The Sun.
London, England, 1837-05-20 00:00:00

UNIV, ERSITIES.

Lord CANTERBURY presented a petition from 700
of the graduates and undergraduates of the University of
Cambridge, against an.y violent interference with the Uni-
versities, which would injure their high character and
utility.
Lord RADNOR said that it was admitted by those
those who had the management of the Universities that
some alteration in its Statutes was necessary ; and, there.-
fore, those seven hundred young gentlemen differed from
those who Ind the management of it.
Lord CANTERBURY said that it was not stated by
the petitioners that no alteration was necessary; but that
they confided that no injurious alterations would be made.
INSTRUCTION IN SCOTLAND.

The Earl of HADDINGTON said that he had gives
notice that he would ask a question of the Noble Viscount,
as to the intentions of Government in reference to the R
port of the Committee on Instruction, which was on the
table for a long time.—(Hear, hear.) If lie intended
to take the opinion of their Lordships on the question,
he would have to allude to the Report, which was of a
complex nature, and which contained some very useful
matter. He did not, however, intend to take their Lori:-
ships' opinion on it ; but he would say, that any man aware
of the increasing population in Scotland, and that the num-
ber of Churches had not increased in proportion, a great defi-
ciency in Church accommodation and instruction was the
result. Much had been done by the voluntary system to
remedy this ; but it was not sufficient, although he did net
undervalue it. Forty-two Churches had been built two
years ago in the Highlands, and endowed, and but for
this the destitution would have been much greater;
but it was clear that the voluntary system, although it
might serve to check the evil, would be ineffectual as a
cure ; and as the clergy were paid by seat rents, which
were necessarily high, these seats were occupied by. the
rich, and the poor were excluded from them. Petitions
had been presented from Scotland, which stated that
150,0001. had been subscribed' for these purposes, and that
it was likely to be largely added to, and praying for ahl.
This hrought the attention of Government and Parlianics.t
to the subject, and in 1835 his Majesty was pleased to re-
commend these churns to Parliament. A change of Go-
vernment, however, took place in two mouths ; and the new
Government did not show the same readiness to attend to the
subject ; but a discussion took place on the motion of Sir W.
Rae for a Committee of Inquiry, upon which Lord J. Russell
nisseed, as an amendment, that a Commission should Inc
,snin'd, and then said, in reference to the Voluntary prie-
eiple. " that he could bold but one doctrine in respect to it,
which was, that a Church Establishment afforded the hest
means of religious instruction." Sir William Rae upon
this withdrew his motion, and a Commission was iippointed,
which made a Report early this year. The same Noble
Lord was then present, aril having been pressed
upon the subject said that he had been informed
t:eo nays benre that further inquiry was about to be treele
by the Comniissioners in respect to Glasgow and ihe nigh-
*lands, and that it adviseahle to wait for the Reports of
these inquiries ; that any plan that should he arranged
should be prepared with great care ; and that the sub-
ject was one that demanded serious consideration. Now
be (Lord H.) thought that to state merely that the subje,t
Vi one: which demanded serious consideration, was a great
felling off from the former statements made be Government.
Pron. the Report of the Commissioners, it appeared that
the population of the city of Edinburgh was 163,292. The
(Church of Scotland had employed a person to make a csni-
-sus of the population, and according to their Report it n:r-
peared that there were 76,000 belonging to the Established
Church, and 14,391 belonging to no denomination of re-
ligion at all. This of itself was a ground for interference
on the part of the Government. It was the duty of the
legislature of a Christian country to apply a reine(:y
to suoh a state of things. He admitted that there
were many denominations of religions. For instance, ti=es
_Episee,palians, and the ancient old recognised Seceders
'of Scotland, whose attendance they could not possibly se-
ciare ; but if the 14,000 of no religious denomination were
added to the 76,000 belongine. to the Established Church,
o,u would have upwards of 90,000, for whom it would be
-necessary to provide religious instruction. The Comin,-
sioners say that 40,000 or 50,000 persons habitually ab-
sented themselves from public worship ; and they re-
marked, from whatever cause it might be, the opportuni-
ties of public religious worship and religious instruc-
tion, existing and in operation, were not adequate to
the wants of the people of Scotland. He contended
that a strong ease had been made out in their belielr.
it. was a great disappointment that so long a time should he
r:dowed to elapse, and then be told that the subject was
sane fbr consideration. He would not propose any speeire
measure. He did not want thorn to build Churches. The
people of Scotland ha-I subscribed already 150,000/. for that
purpose, and all they wanted was that Government should
endow these Churches ; and those which hail been already
twilt on the voluntary principle—let them he endowed
-moderately for each minister, and then the poor would
be enabled to obtain religious instruction.—(Hear, hear.)
He was sure that economy would not be alleged as en
excuse for not acceding to this, for the last case in which
it should be pleaded was in such a one as the present.
Crime had also incressed in Scotland even beyond the increase
of population. This would be seen by the returns on the table
of the other House, from which it would be evident that
in comparison with former years, the amount paid to the
public prosecutors was much beyond thst which it used to
be ; whereas, if the people had Churches, and active and
zealous clergy to inforce their attendance where they would
receive instruction, the circumstances would be widely al-
tered. There had been much misrepresentation of the opinions
given by an eminent divine of the Church of Scotland, Dr.
Chalmers. It had been said that able divine had deprecated
the zeal of missionaries—he did no such thing. He w,ls
:aware that it was useless to send out missionaries without
providing Churches for them.--(Hear, hear, hear.) He
(Lord Haddington) considered that his Majesty's Govern-
ment paid too much attention to the petitions of the
Dissenters.—( Hear.) He considered that the manner
in which the Church of Scotland had been spoken of
by certain Dissenting clergymen was totally uncalled
for, and unworthy of their profession. The bulk of the people
of Scotland, attached as they were the Established Church,
were looking with great anxiety to his Majesty's Govern-
ment for the remedy of those evils of which they complained.
'Much had been said about justice, and he called on the Noble
Viscount and on Ministers to do justice to Scotland ; not
that justice which would destroy, but which would build up.
He trusted that in the answer he should receive from
the Noble Viscount to the questions he should put, would
be such as to show that Government were resolved upon do-
ing justice to Scotland. He wished first to know whether
the Noble Viscount was prepared positively to state, that
it was the fixed intention of his Majesty's Government to
apply an efficient remedy to the evils of which the people of
Scotland complained ; and secondly, whether the Noble Vis-
count would inform the House what course his Majesty's
Ministers were prepared to take, in consequence of the Re-
port of the Commissioners of Religious Instruction, and
whether that course would be adopted immediately, or be
delayed till a general measure could be devised.
Viscount MELBOURNE, before he answered the
Noble Earl should make a very few observations on the
preliminary matter with which the Noble Earl had prefaced
his questions. The Noble Earl had said that if he were to
follow the strict course of parliamentary proceedings he would
have to make a motion instead of putting a question, but front
the latitude which the House allowed in putting questions, he
( Viscount Melbourne) did not see, if the Noble Earl had made
a motion, how he could have prefaced it with a longer or more
elaborate speech than the one which they had heard on the
present occasion.--( Hear, hear, and laughter.) The Noble
Earl had stated in the first place that this matter took its origin
in his Majesty's Speech, made in the beginning of 1835, re-
commending that Parliament should give its attention to the
state of the Church of Scotland, with the view of giving
the poorer classes of the population of Scotland more fre-
quent opportunities of receiving religious instruction. He
(Lord Melbourne) had stated as his opinion that the recom-
mendation was very ill-considered, and he was sure if the
then Government had continued in office that they would not
have been able to carry it into effect. He did not say this

