The Sun.
London, England, 1838-06-21 00:00:00

very many objections. He distinctly stated, moreover, that
he would not pledge himself to support the plan proposed.
—( Hear, hear.) That was the utmost extent to which he had
ever gone upon the subject—(Heer)—and yet he regretted to
find
were
the very defects which he then pointed out in the
plan embodied in the present Bill.—( Hear, hear.) One
of the points to which he had particularly drawn the atten-
tion of the Honourable Member was, that the- Government
ought to have a distinct controul over the Commissioners.—
( Hear.) He had considered that the parties were prepared
with a large sum of money of their own, and not of other per-
sons—( Hear, hear)—and if any one of the Honourable
Gentlemen who were present at the interview had said that
this money was to be raised by loan, he should have said at
once that he could not give his sanction or countenance to the
scheme. The Government, he contended, would not be doing
its duty to the numerous individuals in this country who were
in the habit of investing money in different speculations if
they gave encouragement to loans contracted in such a
manner as this Bill held out.—( Hear, hear.) There was a
great difference, he must be allowed to say, between the
cases of South Australia and New Zealand. What he now
said on his own part ho also said on the part of the Govern-
ment at large, who, at the same time, were not unwilling to
support any measure for colonizing New Zealand combining
the securities he had just alluded to. This Bill, however, did
not answer these desirable objects.—( Hear, hear.) Another
objection he had to this measure was that the appointment of
the Commissioners was to be irrevocable—( Hear)—and that
being the case what check, he should be glad to know, was there
to be in their proceedings beyond the mere necessity of their
making a periodical report of them to the Secretary of State
or to Parliament, no power, however, being vested either in the
the Secretary of State 'or the Queen in Council to alter any
of the laws or by-laws they might think fit to enact.—( Hear.)
They were to have the power of making peace or war, &c.,
and how could that House think of giving its sanction to any
such measure Hear, hear.) 'What security was afforded
for the just treatment cf the natives, who would thus be handed
over to the discretion of a body of Commissioners ?—( Hear,
hear, hear.) Each of the clauses of this Bill appeared to him
more monstrous than the other, and he was told that he might
remodel it. This, however, he never undertook to do, neither
had he bound himself to support it ; and, under these circum-
stances, and considering the late period of the Session at which
it was brought forward, he should cordially join with his Hon.
Friend the Under-Secretary for the Colonies in voting against
the second reading of the measure —( Cheers. )
Mr. HUTT said that he could not allow the observations
of the Noble Lord to go uncontradicted, in justice to the
South Australian Company, who in one year had succeeded
in establishing a flourishing colony on the desert shores of that
continent, without a single shilling of expense to this country.
It was quite true that a loan of 60,0001. had been obtained by
the Company for planting this colony, and providing for the
government and protection of the settlers ; but was it not
obvious that such an object could not be attained without con-
siderable expense? The expenses of this debt and the cost of
maintaining the colony did not exceed 15,0001., and to meet
these charges there was a revenue of 5,0001., and the pro-
ceeds of the sale of lands this year would amount to as much
as 50,0001. After defraying therefore the whole annual ex-
pense of the colony there would remain a sum of 40,0001. for
the purposes of emigration, so that, in point of fact, the se-
curity for the debt which had been incurred was ample. There
was not a single soldier in the South Australian colony, and
this proved that bayonets were not necessary to obtain for the
settlers in a new country, who were determined to act on
principles of justice and humanity-, the regard and good
opinion of the natives. He took a deep interest in the
success of this Bill, and he must say that the Noble Lord had
not dealt fairly with it.
Sir WALTER JAMES said that he felt it to be his duty
to oppose this measure, on the grounds that they had not yet
received the report of the House of Lords on the subject, and
that it would interfere with the experiments of the mis-
sionaries, which he understood had been attended with the
utmost success.
