacrifices of praise unto
the house of the Lord.

" But if ye Will not hearken unto me to hallow the Sab-
bath-day, and not to bear a burden, even entering in at the
gates of Jerusalem on the Sahhath-day, then will I kindle
afro in the otos thereof, and it shall devour the palaces
of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched."

Those persons, therefore, who said these initsoctione were
not obligatory for the observance of the Sabbath, might
as well say that the second table of the Ten Command-
mente was not obligatory on Christians. The one part
was true, and so was the other. Our Saviour himself said
that Ise came not to destroy, but to fulfil ; and 1,13 did not
see how those professing themeelyee Christians could do
away with either. Tha Viers. Member for Bath had on a
former finPleiou referred to the opinions of Bishops Cran-
mer and Whately regarding the observance of the Sabbath,
but in his judgment these authorities could not supersede
authorities Ntiil grogtpr, It was under the full conviction
that by the 014ervance or non-observance of these com-
mands; they must stand or fall at the judgment-seat of
Christ, that he considered it his duty to support the mea-
sure introduced by his Hon. Friend,
Mr. li,f)ENglito-1 b 4 the House would permit him
to ::owipncoent the lion. Baronet on the approximation to
something like fairness. In the Bill as it originally stood,
the Bill applied to the poor but not to the rich ; but the
case was now somewhat altered. He must, therefore,
oomplisment the Hon, Member for having included in the
provisions of the Bill the rich ; for if the Bill passed no man
could travel en the Lord's-day ;no man could use any cat-
tle to travel further than the church door. So far they
were about to conform to something like fairness. The
Hen, tiounat see-seed startled at the proposition.—(" Not-
et all" from Sir A. Agnew). Well, the Hon. Baronet
showed it was his intention to keep within doors all persons
except those who were exceedingly stout and able to walk,
for no man could use a carriage or a horse on the Sabbath-
day. As another proof of his approximation to faintest, all
the clubs in London were to be Out up I and though he
ways told that at tee clubs were to be seen Reverend and
Right Reverend Gentlemen, yet the Hon. Baronet knew
far better than they did what was their duty, and was deter-
mined to exclude Right Rev. Lords, and not allow them to
froquant sach profane places, But he had been requested by
certain of his constituents (and among the. names was that
of the Bishop of the diocese) to support that Bill ;
and he would, therefore, ask why. was not the Bill
introduced in the other house ? Could not the Bishops
legislate on the Sabbath ? Why did not they bring in the
Bill and act like shepherds of the fleck ? I will tell you
why (continued the Hon. Member.) They wish to throw
the odium of rejecting the measure on certain parties in
this House.—( Hear, hear.) I have alsceobserved that cer-
tain Hon. Members voted on the first reading, and now
steal away at the second reading. They wish it to be un-
derstcod that they encouraged the Hon. Baronet to bring
in the Bill. They encouraged bins to bring in the B:11 on
the pretence of holiness, and they wish it to go forth to the
public that they supported him. I have observed, also,
that various parties have abstained from voting on these
occasions, with a view that it may go forth to the public
that the only parties who are not favourable to the
measure are those on this side of the House.—(Hear,
lie.ar, hear.) I understand the cheer ; the cheer itself
confirms the • pretension of claim to superior holiness.
But what do these Honourable Members themselves on
Sunday ? Not one of them pretends to adhere to such
a law as that fur which they voted, or against which
they would not vote, and such a law I confess I never yet
heard of. I never yet saw any production of the human
mind embody so much absurdity, if we except the conduct of
the monk of Africa, Simon Stylites, who sat for ten years
on the top of a pillar to please God Almighty, and I only
pray that the name of the Hon. Baronet and of Simon
Stylites may be enrolled on the same scroll and pass to