-with reference to the number of their supporters, but because
he thought they would have been met by the reason of the
case, and driven to precisely the same course of inquiry as
that which the present Ceovernre,ent had adopted. He (Lord
Melbourne) did not say that this was the intention of that
speech, or of the speech of the Noble Earl—a speech made
just at the meeting of the General Assembly, just at the mo-
ment when a great popular election was pending. He did not
soy that that was the intention of the Noble Earl, for he be- ,
lieved that he brought the subject forward at the present mo-
ment from higher and better motives—to uphold the cause cf
religion and morality. He did not believe that the Noble Earl
was actiaated by any such intention, because he (Viscount
Melbourife) knew that it would not be becoming nor 'fitting L
for a great party to be bribing against their antagonists with
public money to obtain the favour and interest of the General
Association and the Ministers of the Church of Scotland in
the elections, and to obtain the great political ,power which
the clergy were at present wielding and exeecising (as he.
understood) without much scruple in that eountry.—( Hear.)
He knew that that was not the intention of. his Noble Friend
opposite, nor of the Noble Lords with whom he acted ; but
he knew that the effect of the recommendation had been, to
proclaim througinout the country the Noble Lords opposite as
the friends of the Cherch—(Hear)—and to enlist on their side
all the clergy of t'ne Church of Scotland, who it was known
had mad.a their pulpits resound with their denunciations of
those whom they supposed to be their enemies and the enemies
of ',:heir Church. He (Viscount Melbourne) said that that was
not the meaning of his Noble Friend in bringing the matter
forward upon the present occasion ; but the subject was one
which ought to be considered in reference to its own great im-
' portance, and in reference to the object which it had in view.
It was a question of very great importance in itself, and of very
great importance with respect to the religious feeling of the
' country ; of very great importance with respect to the moral
character of the country—a question not only of importance
with respect to Scotland, but a question of great importance
when considered with reference to England—with reference
to the whole empire. With respect to the want of accommo-
r dation in the city of Edinburgh, it was well known from docu-
ments of unquestionable authenticity—in fact, from inquiries
made under the direction of the Right Reverend Prelate who
' presided over the metropolitan diocese—that the means of re-
ligious instruction with reference to those who were to be fur-
' nished with it were very inadequate in this city. The ques-
tion was also one of very great importance with reference to
the feelings which prevailed at the present time. The
Noble Earl had stated correctly that a pretty strong contro-
versy at present existed between what was termed the volun-
tary principle and the Establishment. The Noble Earl had
put the case rather less strongly for himself than he (Viscount
Melbourne) thought he could, for the Noble Earl had
seemed to consider that all the Dissenters were friendly to
the voluntary principle.—(" No, no," from the Earl of Had-
' dington.) Now that was not the case. He (Viscount Mel-
' bourne) was himself a decided friend to a religious Establish-
ment; but it was not necessary to argue that question upon
the present occasion, because it was not before the House ;
but he considered an Establishment necessary to the religious
, and moral instruction of the people ; and for another purpose
—not merely for the religious and moral instruction of the
people, but for the purpose of preserving a standard of reli-
, gious truth and purity, and to save men from the dangers of
, enthusiasm on the one hand, and fanaticism and infidelity
' on the other.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Earl had stated
' correctly that the Commission was to report from time to time,
' and that when the proper opportunity arrived some measure
' should be proposod. It undoubtedly was the intention that
' some measure should be proposed, but it was not intended,
whilst these reports were evidently imperfect—when further
information was required, and when it was absolutely neces-
sary to make further inquiry with respect to other parts of
the country which might be placed in the same situation—it
was not intended that the Government should be required to
take rash steps, which they would naturally bind themselves to
' follow up and apply as a principle to other cases which might
appear to be analogous. He would admit that he had not
' studied the report with so much attention as the Noble Lord ;
' but upon that report he ( Viscount Melbourne) saw very good
' reason to take time to consider what steps ought to be
adopted, for it certainly was an alarming feet—one which
everybody must greatly lament and deplore—that there
should be in the city of Edinburgh so many persons who
did not attend public worship at all. It would not be tie-
, cessary on the present occasion to inquire to what cause
, that was attributab!e ; but this he knew, that there were
20,000 seats remaining unlet in that city, 11,000 in places of
worship belonging to Dissenters, and 9,000 in places of
' worship belonging to the Establishment. It was not the
high prices of the seats which occasioned this, for it was
proved that the low priced seats let the worst. Under these
' circumstances, therefore, it was absolutely necessary for the
Government to consider before they took any step, for they
'night take one in the wrong direction, and thereby defeat the
object which they intended to advance. Now, with respect to
the questions of the Noble' Earl, he (Viscount Melbourne)
had no hesitation in saying that his Majesty's Ministers
were as anxious to carry into effect the recommendatious
of the report—as anxious to effect the object which the Noble
Lords opliosite had in view—as anxious to encourage re-
ligion and morality gcnei ally in that part of the cow,-
, try, and particularly to extend as far as was fair and
just tile influence of the Church Establishment of Scot-
land, as the Noble Lord himself, or any one of the Noble
Lords who acted and thought with him. The Government
were ready to take every step necessary for that object: but
undoubtedly he did tint see how it would be poslble for them,
acting carefully, prudently, or wisely, to take any single step
on this report which related merely to the state of the Church
accommodation in the city of Edinburgh. It would be ab-
solutely necessary to inquire into the same question in the
other great and populous towns of Scotland ; and before re-
commending anything like a grant of public money, it would
be equally necessary to inquire whether there were not other re=
sources at the disposal of Government which could be applied
in the first instance, before Parliament should have recourse to
that which had been pronounced by a great authority in ono
ther place to be always a very vulgar expedient, namely, a I
grant from the Consolidated 17iind. He had rec,!ived a me-
inerial from certain persons deeply interested in the question,
to which he would beg to refer the House. Tile memorialists
stated that they demanded the consideration of those who
were about to propose a practical measure on the subject.
The memoriflists did not presume to point out resources, but
they might venture to mention one fund, the application of
which appeared to be peculiarly appropriate; namely, the
fund consisting of the tithes and rents belonging to, and ad-
ministered by, the Bishops in Scotland prior to the Revo-
lution. On the abolition of Episcopacy in Scotland these
tithes and rents had, and ever shine have been, adminis-
tered by the Crown. They had been granted by various
royal warrants in digerent ways ; but the amount of these
tithes and rents was now 1,7171. per annum, and the me-
morialists then went on to say, that they had reason to be-
lieve that under a inure economical arrangement the annual
proceeds might be made to nearly satisfy the immediate de-
mands CAI this subject. Non, before a grant was proposed of
the public none y would it not be necessary to inquire into the
accuracy of this statement? There was also another fund to
which, it appeared to him, it would be very natural to resort
before adopting the vulgar expedient of a grant from the Con-
solidated Fund. He alluded to the unappropriated and un-
exhausted tithes, the teinds to villich all the land of Scot-
land was subj'..ct.—( Hear, hear.) He knew that it would
be said that this would have the effect of levying a tax
upon the heritors of Scotland to which they were not at
present liable ; but no doubt those persons would be anxious
to forward die interest of the Church, the welfare of which
they appeared to have so much at heart, and therefore they
would offer no opposition to such a measure. However,
it was necessary to consider the subject very maturely,
and also to obtain every information which, as the Ge-
nera Assembly was now sitting, would be no very difficult
task, and of course there would be no indisposition on the
part of Government to make these inquiries, which would of
necessity expedite the course which they were undoubtedly
most anxious to take upon the subject. With respect to the
second question of the Noble Lord, whether it was the inten-
tion of the Government to take any immediate legislative mea-
sure upon this report, he (Lord Melbourne) could answer, for
the reasons which he had already stated, that he was not pre-
pared 0 act upon that report. These were his general views
upon the matter.