Mr. WILLIAMS said he should support the motion,
Mr. GOULBURN must oppose the Bill, on the ground
that when they were establishing a new colony in a country
inhabited by an uncultivated people the whole controul of it
should rest in the hands of the Government, in order that the
power entrusted might not be abused. It was evident from
this Bill that when the Hon. Gentlemen opposite come to le-
gislate they acted against their own principles, for in this
measure powers the most unlimited and arbitrary were given.
—( Hear, hear.) Not only did it give an unlimited power of
taxation, but it allowed the importation of timber into this
country duty free, and enabled the parties at their discretion
to proclaim martial law.--( Hear, hear.)
Mr. P. HOWARD supported the Bill.
Lord SANDON said, that so far from the argument of the
Hon. Member for Carlisle. being well founded, it was enacted
by one of the clauses in the Bill, that after the Act had been
proclaimed in the colony, no sale or transfer of land could take
piece. He certainly should oppose its further progress.
Mr. PEASE, with every desire to see a better state of
things in New Zealand, could not support the second reading
of a Bill which conferred such unlimited powers.
After a few words from Mr. T. F. BARING, which were
not audible in the gallery,
The House divided.
For the second reading
Against it
Majority
COP--

_.OIIYRIGHT BILL.
Mr. GLADSTONE rose for the purpose of offering a
suggestion to the Honourable and Learned Gentleman op-
posite, which he trusted he would think -worthy of t io atten-
tion. Considering the late period of the Session, and the
state of public business, he trusted that the Honourable and
Learned Gentleman would consent to postpone the Bill until
next Session. fie made this request in no spirit of hostility
to the measure which had been introduced by the Hon. and
Learned Member. On the contrary, no person was more
firmly convinced that the Bill, when 'fully considered and im-
proved, and perfectly matured, was calculated not only to
guard the interests of authors and publishers, but to promote
moreover, the interests of the public. He thought that by
postponine. the Bill to the next session there- was every
likelihood it would be perfected in that way that would render
it beneficial to all interests concerned.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL and Sir E. SUGDEN
concurred in the suggestion.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD felt indebted to the Hon.
Member for Newark for the manner in which he had made
his suggestion. He confessed himself reluctant to give up the
position in which the measure had at length been placed ; but
when he looked to the state of the public business, and consi-
dered the duty which every Member of that House owed to
the promotion of the public business, he did not think that he
was in any way compromising the interests of those in whose
behalf he had brought forward this measure by consenting to
postpone it to the next session of Parliament. In conse-
quence of having remodelled the Bill, a great deal of the op-
position which had originally existed against it had abated, and
many Members who had opposed it originally would now sup-
port it. He had also to state that when the Bill was originally
introduced a very important and respectable class, the pub-
fishers, whether in the abstract right or wrong he would not
say, felt that it would be injurious to their interests. Since
the Bill had been re-modelled those objections had been got
over, and they now found that the Bill would be not only a
great advantage to the literature of the country but to them-
selves, and they were desirous that it should pass. However,
under the circumstances, he stated he had no objection to post-
pone the Bill, but he hoped that there would be no objection
to allow him to lay the Bill on the table at the earliest period
of the next Session of Parliament.
Mr. HUME thought that when the Bill was introduced
next Session it ought to be referred to a Committee up stairs,
and that those whose interests would be affected ought to be
allowed to be heard in evidence against it.
Mr. GOULBURN said that it appeared that there were
still no less than thirty-eight Bills before the House, and lie
therefore rose to express a hope that other Hon. Gentlemen
who had Bills before the House would imitate the example
that had been set by the Hon. and Learned Gentlemen op-
posite, and consent to relieve the House of measures which
were not likely to be carried, and which would occupy a con-
siderable portion of the time of the House at this advanced
period of the Session.

Mr. S. O'BRIEN responded to the suggestion. Ile would
withdraw the Sheriffs (Ireland) Bill, the carriage of which
had been placed in his hands.
After a few words from Sir R. INGLIS, the Order of the
Day for the further consideration of the Copyright Bill, was
discharged.

LORD'S DAY BILL.
Mr. PLUMPTRE moved that the Bill be re-committed.