posterity together.—(Cheers and laughter.) But why
does the mover of the Bill do things only by halves ? why
does he not propose to go to the full extent ? The law
of Moses says—Obey the Sabbath, or die. If the Sabbath
is to be observed according to the law of Moses, why not
attach the capital penalty for disobedience ? But I deny
that that command applies to the Lord's Day, and neither
the Hon. Baronet nor any others person can bring any
proof to that effect. I am prepared to show that the
Sabbath is not the Lord's Day, and that there is no divine
authority for observing the Lord's Day in the way which
the Hon. Baronet proposes it should be observed. It all
rests on mere tradition. Let the Hon. Member com-
mence with St. Matthew, and go through the whole Testa-
ment, quoting whatever may have been said by Christ or
his Apostles, and I defy him to point out one passage or
injunction which orders that day to be kept —(1-leer, hear.)
Let him not go to the Decalogue—let him not quote from
Jeremiah—let him not go to the Old hut the New Testament
—let him sho.v me one commaed of Christ to keep the first
day of the week holy, and then I am ready to admit that he
has grounds for legislating. If he cannot produce any such
authority, then he must confine himself to the Jewish
law ; and if lie confines himself to that, why does he not
carry it out religiously, and to the full extent ?—(Hear,
hear.) Why does he not propose to enact that I and
every person who breaks the Sabbath shall suffer death—
(Cheers)—instead of merely confining; himself to the paltry
penalty of three pounds sterling ? Why does he not pro-
pose to put me to death at once and for ever ? Why does
not the Hon. Member bring in a Bill to that effect? Let
him deal frirly with us, and not partially.—(Cheers.) I
have heard of the Scriptures being mutilated ; I have heard
of charges _brought against parties for garbling the Divine
Word ; and the Hon. Baronet makes himself more than
perhaps any other individual liable to the charge. The
lion. Member who seconded the motion quoted the Deca-
logue and Jeremiah. These he knows were addressed to
Jews ; but I am not a Jew, nor do I wish to be a Jew in
any thing.—(Loud laughter.) I don't wish to have
forced on me their peculiar laws. The Decalogue was
given to a particular people, and that part of it was
addressed to them for the purpose of making them a
peculiar people, Moses put these laws in one book, and
said, this shall be the Jewish law. But if the Honour-
able Baronet denies this—if he denies that these laws
were made for a peculiar people, why does he not go a
great deal further ? Why does he not include all those
laws peculiar to the Jews ? One of these commandments
says, ",Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image,"
not only that you shall not fall down and worship it, but
that thou shalt not make any graven image. I wish to
know whether the Hon. Baronet will include the second
commandment.—( Hear, hear.) Surrounding nations made
laws forbidding murder and robbery, and enjoined their
observance on the inhabitants ; but though it is evident
several of the laws of Moses were made for a peculiar
people, yet the Hon. Member says he will follow the De-
calogue. Does he know that by the law of Muses adul-
tery was punished with death ? If that law were to be
observed—and why should it not as well as the other?--
a great number of Noble Lords would come within its
operation, and a great number of other persons too, as sug-
gested by the Hon. Member for Finsbury. The Hon. Mem-
ber for Kent spoke of the day of judgment. Why does he
speak of the day of judgment ? What does he know of the
day of judgment?—( Hear.) How can the limited faculties
of a man or the narrow conception of the human mind know
anything of that day ? How can iris petty crawling spirit
know what will happen then ?—(Cheers.) But the feelings
excited by such pretensions become too strong ; words can-
not be found to give utterance to them ; and the only feel-
ing I will express is that of astonishment when persons dare
to talk of that great day._ The Hon. Member will probably
not take advice from me, but I give it with all humbleness,
not with affected, but substantial humility ; and I say, let