The Earl of ABERDEEN observed that the composition
of the Commission was such, that it was impossible that the
Commissioners could ever agree in recommending any course
whatever.—( Hear.) At the time of the formation of the Com-
mission, two years ago, he (the Earl of Aberdeen) remem-
. bored urging very strongly upon the Noble Viscount the ne-
cessity of appointing a Commission of that description. It
was admitted on all hands that the Church accommodation in
Scotland was insufficient. He (the Earl of Aberdeen) main
tained that no Commission was required for any information
vihich his Majesty's Government did not possess without
any Commission. When a deputation from the Church of
Scotland was in London, two years ago, it was urged
upon the Government that the Commission could onlj tend
to interminable delay, and it was then proposed that the
Commission should report from time to time. Surely the
object of that must have been to allay the apprehensions of
those reverend personages, but now it was said that no mea-
sure could be adopted until all the inquiries on the subject
were complete. He (the Earl of Aberdeen) therefore thought
he might fairly describe the refusal on the part of the Govern-
ment to act upon this partial report as a want of faith, more
especially when he remembered that there had been laid on
the table of the House a letter, containing the instructions to
the Commission signed by the Noble Lord the Secretary for
the Home Department, which concluded in these words :
" I trust that in the course of six months the greater portion
of your task will have been accomplished." He (the Earl of
Aberdeen) should have thought that the Noble Lord had had
sufficient experience of the vitality of Commissions not to
have entertained such an expectation, but now, after nearly
two years, and when it had cost the country nearly 20,000/.
(one-half of the Commissioners being gentlemen well paid
for their labonrs), they were debating and considering whether
they should give a beggarly endowment for Churches already
built, whilst the Government were at this very time spend-
ing very nearly as much as the sum required in the Commission.
The Noble Lord said that these inquiries were necessary—that
the Crown was in posse:!sion of certnin funds which might
be applied to this purpose. Now, what he (the Earl of
Aberdeen) would ask, had the Commissioners been about ?
He should say that the whole information required by the Noble
Lord might have been easily obtained long before this. With
respect to the teinds, he should say that they were not more
liable to be applied in the manner mentioned by the Nobie
Lord than the private estate of any gentleman. The land
was liable to support one Minister in the parish, but after that
nothing more. He (the Earl of Aberdeen) would really re-
commend the Noble Viscount, as lie had expressed his anxiety
to promote the efficacy of the Church of Scotland, if he ever
intended to carry out that object, not to shrink from the at-