Mr. WARD hoped, after the example that had been set,
,that the Hon. Gentleman opposite, would consent to postpone
the re-committal of the Bill till next Session. There would
be no chance of the Bill passing this session, as, so far from
having diminished the objections entertained towards it at that
side of the House, those objections were, on the contrary, in-
creased. Every restriction imposed on the richer classes had
been taken away, and those only which pressed on the poorer
classes had been allowed to remain. If the lion. Member
persevered he should feel obliged to move as an amendment to
the Order of the Day that the Bill be committed that day
three months.
Mr. PLUMPTRE said that he moved the recommittal of
the Bill, as it was his intention to offer some amendments.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL concurred in the expe-
diency of adopting the' suggestion: The present Bill was no-
thine, more than a recital of the law as it stood at present, only
with' additional penalties. He thought that the Act after
which the present measure was framed having fallen into
desuetude for upwards of a century and a half was sufficient
proof that it was not in accordance with the feelings of the
public.
Mr. PLUMPTRE said that the Bill contained a general
prohibitory clause prohibiting buying and selling and keeping
open shops and markets on the Lord's Day.
Mr. HALVES opposed the Bill, on the ground that it made
an unfair and improper distinction between the rich and the
poor. He would support the amendment if pyoposed.
Mr. GO ULBURN defended his Hon. Friend the Member
for Kent. In framing the Bill he had followed the law as he
found it before him. He had not taken any invidious course.
The 13w had never interfered with the clubs, but the Le7islature
had interfered with respect to the regulation of public-houses.
After a few words from Captain PE C II EL L,
Mr. WARD moved, as an amendment, that the Bill be re-
committed that day three months.
Mr. JERVIS seconded the amendment. The present
Act was similar to an Act of Charles the Second, and that
Act had not been in operation, because the public feeling was
against it. The greatest objection to the present Bill was
that it made a distinction between two classes of society. He
contended that the Bill would inflict a great inconveni-
ence upon the poor. It was notorious that at the c.iubs the
rich who frequented them had their enjoyn ontl unrestricted,

and it was well known that the circumstances which led
a lite trial in the Queen's Bench, in which certain aristo-
cratic parties figured, originated in a game of card; "" 3
Sunday morning at one of the clubs. The Bill made Ore,
law for the rich and another for the poor. By preventing th
baker from working of a Sunday twenty women would be kel,i
at home from church, and employed in preparing the dinner
their families.
Sir E. SUGDEN concurred in some of the objectil
urged against part of the Bill, while he agreed in the (Me,
it had in view. He thought that part of the Bill which pre-
vented rc
vented the poor man having his dinner cooked on a Sun'
and which also prevented him baying his malt drink on a So"
day, ought to be done away with.
Mr. GROTE was glad to find that the Bill was likely ti
meet with the strenuous opposition of the Right Herb /lja
Learned Gentleman opposite, should it ever reach
Committee. Ile ( Mr. Grote) thought that at so late a Pc,
rind of the session the House could not permit the Bill to g"
into Committee.
• Fa
Mr. JACKSON would certainly advise his Hon. FrlFte
not to yield to the solicitations of Hon. Members oPP°SI.
-
He thought it was the duty of a Christian Legislature tor°
vide for the observance of the Lord's Day.
Sir H. VERNEY thought that his Hon. Friend by Peesevering ',in his Bill from year to year had exhibited th
greatest moral courage.
Mr. SHAW said that he could not agree in the opini°3
that allowing public-houses to be open on Sunday at all co"'
trihuted to the amusement of the lower classes.
Mr. A. WHITE should vote for the re-commitment of t"
Bill.

The House then divided—
For the re-commitment 75
Against it
Majority.
The House then, went into Committee on the Bill. An Hoer. MENMER proposed the postponement of the Pre,
amble.
Mr. WARD wished to introduce words in the preen'
causing the operations of the Bill to commence with t-
classes who were best able to appreciate the obligations of
religion they professed.
