The Sun.
London, England, 1834-05-16 00:00:00

THE PORTUGUESE PAPERS.

The Marquis of LONDCWlTifrti;isliedto ask the
'noble lord when he would be prepared to lay upon the
table of the house the papers for which he had moved rela-
tive to the case of his friend Sir John Campbell. He had
hoped that these papers would have been placed upon their
lordships' table previous to the adjournment ; and fearing
that his hon. friend might be still languishing in a prison,
he begged to say that unless the noble earl's answer were
satisfiictory, he should feel it his duty to bring the subject
under their lordship's consideration again.
Earl GREY hoped to be enabled to lay the papers alluded
to by the noble marquis on their lordships' table to-mor-
row. They should have been produced sooner if they
could have been got ready.
The Marqu:s of LONDONDERRY was aware that the
Foreign-051e had been a scene of unutterable confusion for
the last w'zek or ten days, owing to the noble lord at that
departnyent not finding the policy of his friend Prince Tal-
leyranit se, propitious as he had anticipated. (A laugh. )
however, as these papers were important, he hoped
the house would be put in possession of them with as little
*1,4 as possible, when the conversation dropped.
BETTER OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH.

Lord WYNFORD rose to move the second reading of
the bill which he had introduced for enforcing a better ob-
tervance of the Sabbath, but we regret to say that owing
to the low tone of voice in which the noble and learned
lord spoke, and our being unable to catch more than an oc-
casional sentence here and there, it is impossible for us to
*do more than give a very imperfect outline of his observa-
tions. The noble and learned lord was understood to say
that he had seldom experienced more, anxiety about any
measure than he felt respecting the fate of this bill, know-
ing as he did, that among its opponents would be many
lords whose sentiments, generally speaking, were in unison
with his own. He could, however, assure their lordships
that he would bring no measure forward which he did not
think absolutely necessary. The feeling that prevailed
throughout the country on this subject was very strong,
as the petitions which had been presented, not only to their
lordships but to the other house of Parliament, in favour of
legislative interference to insure a proper observance of
the Sabbath would testify. By different sects the Sabbath
was differently observed. The dissenters observed it dif-
ferently from those who belonged to the Church of Eng-
land ; and as each party desired a different mode of obser-
vance, instead of making new laws he proposed doing little
more than rendering the laws which already existed effec-
tual. In short, all he intended to do was to prevent per-
sons from doing that which tended to demoralize the
labouring classes of the community, and which was cal-
culated deeply to wound the feelings of the friends of order
and religion. This was the extent of the bill now under
their lordships' consideration, and if he had attempted to
carry it further he would have-been wrong. There were,
however, two or three provisions of the bill which were not
to be found in the existing laws, but with these exceptions
the object of the measure was to render the enactments of
the old laws which were now inoperative effectual. The
noble and learned lord pointed out the imperfections of the
present laws, and explained how he proposed remedying
the defect to which he alluded. It was lamented by Col.
Rowan and another equally intelligent magistrate of great
experience, that the laws relating to the observance of the
Sabbath were so imperfect, and it had been complained by
that excellent, pious, and learned man, Dr. Doyle of Lam-
beth, and the Rector of St. Giles's, that they could
not pass to their respective churches on Sunday mornings
without witnessing scenes of immorality and debasement,
which so deranged their thoughts as almost to unfit them
for performing their sacred duty. Since the bill had been
introduced he had received communications from all quar-
ters and all classes of persons earnestly imploring him to
rere in his efforts to carry the measure, and the bane-
eefilects which beer-houses and gin shops had produced
on the morals and habits of the poorer classes had been
strongly and feelingly urged upon his attention. His noble
and learned friend on the woolsack would, he had no doubt,
confirm all that he' had said respecting the inadequacy of
the present lawS relating to the observance of the Sabbath,
and if they were on all hands acknowledged to be defective,
surely it was the bounden duty of their lordships to supply
that which was wanting. The present system of penalties
was perfectly nugatory ; and, therefore, instead of a delin-
quent being subject only to single penalty, no matter how
frequently-he violated the law in the course of the day, his
bill proposed that each separate offence should be visited
with a distinct penalty. This, he submitted, would be a
great improvement. He did not mean to interfere with
Sunday travelling, because he knew it to be wholly una-
voidable ; but, although that was the case, he thought
that the transmission of goods from place to place on the
Lord's Day should be prevented. He could recollect
the time when nothing of the kind ever took place,
but now it was as common to see waggons and other
vehicles travelling with goods upon the Sunday as on
any other day in the. week. The statute of Charles
the First contained provisions to check this abuse,
but then that statute was a dead letter. He also
proposed altering the law relating to, not only beerhouses
and ginshops, but to all houses of public resort, and to make
a different arrangement for opening and closing them on
the Sabbath Day to that which now existed. He intended
empowering constables to enter places of this description
during divine service, and to take all persons who might be
found drinking into custody. They were not, however, to
be brought before a magistrate, but merely detained until
they got sober, as it was not on such unfortunate persons
that penalties should be levied. Another provision of this
bill went to do away with the present practice of giving
secular notices in churches during divine service., The
practice was rendered necessary by the present law, but
still as it was not free from objection ; it ought to be done
away with. lie proposed that all such notices should be
affixed to some conspicuous part of the porch of the
church, and that plan he thought would be quite as good
as the present, and infinitely less objectionable. It was
also intended to place bakers under fresh regulations. He
did not think it would be advisable to prevent the poor
from having their dinners baked on Sunday, but then there
would be no hardship in enacting that no dinners should
be sent to the oven later than ten o'clock in the morning,
or delivered from thence after two in the afternoon. The
object of his mean re was, if possible, to relieve the poor
from the state of moral .degradation in which they were
plunged, and not to debar them of any rational enjoyment
which they ought to have. Even in point of economy, a
restraint upon Sunday trading would be of immense ad-
vantage to them. The noble lord concluded by moving
that the bill be read a second time.
The question having been put,
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he, as well as
his noble and learned friend, felt strongly the great im-
portance of this measure, and he freely admitted that a
subject of such deep and vast interest ought to receive their
lordships' most serious consideration. It was their duty,
undoubtedly, to remedy any defects which might exist in