tempt from any unworthy apprehension of the effects of any
measure fourn led on the Report now before the House. He
would not say that the Dissenters did not entertain apprehen-
sions en the saikject, but then the Noble Viscount was not now
in a situation to decide between that party and the Church.
He (the Eath of Aberdeen) would assume, if a fair claim
conld be made akit, if the necessity should be found to exist,
that the Noble Viscount was prepared to afford the assistance
+required. Bs should hope that, under the pretext of waiting
for 'further in'iormation, the Noble Viscount would not adopt a
,course which. would have the effect of putting off the question
thootber.- -( Hear, hear.)
The Earl of ROSEBERY thought that Government was
perfectly 'justified in the course which they were pursuing.
The 12arl of HADDINGTON had not brought the mat-
ter forward inconsequence of the vacancy to which the Noble
Viscount had alluded, or in consequeeco of the meeting of the
General Assembly.
Here the subject dropped.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (ENGLAND)
AMENDMENT ACT.

On the bringing up of the Report of this Bill, after a few
verbal amendments,

Lord WYNFO RD proposed to their Lordships an amend-
ment on clause 12, to the effect that the presiding officer in
the Council should be the person who was assessed to the poor
in the largest amount for messuagcs, lands, tenements, tithes,
or other hereditaments in the town Of which he was the occu-
pier or owner.

The LORD CHANCELLOR hoped that the Noble
Lord would not press his amendment ; by that proposition the
richest man in the town might, under some circumstances, be
excluded. An amendment which had been inserted in the
Committee had introduced this absurdity—that the presiding
body, which was, as it at present stood, to consist of those
Councillors elected by the greatest number of votes, were en-
titled to a casting vote. Now he would suggest, in order to
obviate that difficulty, that where a town was divided into
wards the Councillors who were elected by the greatest num-
ber of votes should appoint one of their number to be the pre-
siding officer.

Lord DENMAN was unable to concur in either of the pro-
positions which had been made. He would suggest, with
great diffidence, that the presiding officer should in such cases
be selected by lot.

Lord BROUGHAM approved of the plan proposed by his
Noble and Learned Friend.

The Duke of WELLINGTON thought the proposition
of his Noble and Learned Friend would meet the case, and
therefore, under these circumstances, it should receive his
support.—(Hear, hear.)

lord BROUGHAM thought they had better try the other
House again.—( A laugh.)
Lord DENMAN believed that the House of Commons had
not been very strong in their objection ; and he entertained no
doubt that, if their Lordships should really think that this was
the best scheme that had been suggested, it would be agreed
to by the other House.
Lord ELL ENBORO UGH could not agree to send down
to the other House any proposition for which he would be
unable to assign good reasons in conference.

The Earl of DE VON expressed a similar opini m in favour
of the proposition for the selection of the presilirg officer
by lot.
The question was then put, and the amendment carried
without a division.

Several other verbal amendments were agreed to.
The report was then received.

In reply to a question from Lord ELLE NB 0 R 0 UGH,
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the Bill, with the
amendments, would be printed before it would be read a third
time, in order to give the House an opportunity of knowing
all its details.
Adjourned-at half-past Eight o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Mar 19.
The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before 4 o'Clock.
Lord MELGUND for Hythe, and Mr. Bt OADNVOOD for
Bridgewater, were introduced, and took the oaths and their
seats.

Lord CLI VE brought up the Report of the Shropshire
and North Wales Insurance Company Bill.
STEVENSON'S BRIGHTON RAILWAY.