‘ ;1

and others r taketim e goodi
n
into tine conduct o t
of °;r
him a
not spendHe would vote a stigma on all those ale) oppose 'l votes
measure, but I have voted against it already, and I of
against it again, or against any measure the prioc:ple_oni.
own c
o! uf :
o t , t
which is to legislate on religious matters. I defy the If
Gentleman, or any lion. Member opposite, to point oat agy_
authority for the strict observance of the Lord's.cliy.
the Revel ttion of St. John it was called the Lord's-tlar.•
and it wis said the saints prayed and ate bread top:
ther on that day ; but that was done in consequence
.01
the peculiar circumstances in which the primitive Clam
tians wera placed. These had ceased ; and why, then;
arc we to imitate these primitive Christians in One
act, unless we imitate them in all ? We ride tn.
Church ! Did the Apostles go to Church
in that
way ? Tie Apostles lived in common, and if the facia'
B•tronet is prepared to follow their example, I shall aPriy
to him for a sh ira of his property.—(Lao Butthere was anoti Cr command of which the Hon. aionet
i
takes no notice. It was sail, "If thou art struck on the
one cheek, turn up the other also ;" but if 1. were to ac
in that mintier to the Hon. Baronet, lam inclined to
think that in. toad of obeying the divine praccpt he would
take me before Sir Rieleual Birnie, at Bow.street.--
(Laughter.) Now, let it be remembered that we. 'Are
strictly commanded to follow these precepts. We nave
positive commands on the one hand, but on the o',ner we
have none. If the Hon. Baronet would show any thine
like consistency, and introduce into the Bill a clause by
which all men's property should be Towle common Pro"
perty, then I will agree to the Bill. I have heard much
about the observance of the SabhAtli
nothing about Christian duty--alothing' but I have heard.
about honest deal-
ing—nothing about lowly '..ruth and brotherly kindness-
I have only been told: In fact, that asceticism is Clati3-
tiariity.--(Hear, hear.) Now, in my opinion, Christiaratl
comprehends Stomething more ; Christianity does not tea.ca
me to observe Sunday in the way proposed by the 13111,
but it teaches me not to peep and pry into the conduct e 1
other men ;it tells me to live humbly—to pray to God
on that day as well as on other days ; it commands ute
to observe truth, mercy, and kistice—it tells me to Pr•li
on all days, and instructs me that the
good conduct laic
I have practised during the whole of the week should oe
continued to the seventh day, and then there should 0 a
holy rest ; and that I call keeping the Lord's:6AP" •
(Cheers.) But that species of religion which I:ne
Baronet would inculcate makes the narrow observance
the Sabbath as the principal matter with the Divinity, al,
thereby degrades and disgraces religion.—(Cheers.)
has been owing to such principles that religion has alwaY
been made a craft. The persons professing and acting Oa
such principles depart from the great and important
of religion, and establish the craft of priesthood, so 111.6",
valent in all ages. On the present occasion I ale co
vinced the course pursued will do little credit to any Pr,,,, ,
mixed up with it. The Hon. Member said, if the law
not to ho obeyed, repeal the Act of Charles 11. ; but that
is in reality repealed, for no one obeys it. I should latch%
know who present were at Tattersall's on Sunday, or at
clubs, or in Hyde-park, or at Crockford's ; for all v.
support this Bill ar.d attend these places are self-cc-Ira
victed. I look upon this as a peddling scheme, 411
think it a mere waste of time that we should have for e°o
hour and a half been discussing the question whether Wh
are to shut out from places where they can have the fret')
air such citizens of London as choose to go there.—alet
He (continued the Hon. Member) said the Hon. 13W-in-
had in one respect acted fairly, and he would now AO
what he acted unfairly. While he would allow no Pelt
to go and take the fresh air, he still compelled servants
brush shoes and clothes—to make beds and light fires oft
the thermometer was low, and prepare a hot -dinner ; ho
the poor student, who laboured bard for six days in stu,(11,„1"-
which the Hon. Baronet despised, was not to be allowed
leave his humble lodgings ; and if he did leave them, the.,"'
was to be no place open for food or refreshmerits,
whatever might be in the mansions of the rich"
cakes and ale" for him. The Bill enacted that no Or;
son could obtain refreshment, or a dinner, unless so
places where he usually dined ; and all that was °net
forced on the community, because the lion. 1321*°„'"„e
was pious. The Hon. Baronet, however, could g°"-
to dine, but ho declares the poor man shall have no dill
The Hon. Baronet had been tossed from step to steps as
had at last, to a certain extent, included the aristocracy;
Let him also include the menial servant, or support him
1,
a clause with that object. The servants, and the rich,
1;
fact, were exempted. The rich would have their aliwt,eit
dressed, and they could ride out on horseback ; but v 7,1-0
was to become of the poor man, who had no horse, and
place open where lie could buy a dinner ? It was 81°,0'