After some conversation the postponement-of the preamble
was agreed to.
On clause A,
Mr. JERVIS proposed that alter the word "shall," the
words " do or cause to be done any manner of work," "e,a t
serted. He did not conceal from the House that his 02.1,'
was to reach all classes. de,
Mr. PL UM PTRE opposed the introduction of these wet
Mr. GOULBURN opposed the amendment. .ast
Mr. SANFORD said that it was his decided opinion
,t
these words should be inserted. He should certainly suPP",;(
any proposition introduced into the Bill, for the purpose
compelling the higher classes to observe the Sabbath. al
Sir T. FREMANTLE thought that the Hon. Gentleia
opposite was exceedingly inconsistent. He had on a form
:e
occasion offered to support any Bill which merely went to
vide against Sunday trading; but now, when his (Sir T. r,ilt
mantle's) Hon. Friend behind him introduced a Bill for ti
purpose, he intended to oppose it.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that he should fir,
tainly oppose both the clause and the amendment. He thol4li
it absurd that a provision which had remained a dead letter on
the statute book for one hundred and fifty years should 11
be revived, after having been proved by that long oxperieeto
totally useless. The law of Charles was so reengnantned
public feeling that it was found impossible to enforce it,
it therefore fell into abeyance.
fad Mr. PLUMPTRE said the Act of Charles was a 'Jiro
letter, because of the manners of the
period in which it
enforced.
e
Mr. JERVIS would still persist in his amendment. !hi:
objected to the Bill because it drew a distinction between to
rich and the poor, and visited with penalties the class 0" an
was not represented in that House, If they were to make'
enactment founded upon the Commandment, let them
full length.
Mr. VERNON SMITH would oppose every clause,'f tre
Bill as levelled against the poorer classes, whilst the, killriTe
permitted to practise all kinds of debaucheries. If w
could operate equally, so as to affect all classes; be Well'id
oppose it.
c4'
Mr. GOULBURN said it was erroneous, as tbe Ti
)8
Gentleman seemed to think, to suppose that violation of
t
Sabbath formed a cheerful recreation of the poor. ; Dire
Goulburn, few words in explanation from Mr. V. Smith,
• Goulburn, and Mr. Ward,
Mr. VILLIERS wished to know on what principle the of
was founded. If they referred to the religious observance.be
• the Sabbath Day, and made that the principle, where Was 1(1,
consistency of not going to the whole extent of the Con11"'
ment ? Why confine the Bill to tradintg alone
Sir H. 'VE RNEY would support the Bill, though it did l'ot
go to the full extent of the Commandment. hr
Mr. KEMBLE denied that it was the intention.cf the
to harrass the poor.
Mr. HAWE S wished to know why domestic
servants 01°14
not be considered in the Bill. he
Lord DUNGANNON regretted the introduction f.e,t,
Bill. It was impossible to legislate fairly upon this saki.
and upon whatever side of the House he sat he would not
port any measure which did not deal equal justice to the fi-
end to the poor.
Mr. P. HOWARD thought, as the Sabbath was at yres-
of
so well observed in England, it was a dangerous exp erin2cl;
to provoke a spirit of contradiction by further egit}°
the subject.'_ Considering the late hour of the night ( a uar.
past twelve) be should move that the Chairman repot Pro'
gross, and ask leave to sit again.
Mr. L ANGDA LE was of opinion that those. vho indult' ell
in a walk upon Sunday evenings should be al'
owed to obteil
some refreshment. It was dangerous to i'atr;rfere too
with the amusements of the people.
Captain BOLDERO—An Hon. Alembne had exprets°`7,
wish to see the working people supplied with refreshrocr,'
For his part, he (Captrin Boldero) should be pleased 5.
o 0
every working man able to indulge in as good a dinner as °
self—a pot of porter and a sirloin of beef.—(Laughter.)
nth
Mr. WARBURTON suggested that it would be quite
ficient to have markets prohibited from being open. Su
it would go too far to prevent the sale of such refreshmea
ate usually sold in confectioners' shops.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said he intended to ''re
that it should apply only to markets, and not to shops in Vi
were sold reasonable refreshments.