Sir C. BLUNT, pursuant to notice, rose to call the
attention of the House to a petition which he presented
a few days ago from a Mr. Yeates, complaining of the mode
in which signatures had been got to the deed in favor o!'
Stevenson's line of Brighton Railway, The Hon. Bart.
spoke in so low a tone as to render it almost impossible to
catch a single word that he uttered. We, however, un-
derstood him to say, that according to the statements of
the petition, the names of no less than six individuals
had been attached to the deed without the knowledge
of the parties themselves. If such was the case it was
highly important that the House should inquire into the
subject, and for that purpose he should move the petition
be referred to the Deptford and Dover Committee.
Lord GEORGE LENNOX did not care whether the
petition was referred to the Committee or not. From the
statements of the Hon. Baronet himself, it was evident that
no charge of fraud had been substantiated. The only state-
ment in the petition was that the names of six -gentlemen
had been appended to the deed, as it was stated, without
their knowledge. Now, what was the fact ? Why, these
gentlemen being from town had written letters authorizing
their agents to subscribe the deeds for them. If the House
thought that that was a subject worthy of inquiry, he
should throw no obstacle in the way of such inquiry taking
place—the only effect of it would be to entail expense
upon the parties who brought it forward.—(Hear.)
If it would be any satisfaction to the House he (Lord
George Lennox) could produce the authority for sign-
ing the deed. He would, however, appeal to the House
whether it was fit to refer it to a Committee or not ?
Sir C. BLUNT stated that the petition charged that
the names had been attached without any authority, which
he believed was the case. It was necessary, therefore,
that it should be ascertained whether they were or not.
Captain PECHELL said it appeared to him no answer
had been given to the statements in the petition, although
he did not deny that the Noble Lord was a very good advo-
cate for the parties whose cause he had espoused. He thought
the House would be committing an act of great injustice if
it did not send the petition of Mr. Yeates before the same
Committee to which the petition of the other parties had
been referred.
After a few observations from Mr. GREENE, who opposed,
and Mr. CRAWFORD, who supported the motion, strangers
were ordered to withdraw, and the House divided, when
the numbers were—

Ayes
Noes

43
22

MajOrity .....

-21

The petition was tlen ordered to be referred to the Depi
ford and Dover list.

GLASGOW AND AYR RAILWAY.

Mr. DUNLOP moved the third reading of
and Ayr Railway Bill.

Dr. BO WRING called upon the House not to permit
the clause to prevent travelling on Sundays being embodied
in the Bill. It would be most prejudicial, in many respects,
to the public interests. For instance, the mails might con-
vey the correspondence on Sunday as far as Ayr or Kilmar-
nock, and it would be then stopped. That was a state of
things to which he was satisfied the House would not consent.
It was, in his opinion, unfair to apply to that particular dis-
trict a provision which did not extend to other places, and
which was not necessary, as it had been declared that the
common law of Scotland was sufficient for the purpose.
Mr. DUNLOP, as Chairman of the Committee to which
the Bill had been referred, thought it right to state to the
House the mode in which the clause was introduced.
When a proposition to that effect was made, it was commu-
nicated to the promoters of the Bill, and they immediately
stated, that as it was the custom in Scotland on all other
roads to prevent travelling on Sundays, they would have no
objection to the introduction of such a clause into the Bill ;
but as they were not authorised by the subscribers
in Glasgow to insert such a clause, they would ra-
ther that the Committee should do so, and they
would offer no opposition to it. The clause met with
the approbation of a great majority of the people in the
two counties through which the line passed, and, as he
was astonished that such being the case, Hon. Gentlemen
were not satisfied with the opposition already given it. He
did not believe that, even if the clause were struck out,
that carriages would run upon the Lord's Day.--(Cheers.)
But as the people did not object to the introduction of such
a clause, and as by the law all other public conveyances
were stopped on that day, he trusted that the House would
not reject it.

Lord J. STEWART had felt it to be his duty to
oppose the clause in Committee, and his opinion had not
been changed since ; so that he would then offer it all the
opposition in his power.—(Cheers.) It ought to be known
to the House that the clause was carried in the Committee
by a bare majority of one.—(Hear, hear.) If the clause
were retained, the Hon. Bart. opposite (Sir A. Agnew) must
in justice introduce a Bill to shut up the King's high-
way upon the Lord's Day.—(Loud cheers.) He must in-
troduce a Bill to shut up all turnpike gates on Sunday,
otherwise the legislation would be partial, for if turnpikes
were not shut up, the rich who could afford to keep
their own carriages might travel without molestation ;
but the poor who could only enjoy a ride by means
of the cheapness afforded by railroad, would be altogether
stopped from at all, he would not say enjoying themselves,
but from travelling upon any pretence on a Sunday ; for
these reasons he would give the clause all the opposition in
his power, and he trusted that the House would reject it.
Sir ANDREW AGNEW was sorry to differ from the
Noble Lord, but he had letters from the constituents of
almost all the Members in that House—(Cheers)—and
also from those of the Noble Lord himself, requesting that
this clause might be retained. He had every reason to be-
lieve that the greater part of the subscribers to the
railway were anxious to have this clause retained.—(Hear.)
Mr. WAKLEY thought the House ought to consider,
that in legislating upon the subject, they were doing so not
for Ayrshire alone, but for the whole of England and Scot-
land.—(Cheers.) He considered the clause so monstrous,
that if he stood alone, he would oppose it.—(Hear, hear.)
Hon. Members had better be candid, and tell the House
at once, that the clause was intended to prevent the poor of