thes a mean-catching-popularity scheme, got up by
who who assumed high pretensions, and said to others, "
at a distance—for lam holier than thou." He bopeu th
6
House would put a brand on the attempt to coerce a large
rg
class of the poor community, and embody the worst species
of asceticism and superstition—to force the consciences
);
the people, and throw a stumbling block in the way Of
gion.—( Cheers.)
Lord SANDON did not see why, because the tic::
Baronet was anxious to see the existing law carried it'd
effect, and the Sabbath-day observed, he should be charge
with hypocrisy, political motives, and every motive, by
Hon. Member for Bath, who professed Christian burnilitY;
and centered it all in his own person. He really did 1/0‘
think that t* House were bound to receive such lecture
as the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath, ex calico;
and with a certain proud humility, had thought proper
give them. It was enough, in answer to those lectures, t°rr
say that Christians generally, and that the British Dulthe
ment in particular, had attached a peculiar sanctity to tva
seventh day. According to the views of the Hon. at)„,.
Learned Member for Bath, there ought to be equal Inb°
in all the seven days of the week.—( No, no.) If not, w,5
ct
‘„, was the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's meaning ? ;1
benefit could accrue from denying to the poor man eler,,r)
tion from labour on the seventh day, he (Lord Santo
was at a loss to conjecture. It seemed to be forgotten
there were two classes of commandments—those °tor
related to our duty to God, and those which related to -
duty to our neighbour.
ill
Mr. WARD opposed the second reading of the ot
He, and those who were adverse to the measure, did nest
complain of the supporters of it for enforcing the strict ,
and most scrupulous observance of the Sabbath in their %la
households ; what was complained of was, that they sit° of
require others to abide by their own strict interpretatle°o
the divine law. If the Bill were carried it would deltror
all the enjoyments of the poor man. He would be 100,
vented from mounting a horse, from riding in an 00°.001 r
from entering a steam-boat on the Sabbath-day. Thud
would would be imprisoned on Sunday in their own houses. "°OO,
shutting them up on that day in their own habitations c it
duce either to their moral or to their physical benefit? hole
should be remembered that the rich man had the °bile
week at his command, in which to disport himself. woe
the poor man had but one day, and of that single Wool
supporters of the Bill wished to deprive him. But t for
were other clauses in the Bill equally objectionable. pOOl
instance, did the Noble Lord the Member for Livera
approve of the 14th clause, which prohib;ted shirt' tit
o
leaving harbour on the Sabbath ? They all allowed tberlf
was highly expedient that the Sabbath should be 10°001
observed ; but he maintained that it was much better taboo
to the influence of public opinion on that point than t 0 •
recourse to any legislative interference.
Mr. FINCH supported the Bill.
Mr. WAK LEY was astonished that rich tYous.eita.'
thus venture to try to shut poor men up in their 0'.00e•
tians on the seventh day of the week. Although four,,,eli.•
Members had supported the Bill, not one had the -pia
ness to state what practices they wished to prevent•fteor
they desire to prevent the people from embarking in
cop!e
vessels on Sunday ? Did they desire to prevent the P.sd oa
from drinkir, ginger beer or from eating ginger b 7
Primrose-bill or Kennington-common on Sundaytter'
would use a phrenological argument against the suPPoorgoa
of the measure. It was evident that they had `
the., lilt
of veneration developed in an extraordinary deg
of oh'
that they were sadiy deficient in the organ!
servation and causality. The organ of veneratia;v
not generally so fully developed in this cou.ini.l4,oet.
it was in the countenance of the Honourable I): ohe
This Bill was not intended to relieve tb,ole per,
were now oppressed ; but it went to prevent 11.1..t.7... P
sons from enjoying themselves on the Lord's .1.)."0 the
went to prevent them from taking any pleasureecc°,,ienc.er
Sabbath. What ! would they create purity of tbele
by shutting people up in their house:, and conveltemt•Ethos
dwellings into prisons on the Lord's Day ? tied it re:
who supported this measure and those who oppos_nder op!
fur to the authority of Scripture, and let them .P_O„sossS:
the feeling which it inculcated. He would read a chapter
or two from the Bth and other verses of the btu
d yolk'
of the Gospel of John :
" Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thY' beitaann-d t°l°,!:
w_llo.B_ jos t°
he And immediately the man was made
up his bed, and walked ; and on the same d
It is
Sabbath. ure-'
the Sabbath Day.; it is not lawful for thee to
.eUle, the s 3
" The Jews therefore said unto him that wa!rcry- thy he ;
" He answered them, He that made me urn°
said
ThenuTakentoma's,ked tl;
they
him,
bedl‘,h
natndm‘avnalkis.
that which I°lo
unto thee, Take up thy bed, and walk ? ; for "
And he that was healed wist not who I°_: 10 th
sus had conveyed himself away, a multitude being
place.