After a few words from Mr. C A YLEY,
tyo
Mr. JERVIS said he would press his amendment,' -r
the
Hon. Gentleman opposite would not consent to apply s
c e
clause to markets only. If, however, the Hon. Member
tented to the revision of the clause, he should withda
amendment.
After some further conversation the House divided al 20n ,0 sit
motion that the Chairman report progress, and ask lea' re
again, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it
r 0
Majority against the amendment....
On our return to the gallery we found h„f4 Mr. BAINES, who said that in his opinion the 15v-b
the
classes were most interested, for they would decidedly
baestb•
greatest sufferers by an habitual desecration of the San
He opposed the motion.
• The Committee then divideken Mr. Jerteses's tien.
For the amendment 29
Against it
.--
Majority 3 '
et tled
Mr. HAWES also moved an amendment to tile es'ed„nesf
no one should use any other carriages or horses on: • the ItcP
save and except licensed carriages and horses. Vila 3:oCoret
ment would especially protect the interests of tbo r
classes.
Colonel WOOD opposed the amendment of the 110,n' Ave
ber for Lambeth. It was proposed with the view of
ridicule on the Bill, and insinuating immorality again--
[ higher classes of society.
After a few words from Mr. GOULBURN,
The Chairman decided that the words proposed aver ° it
rr
levant to the subject matter of the Bill.
Mr. JERVIS moved that the Cheirman report prof sreri:;tto
A conversation ensued, in which Mr. Praed, lY .r. tool‘
Mr. Leader, Mr. Goulburn, Mr. Shaw, and Mr. Hr .009
part.
The Committee then divided on Mr. Jervis's am eye°. oet
For the amendment
Against it
e 7
Majority
Mr. HAS`'ES felt disposed to press the ameill nerit he
la,
previously proposed to a division.
MI%
After a few words trorn the Solicitors Gene ra," 0113014
Howard, Mr. Brotherton, Mr. Sandford, Mr .
"°"A fur 11
Mr. Ward, and the Chairman, the gallery was cleave
division, but none took place. • of
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
moved tho °llli3 • the clause.
Mr. SHAW moved the omission of only a r •°rti°ll °ft
the
clause.
prc'
An Hon. Mreemeu moved that the Chairm at r'i
gress, and ask leave to sit again.
The Committee again divided, and there appeared--
For the motion
Against it
Majority ....
....-11
e°
Mr. SHAW expressed his anxiet . y that maki fig 0f tie tracts on the Lord's Day should be
as well forbi 3deL ,-sat:s'
opening of shops or holdingof markets. He won
°Y.
nde ft2t
fled if the Solicitors General
this point. would undertake to Pr
t
Mr. GOULI3URN said that it was quite as ess entia I a
.I,Blil
good should not be delivered on the Lord's Day as that to
should not be sold. The Solicitor-General shoal toe"
this also.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that he • heel °
nally expressed his repugnance to the clause, and w ou,elddl'to
vote undertakeagain
against
et
hree responsibility sill oi hni liittsy
tohfiridts enactment.readin,.
ost-
A long and irregular discussion ensued on a mr,tima for p
ponement, and On several points of order connected with
possibility of putting similar questions seriati? 4.
Mr. SLANE Y declared that his side of the Meuse n'c'gf
proceeding very vexatiously in not ellowinrsa the Bill to be d
bated. He would not lend himself to such.Cliscreditalle doi*.,a
in which no arguments had been brought;forward vt vrthy 1
attention of the House.
Mr. WARD observed that Cue Hon. Gentleman had
been present for the last asvo hours, and had no right to leetu
the House in such s manner.
A desultory conversation took place, in which Mr. LE A.D. co
o
expressed ins determieation to " pursue the same v e
coarse of preventing the discussion by moving adjourn talent
Continuation."

ti' /I°li e
Eventualiy the Chairman reported progress, and
resumed,