Ayrshire from availing themselves of recreation on the Sab-
bath. This clause did not touch the wealthy classes. No ;
the rich man might ride about in his carriage, but the poor
man was to be prevented availing himself of this great im-
provement in travelling. If this species of legislation were
to be tolerated, in his (Mr. W.'s) opinion, the Houses of
Parliament would be brought into the most utter con-
tempt. There was a commandment from the Deity prohibiting
work on the Sabbath-day.—(Cheers.) If that command
were not sufficient to prevent it, had the Hon. Baronet the
presumption to suppose that he could accomplish it by an
Act of Parliament ? The clause was levelled against the
working classes, and against no one else. He had occasion
to go the other day to Primrose-hill, and he was there in-
formed that on every fine Sunday and holyday no less than
from 6,000 to 10,000 persons visited that place for recreation.
—(Cheers.) That was travelling, and the clause was in-
tended to prevent that. He would ask, was there more harm in
using the feet on the Sabbath day than a railroad ?—(Cheers.)
Beasts were driven from distant places on the Sabbath, in
order to be in London on the Monday morning ; and if the
present clause passed, instead of being conveyed by this
easy and convenient mode, they would be obliged to adhere
to the present system, and be driven on foot. He consi-
dered the clause an insult and a mockery to the religion
which they professed ; and being of that opinion, he hoped
and trusted that the House would not only reject the clause,
but reject it with such a majority as totally to prevent any
Hon. Member from introducing such a clause in future.
Mr. FINCH thought the arguments of the Hon. Mem-
ber for Finsbury went too far. He had said that the Deity
had commanded that man should not work on the Sabbath-
day. That was true ; but the Deity had also commanded
that neither murder or theft should be committed, and yet
human laws were necessary to prevent both. So far from the
clause being intended to prohibit the poer man from en-
joying the Sabbath, it was intended to protect him in that
enjoyment.
Mr. ROEBUCK said that there had been so many
appeals on the subject that it was highly necessary that
they should be understood. First, an Hon. Member had
got up and insinuated that which be knew it would be un-
parliamentary to state openly.—(Cheers.) The insinuation
of the Hon. Member for Ayrshire with respect to his (Mr.
R.'s) religion was totally uncalled for. What was the
meaning of that insinuation ? A man of high feeling,
of Christian charity, of common honesty, would not make
an insinuation when he dared not make a direct assertion.
—(Loud cries of " Order, order," from the Tories.)
The SPEAKER said he thought the Hon. Member
must himself feel that he was using language not quite
Parliamentary.—(Hear, hear, from the Tories.)
Mr. ROEBUCK—I bow to your decision, Sir. The
language is too strong for this House ; but it was called
for by an insinuation that ought not to have been made in
it.—(Loud cheers.) They had a right now to understand
the question fully.—(Hear.) Those who oppose this
clause in a Railroad Act were said, by insinuation,
not to have a full and proper reverence for the Christian
religion—that was the meaning of the insinuation. Now
he asserted distinctly and broadly that the Christian reli-
gion had nothing whatever to do with the Sabbath.
The Sabbath Day was the Saturday kept by the Jewish re-
ligionist ; and the Sunday, which had so reference to the
4th Commandment was not contemplated at all by the
4th Commandment. The Sunday was not ordained by the
Christian religion ; but was an ordinance that had grown up
by mere custom.—( Hear, hear.) He held in his hand, and
he was determined to push this question to the utmost, a
tract written by Archbishop Whateley—( Hear, hear, from
the Tories) and he quoted Archbishop Cranmer—
(" Hear,"from the Ministerial benches.) He hoped that was
authority enough for gentlemen opposite who talked about
the Church of England. Now what said Archbishop Crani
mer :—" Know ye not, good children, that the Jews in the
Old Testament were commanded to keep the Sabbath day,
and they observed every seventh day, called the Sabbath,
or Saturday ; but we Christian men in the New
Testament are not bound by such commandments
of Moses's law concerning differences of times, days,
and weeks ; but have liberty and freedom to use other days
for our Sabbath days, thereon to bear the word of God and
keep holy rest, and therefore the Christian liberty may be
kept and maintained. We now keep no more the Sabbath
on Saturday, as the Jews do, but we observe the Sunday, and
certain other days, as the magistrates do judge convenient,
whom in this thing we must obey."—( Hear.) What was the
meaning of that assertion ?—why, that the fourth com-
mandment, like the other portion of the Jewish law, was
abrogated by the Christian Creed, and was no law upon us.
Archbishop Whateley, no ordinary authority, distinctly
laid down that rule, and said, that on the Sunday—
which was a mere day of commemoration, and not
ordained, nor commanded in any way by the Christian
religion—we keep our holy rest.—( Hear.) Now he would
go somewhat farther. He wanted to know by what rule
and by what Christian guide those men were led, who in-
sinuated those individuals were not Christians who op-
posed the principle of such a Bill as that before the House ?