bntbdo'attshheEfOre did ,the Jew. s
the'
Jesluas' sad
sou persecute
the S h b
m answeredb ee atuhseemb, e
Mhya lead
ad
to:ee;:tvitioe sr ekjeetibui
•
to, and I work."

forbe„ Passages, then, taught them to exercise a religious
ance—to respect the feelings of others—and not to
intrudean, r with unseemly feelings on the innocent enjoyments
u °creations of others.—( Hear, hear.) If this Bill were
brought into
operation, it must _have the, worst possible
effect on
an enlightened and happy people, and must create
Co but gloom. Our now happy populaticn Would be
u rted into a body of sectarians and mock-saints.
sec", Mr. B ORTHWICK would support the motion for the
to " reading of the Bill en this principle, that lie wished
see what the House 'could do in framing a law on this
; though he much doubted the possibility of
clung a law which should be effectual in obtaining the
t4l which was sou,ilit for. The Hon. Gentleman adverted
t 0 the unequal manner in which many of the clauses must
45Perate, and referred to the case of the Zoological-gardens
to the Regent's-park, which were opened on the Sabbath to
subscribers. Many of those who supported this Bill fre-
quented those gardens on the Sabbath, the day on which
the poor were comparatively excluded—and this place of
rtvirt Was made a second Ali-flack's (as we understood.)
kr. H. L. BIiLWER contended, that whatever might
he the intentions of the llon. Baronet, the result of his
1)44 or of any Bill on the same subject, must be inequality
and partiality ; because the state of society which governed
laws would not allow the same interference with the en-
IlaYments.of the rich, who had establishments of their own,
kzid those of the peer, who had no such establishments--
(lieu, hear.) As to the number of petitions, he was in
t way surprised ; because, at all times, numbers of menno'ad keen i:iund anxious to thrust their consciences down
the consciences of other people.—( Hear.) Hundreds and
thousands of perons had assisted at the massacre of St.
Aartholomew, and 110 been applauded even by their own
Pliests for doing so.—(Near.) They were pious men of
their time, and had followed the dictates of their con-
scienceo.—(Hear, hear.) But legislation of this kind
wets not only unequal in practice and bad in principle,
it was
le also of necessity absurd and ridiculous ; for, un-
-, as the whole of society were altered, nothing but
!gislation of the most half-begotten and most imperfect
Ind could take place upon it. Take, for instance, the pre-
aent Post-office regulations.--(Hear, hear.) The mail
eould not leave London or enter London on a Sunday ;
that was impious and illegal ; but it could enter or leave
anY other town in Englan on the game day.—(Cheers.)
Here, then, was it declared that the same thing being im-
pious and illegal in London was not prohibited either by
law or religion in the country. Was not this absurd ?
knew', hear.) The Hon. Member for Kent said the Jewish
ordinances should be observed, because our Saviour came,
.
not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it." Why, on this
Principle he should be circumcised, and all the male infants
of fits family the same.—(Cheers and laughter.) He should
eep the Passover ! The fact was, that many of the Jewish
aws were given, not for their excellence, but solely fur their
Peculiarity, for the purpose of maintaining a small people
separate from other nations that surrounded them ; and in
111anY cases the mere fact that a custom had prevailed among
the Jews almost established that it was unfit for man-
hlnu in general.—(Hear, hear, hear.) But the Noble Lord
the Member f:r Liverpool threw over the old law of Moses,
,
appealed to the customs and notions of Christendom.
Why, whereabouts in Christendom would such a law as this
Sabbath Bill be presented to any Legislature ?—(Cheers.)
..
"'Quid it not be scouted by every nation in every civilized
ltt of Europe, as contrary to existing customs and present
estq—(Hear, hear.) Was it even consistent with the
former
ideas of Christendom—those ideas which prevailed
When Sabbath legislation was first introduced into this
Country ?• What said the famous ordinance encouraging
aPoirts—the ordinance of James I.? Why, that doctrines
,Such as those entertained by gentlemen opposite were new-
fangled doctr:nes—(Hear, hear, hear)—held and intro-
duced by the Puritans, whose minds, hardened or dark-
ened by the persecution they had met with, felt more
SYmpathy/ with the Old Testament than with the New.
Having alluded to past legislation on this subject, lie
lust wished gentlemen to remark on what had been the
effects of legislation. James I. and Charles I. legislated
to promote what would now be called the non-observance
of the Sabbath. They wished to put down puritanical
Observances and sanctimonious fashions—and what fol-
!lowed ? Why the psalm-singing and Scripture-quoting
. sYs of Cromwell.—( Hear, hear.) These were succeeded
In their turn, such an effect did over sanctity produce, by
the licentious days of Charles 11., when there was more
profligacy and more irreligion than at any other period in
the history of this country, and yet it was to these days—
these famous days of Charless 11., the writers of which were
now banished from the stage, and not allowed by many per-
lOns to infect .their families—that gentleman turned for a
rrecedent for making piety by Acts of Parliament.
Lord A. LENNOX shou!d vote for the second reading
of this Bill,-though he did not concur in many of the clauses,
which, indeed, on the contrary, he held to be most objec-
tionable. Had the Hon. Baronet limited himself to a mea-
Imre for doing away with Sunday trading, he would have
clone much more good.
Mr. HARDY supported the principle of the Bill, which,
be contended, went to protect every man in the observance
of the Sabbath. 4*.

Major BEAUCLERK felt bound to oppose the second
reading of the Bill. _

Mr. POTTER thought it would be a mere waste of time
to go into Committee upon the Bill. Four years ago, when
similar Bill was allowed to go into Committee, it came out
of it in such a shape, that the lion. Baronet (Sir A. Agnew)
himself was obliged to vote against it. What hope could
there be of a different result in the case of the present mea-
sure, supposing it were allowed to advance to another
stage?._.(Hear.) lie did not believe that measures of this
description were calculated to promote a better observance
Of the Sabbath ; and in support of that view the Hon.
Member quoted extracts from the address and charge of
the Bishop of Lichfield :—" One or two efforts have been
'made, evidently so uncongenial to the spirit of freedom
and liberty which belongs to our Constitution, so harsh in
their restrictions, and so unequal in their operations on the
heartily
climes of society, that we ought, I think, most
leartily rejoice at their rejection. Furthermore, the se-
"ereet prohibitions will not effect the truly religious ob-
servance of the Sabbath, by influencing the heart. Rather
'will they tend to bring odium, not only on such legislation,
but on the sacred day itself ; and, by turning it into a day
" ascetic gloom, instead of religious cheerfulness, may
conduce to harden men's hearts, ut not to convert them.
Acts of Parliament may, perhaps, be so framed as to pro-
vide for the decent external observance of this day ; but
what Act of Parliament can reach the heart ? Could all men
be compelled by Act of Parliament to attend divine worship
bn this day, how little would be done towards making them
religious when their attendance was compulsory ! It is the
"dl ttit gives the life and meaning to the act ; and this
leads me to mention what I consider as far more likely to
be efficacious in promoting the proper observance of the
Sabbath, than a whole statute book of Parliamentary enact-
"ats—l mean, the gentle force of persuasion and ex.
ample. I have watched myself, and I have consulted
others who have made the same observation, and who con-
cur with me in thinking that since so general an expres-
sion of public opinion has been elicited respecting the de-
accretion of the Sabbath, the good feeling of the people
bas sympathised with it ; and that although there may be
some places where the evil is not -yet remedied, this holy
day has been generally observed of late with much more
solemnity and propriety than heretofore."—(Cries of
" Hear.") The Hon. Member next read an extract from
the conversation of Dr. Johnson, as reported by Boswell,
". He ridiculed a friend who, looking out on Streatham Coln-
mon from our windows one day, lamented the enormous
wickedness of the times, because some birdcatchers were
busy there one fine Sunday morning. While more than
half the Christian world is permitted (said he) to dance,
Sing, and celebrate Sunday as a day of festivity, now comes
your puritanical spirit so offended with frivolous and empty
deviations from exactness 1. Whoever loads life with unne-
cessary scruples, Sir (continued lie), provokes the attention
of others on his conduct, and incurs the censure of singu-
larity without reaping the reward of superior virtue."
The Hon. Member also read from the evidence of Mr.
Francis Place before the English Education Committee in
Jane, 1835, showing that the Sabbath formerly had been