He held in his hand the code of the Christian faith, and he
would quote that raverend book, and he would from it take
his rule and his Christian charity.—(Cheers.) He was
about to read, ivith all due reverence, and be hoped that
reverence would extend to others, a portion of St. Paul's
epistle to the Romans. In the 14th chap. of that epistle
St. Paul spoke thus, " Him that is weak in the faith receive
ye, but not to doubtful disputation. For one believeth that he
may eat all things, another who was weak eateth herbs. Let
not him that eateth despise him that eateth not ; and let
not him which eateth not judge him that eateth, for God
bath received him. Who art thou that judgest another
man's servant ? To his own master he standeth or falleth.
Yea, he shall be holden up, for God is able to make him
stand. One man esteemeth one day above another ; an-
other esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be full)
persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day
regardeth it unto the Lord, and he that regardeth not
the day to the Lord he doth not regard it. He
that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God
thanks ; and he that eateth not to the Lord, he eateth not,
and giveth God thanks." Another verse was this, " But
why dost thou judge thy brother ? Or why dost thou set
at nought thy brothe% for we shall all stand before the judge-
ment seat of Christ ; for it is written, as I live saith the Lord,
every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue confess to
God. So, then, every one of us shall give account
of himself to God." Again,—" Let us therefore follow
after the things which make for peace, and things
wherewith one may defy another. For meat dcstroyeth not
the work of God, all things indeed are pure ; but it is evil
for that man which eateth for offence. It is good neither
to eat flesh nor to drink wine, nor any thing wherewith
thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak."
He would read one verse more, and hare done. " Let us,
therefore, not judge one another any more, but judge this
rather, that no man put a stumbling-block, or an occasion to
fall, in his brother's way." That was his (Mr. Roebuck's)
rule.—(Hear, hear.) He would say, that no particular
day having been specified, it was not the duty of the Le-
gislature to interfere and enjoin the observance of any
given day, and thereby " put a stumbling-block in their
brother's way." In his opinion it savoured more of Chris-
tian charity—and above all of Christian humility—to
take care •of his own conduct—(Hear, hear)—to square
his rule for himself ; but not in any arrogance of special
command, and then to do that which he would be un-
willing to do himself. Let them, if they will, be as-
sured that they are in the right path, but let them not drive
others into it.—(Loud cheering.) Who, he would ask,
had set the Hon. Members on the other side up ? Who
had enabled them to judge ? He saw nothing to distinguish
them from other men—at least nothing of excellence.—
(A laugh.) But the Hon. Member for Ayrshire bad said the
people of Scotland liked the clause, and he (Mr. R.) would
ask, if so, did the law command them to travel on the Sunday?
Was there anything in the Act of Parliament to insist
upon their going upon the railway on that day ? Were,
they not able to show their peculiar faith by staying at
home on Sunday ?—(Hear.) Why did they not begin
nearer home if such enactments were to be carried ? Why
not stop the Greenwich Railway or the Greenwich steamers?
—(Hear.) They dared not.—(Cheers.) It was well
known that to do so was absolutely beyond the power of
Parliament.—(Continued cheering.) He respected the
people of Scotland ; but he did not admire their manner
of keepine. the Sabbath Day. He knew the meaning
of the nod of the Hon. Member for Edinburgh—it savoured
of the same arrogance as he had before alluded to.—(A
laugh.) He would again repeat that any ascetic observance
of the Sabbath was unwise, and that forcing the
conscience of any man was not only unwise but unjust.
The people of Scotland would not be injured by the re-
jection of the clause—it still left them their own uncon-
trolled will in the worship of God according to their
consciences, and they should thereby abstain from un-
charitably forcing the consciences of others.—(Hear.)
Mr. LABOUC HERE—The present discussion merely
convinced him of the impropriety of bringing forward such
subjects in a popular assembly. Although he admitted that
nothing had fallen from any Hon. Member during the pre-
sent discussion which was likely to create any unpleasant
feeling, it was desirable, nevertheless, that this debate
should not go further.—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Labou-
chere) rose for the pnrpose of stating the grounds upon
which he intended to vote upon the present occasion.
He could have no hesitation in voting for the motion of the
Hon. Member for Kilmarnock to strike the clause out of
the Bill.--(Loud cries of hear, hear.) It was his belief
that the adoption of a general principle to forbid travelling
upon Sundays was unwise and impolitic.
Mr. DUNLOP explained. If he had used any argu-
ments which were unparliamentary he begged leave to with-
draw them.—(Hear.)
Sir R. INGLIS said the arguments of the Hon. Member
for Bath ought to lead him to move for the repeal of all the
enactments respecting Sabbath observance, rather than to
oppose the present clause.