more desecrated than at the present time.
Mr. C. BRUCE expressed a determination to support
the second reading of the Bill.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had
supported the introduction of ,the Bill, because he was not
00e of those who were wholly adverse to any legislation
upon the subject. But upon a subsequent examination of,
the provisions of the Bill, he was bound to say that there
was not one of them to which he could give his consent,
except, perhaps that which related to Sunday trading.--
(Hear, hear.) All the rest of the Bill lie considered as
diametrically opposed to every sound principle on which
"Y legislation upon the subject of the observance of the
o,hbath should procced.—(Hear.) He should thereore
I)Pose the second reading.
Mr. GOULBURN should certainly feel it his duty to
;thlPPort the second reading, e ith the view of so amending
t'
•eahle.
e measure in Committee as to make it useful and prac-
Lord WORSLEY said that he should vote for the se-
cond
reading, but lie objected to many parts of it.
tl eMr* FOWELL BUXTON stated that so far from
S,u.nday being well observed in many parts of the me-
he,oosknew that in the district with which he was
14:et°, namely, Spitalfields, the great proportion of
sao-,- were open on Sunday. All were agreed that :the
stobeatli should be observed, and therefore should put a
or to Sunday trading which was one of the main objects
Bill.bu He did not approve of many parts of this
t should vote for the second reading.
Mr.
BRoTHER-['ON contended that the due obser-
:once
raor ot the Sabbath was for the good of man on a civil,
alld religious principle ; but be did not think that

this measure was calculated to promote the object in view.
He was satisfied that nothing was ever gained by working
on the Sabbath, and he stated this from thirty years' ex-
perience in manufactures.
Captain BERKELEY could not but. regard this mea-
sure as a Bill of pains and penalties.
• Sir ANDREW AGNEW replied.
Colonel SIBTIIORI' intended to vote for the second
reading of the Bill, but should oppose it hereafter if it
were not altered in all its details and cractments.

The House then divided, when the numbers wcro—
Fcr the second reading llO
Against it
Majority -44
MEMBERS ACTING AS PARLIAMENTARY

AGENTS.
On the motion of Mr. TOOKE, the adjourned deb Ate
on this subject was resumed. The Ilan. Member was
desirous of making an alteration in the terms of tho ori-
ginal motion, by omitting the word i in the preamble which
stated that the present practice was contrary to the law
and usage of Parliament.
Viscount STORMONT thought that as this was an
adjourned debate upon a motion brought forward by the
Hon. Member himself, it was not competent for Lim to
make anv amendment i❑ it.
Mr. TOOKE hoped that some other Hon. Member
would be hind enough, then, to move the amendment he
had sup:Ts' ed.
Mr. WARBURTON begged leave to do so.
The resolution, as amended, was then put in the follow-

ing terms :
" That no Member be permitted to engage, either by
himself or by any partner, in the management of private
Bills, before this or the other House of Parliament, for any
pecuniary remuneration or reward to be received by such
Member, or by any person standing in any relation of legal
professional partnership with him."
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw for a divi-
sion, but
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL could see no possibi-

lity of drawing a line in any other mode than this—that the
individual who should receive a direct pecuniary interest in
the private business of the House should be excluded ; but
that he who did not should not be excluded. The distinc-
tion which the Hon. Member wished to make was too
subtle and fine,. and would only shift the difficulty to some
other case not precisely similar to that of his (the Sulici-
tor-General's) Hon. Colleague, the Member for Penrvn
(Mr. Freshfield). For himself, he was certainly not dis-
posed to differ from the Hon. Member for Bath on this
subject, in thinking that there should be no line drawn ; but
at all events, he was opposed to that which was now at-
tempted-to be drawn -by the Hon. Member's motion.
The House then divided, when the numbers were—
For the resolution
Against it ••• 54
Majority
The resolution was accordingly rejected.
SHERIFFS FEES BILL.

On the motion of Mr. TOOKE, the House went into
Committee on this Bill. .

The several clauses having, after various amendments,
been agreed to,
Captain PECHELL brought up a clause for the pur-
pose of enacting that the poundage to the Sheriff on writs
of capias ad satisfaciendum should be paid in the same
manner as upon writs of fieri facies.
Mr. TOOKE said, that as such a clause had no refe-
rence whatever to the object or preamble of the Bill, he
thought it would be inconvenient to introduce it into this
measure. The Hon. and Gallant Member could take ano-
ther opportunity to bring the subject forward.
Captain PECHELL said he had been very unfortunate
in his endeavour to obtain an opportunity like the present
to effect his object, and he should, therefore, certainly
avail himself of this occasion to effect what he considered a
desirable change in the law upon this subject. At present
the plaintiff was in one case liable to the poundage, and the
defendant in the other. His wish was to make the practice
and the liability uniform.
The Committee then divided, when the numbers were—.
Nl' the clause l4
Against it ......,,..•.,711
Majority ,
The clause was consequently lost.
The House them resumed, and the report was ordered
to be received on a future clay,
ATTORNEYS AND SOLICITORS BILL.
This Bill then went through a Committee.
COMMON LAW COURTS BILL.

The House then went into Con-m*.t-e on th's Bi 1.
On tho 10th clause,

Mr. D. W. HARVEY said fhe object of this Bin W 43
to get. rid of a number of useless offices, and to create
others that were necessary. He particularly objected to
the power this Bill gave to appoint three mashes more
than were recommended by the Comroir4sioTws, and deia=
nated their appointment a judicial job. It was a subject
of suspicion that the Judges had been reconciled to the,
extensive reforms proposed in this Bill by the prospect of
patronage that was hold out to them, The Judges were
to have the appointment of five masters in each Court,
with salaries of 1,200/. a-year each. He found that some
of the masters were even named in the Bill. The two
principal Judges in two of the Courts had appointed their
nephews.
Mr. Sergeant GOULBURN supported the Bill.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that as regarded the number of masters, he had communi-
cated with those best able to form an opinion, amongst
whom where the Commissioners and the Judges. and they
were unanimously of opinion that the number necessary
was the number named in the Bill.

Mr. WARBURTON said, if judges would appoint
their near relations, they must do so subject to all the re-
flections which such acts were liable. Nothing would per-
suade him that accident had so ordained it that the ne-
phews of the judges were, of all persons, the best qualified
to fill the situations. _

Mr. D. W. HARVEY said there were two points of the
Bill on which he should take the sense of the House ; ()tie
was that there should be 12 masters instead of 15 ; and
the other was, that whatever the number might be, their
salary should be only 8001. per annum, instead of 1,2001.
The clause was agreed to.
Clauses 12, 13, and 14 were agreed to.
Upon the 15th clause, fixing the salaries of masters,
Mr. HARVEY moved as an amendment, that the sit
laries of the Masters be reduced to 800/. a-year.
For the Amendment
Against it
Majority against the Amendment
Mr. HARVEY should take the sense of the House
the number of masters, upon the report being brought up.
, .I:he remaining clauses were agreed to.
The House then resumed, and the report was ordered to
be brought up on Tuesday next.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and
the House adjourned at two o'clock.