Mr. JOHN MAXWELL opposed the amendment,
amidst loud cries of " Divide, divide," and " Question."
Col. THONIPSON objected to the clause amid loud
cries of " Divide." If Hon. Members opposite could show
any authority in that sacred work to which the Hon. Mem-
ber for Bath had referred for the course they were adopt-
ing, he would at once withdraw his opposition to the clause.

Lord J. RUSSELL said as he had not been accustomed
to vote upon private Bills, he thought it necessary to say
a few words in explanation of his reasons for giving
his vote against the clause proposed. It seemed to him
that in adopting the clause, the House would be
going far beyond what it had hitherto done. He could
not consider that the House would be acting rightly to
legislate with respect to a particular railway in a particular
district, without extending it to all railways ; and if it did,
the same provision ought to be extended to all travelling.
Now as he was not prepared to go that length, he felt
bound to vote against the retention of the clause.

Sir A. AGNEW explained.
The CHISHOLM said the Noble Lord had evidently
not read the Bill. It did no more than leave the law as
it at present stood in Scotland, and he hoped the clause
would be retained.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the Honour-
able Member who had just addressed the House did
not understand the question.—( Hear, hear, hear.) The
clause as it then stood prohibited the travelling upon this
railway from 12 o'clock on Saturday night till 12 o'clock
on Sunday night—the clause was most unnecessary, and,
in his opinion, would be most injurious. He did not agree
with the opinions expressed by the Hon. Member for Bath
with regard to the manner in which the Sabbath was ob-
served in his native country. He trusted it would alwaysbe
as well observed, but he could never agree to such a clause
as the one in question, which might actually prevent many
from riding a few miles by the railway in order to attend the
church.
The Gallery was then cleared, and the numbers were—
For the clause
Against it
Majority -32
The clause was then struck out, and the Bill read a third
time and passed.
IRISH POOR-LAW BILL.

On the motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, the Order
of the Day for going into Committee on the Irish Poor-
law Bill was read, for the purpose of being postponed till
Tuesday next.
Mr. HEATHCOTE beggdd to ask the Noble Lord
(Lord J. Russell), whether the Government were intending
to take any steps for carrying into effect the Report of the
Committee which had sat, for the purpose of finding out
means for reducing the expenses of carrying into effect the
English Tithe Bill ? As the matter then stood, the ar-
rangements for commutations were entirely put an end
to, and he trusted the Government would do something in
order to put an end to such a state of things.
_ _

Lord J. RUSSELL said the President of the Board of
Trade, who was a Member of the Committee spoken
would introduce a Bill upon the matter in a short time.
BURMESE PRIZE MONEY.

In answer to Mr. Hume, Sir J. HOBHOU3E said
he was happy to inform the House, that he had that day
learned there would be an immediate issue of the prize
money arising from the Burmese war.
Mr. ROEBUCK said before the House proceeded to
the business of the night, he hoped the Noble Lord would
say how he intended to carry on the Government business.
Would it not be better to follow up one Bill and pursue it
to the end ?

Lord JOHN RUSSELL was glad that the subject
had been again called to his attention, for many Hon.
Members were then present who were not on the pre-
vious night, when the Hon. Member for Bath proposed
that the Government should proceed with one Bill, and
pursue it day by day until it was finished.—(Hear, hear,
hear.) He thought that, as a deliberative assembly,
and especially as a representative assembly, it was necessary
that some time should elapse after a Committee on a
Bill and the receiving of the Report, that the country might
be aware of the alterations made in it in Committee.
Formerly when he (Lord John Russell) had a seat on the
Opposition benches, on Mondays and Fridays Orders of
the Day had precedence, and on Notice Days they were
taken in the order in which they stood, unless when
one of very particular importance was brought for-
ward, and when others in courtesy gave way.--(Hear.)
He thought it was to a want of that kind of consideration
that much of their present difficulties were to be attributed;
and if the House would only comply with the former mode
of proceeding, much of the inconvenience complained of
would be obviated.

Mr. ROEBUCK explained.
Mr. ROBINSON said it would be impossible for the
House to go on with the business, unless it adhered strictly
to some fixed rule. There had never been any want of
courtesy on the Opposition side of the House towards Go-
vernment. He hoped the experience of this and last Session
would induce every Member of the House to endeavour to
find out some measure by which they might more satisfac-
torily get through the business of the House.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that a great many of the evils at present complained of,
might be attributed to the practice of adjourning debates.

Mr. O'CONNELL said the great error was in the u❑
natural hour at which the House sat.—( Hear.) It would
be better to have two days in the week devoted entirely to
Committees, and the other four to sittings in the House,
beginning at the hour at which the business of the Courts
of Justice commenced, 10 o'clock. They might then get
through their business with some satisfaction to themselves
and the country.
Mr. H. TWISS did not think the suggestions of the
Hon. Member for Dublin could be acceded to.

Mr. AG LIO NBY said. he should draw the attention of
the Noble Lord probably next week to the mode of drawing
Bills, and the internal management of the business of the
House, as he was convinced the mode in which business
was carried on was detrimental to the public.
Mr. B. HOY complained of the course proposed to be
adopted by the Noble Lord. He had a motion for Tues-
day next, and if the proposition of the Noble Lord were
acceded to, he should be unable to bring it forward.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the postponed question
would not necessarily take precedence of the Hon. Mem-
ber's motion, although if the Hon. Member gave way, it would
be a .convenience. With' respect
.to the question of the Hon.
and Learned. Member for Ccie4;thouth, the questionAihethir
it would be desirable to appOint a Committee to consider the
arrangement of the business of the House, was at present un-
der consideration. The Noble Lord then moved the Order
of the Day for going into Committee on the Forgery Bill.
Col. SIBT WO RP rose, pursuant to notice, to make a mo-
tion for the reduction of the duty on Fire Insurances. The
Hon. and Gallant Member was proceeding to address the
House in support of his motion, when

Mr. C. BUL LER rose to Order. The Hon. and Gallant
Member was acting in accordance-with a practice which had
long prevailed of moving questions of a general nature on the
reading of the first Order of the Day ; but he (Mr. Buller)
doubted whether it was a practice in accordance with the Or-
ders of the House.—( Hear, hear.) What relation could the
question of the reduction of the duty on Fire Insurances have
to the Forgery Bill ?
After a few words from the SPEAKER, Colonel SIBTIIORP,

and Lord Jonm RUSSELL, the House went into Committee
on the Forgery Bill.
After a few words from Lord J. RUSSELL, the House
resumed, and the Bill was reported, with amendments—the
Report to be further considered on Monday.