the resent laity, but it was no less their duty to guard
'agarnit 'taking any step that instead of removing. the evils
complained of might rather have the effect of increasing
those evils. There could be no denying that a Nep in-
terest was felt on this subject throughout the country, and
that the number of petitions which had been presented to
both houses of parliament, praying the legislature to take
measures for remedying the inefficient observinet of the
Sabbath Day was almost unprecedented. Nevertheless,
he looked, as every one of their lordships was bound to do,
with a strong feeling at not only the great importance but
the great difficulty of the question with which they *ere
called upon to deal. If they did nothing, the eamtry would
naturally complain ; but still, having before their eyes the
fact that every attempt that had hitherto been made
to legislate on this sr..l-eci only went to prove the diffi-
culty in which ii was involved, they would be acting most
unwisely if they were to do any thing which could not be
safely and effectually, and without the possibility of
creating mischiefs as bad as those which at present existed.
He freely confessed that he did not object to encounter the
risk merely because other measures had failed, but before
any proposition was adopted it should, he thought, be made
clear not only that it was safe that no fresh evil could arise
from it, but that it would not have the tendency of making
the observance of the Sabbath less strict than they knew
it now to be. (Hear, hear.) He was averse to any mea-
sure interfering with the ordinary avocations of the humbler
classes, or the mode in which they passed their time, which
could render the due observance of the Lord's Day either
burdensome, unpopular, or less favoured than it now was,
but he was at the same time desirous to do all that might
be necessary for preventing any unbecoming conduct on
the part of the less scrupulous portion of the community.
If any law could be framed, such as was suggested by the
right rev. prelate (the Bishop of London) the other even-
Mg, there would be no objection to it if it could be held
without incurring any risk. He (the Lord Chancellor)
had often stated when petitions had been presented on the
subject, and he then repeated it, that the Sabbath -
better observed in England, and it was undo'fatedlv the
case in Scotland, than in any other countr‘;',o Ear,pe,
had visited most of the Continental -
Antes, and We lieVer
found anything like the same reri,o4 to tht uktaity of the
Sabbath as in this great me!..(l, I 5.. lt then they had such
an advantage as to hav:d thu sttn„hy so well observed with-
out legal interfer
was some r- -.00„, they' "- Should well consider that there
ur
deavo-,44
. of minting what they already had by en-
entirce the better observance by means of
...a toreiralsion. At present the Sabbath was respected
toy dye 'people not merely from their religious habits, but
its *day on which there was a relief front worldly occupa-
tions. The higher classes reorded Sunday as a day
of rest for the lower classes, and the humbler classes
regarded it as a day of religious rest, and also as one
of relaxation front their secular callings. There were
also other causes for the proper observance of the day
which he would not more particularly allude to. At
present it might truly be said that the reason that the
Sabbath was so well observed ht this country arose from
the moral and religious feeling of the people as the laws
did not interfere to produce this result. In this case,
therefore, the old maxim, logis sine moribus, was reversed,
and there existed more sine legibus, and great caution,
therefore, must be exercised in interfering in the matter.
With all gratitude then to his noble and learned friend
(Lord Wynford) for the pains he had bestowed on the
bill, and for the candour with which he had spoken of it,
he (the Lord Chancellor) felt bound to state after all the
consideration that he could give to the matter, that his
noble and learned friend did not appear to legislate on a
right understanding of the subject, or on sound princi-
ples. If they attempted to interfere with that which was
now done by the voluntary feelings of the people, they would
be running risk of danger even if they succeeded in their
object. In short, it appeared to him doubtful whether
appealing to the inflexible hand of the law was the
right mode of legislation. The subject was, in point of
fact, nothing more nor less than an attempt to improve the
morals and habits of tl.is country. ( Hear.) If he said
that he thought that the present bill never could be
taken in the shape in which it was, he did not say more
than he believed, as it was most objectionable in its cha-
racter. The defects and errors of which he complained
did not exist merely in one part, but prevailed throughout
all parts of it. It was a bill to make business stand still,
not merely on Sunday, but on every day of the week.
(" No, no," from Lord Wynford.) He (the Lord Chan-
cellor) had no doubt that the noble and learned lord
thought so, but still what he (the Lord Chancellor) had
stated was the case. The clause runs on—" If any person
enter into a bond or deed, or any party becoming a party
to any such deed or bond, or exposing any article to sale
or being a party to the exposure of such article or articles
to sale (and he begged their lordships to remembe" that
nothing was said about Sunday, for it was immaterial, ac-
cording to the clause, whether it was Sunday or any other
day), shall be liable, &c." He asked their lordships
whether this would not put a stop to all trading whatsoever.
This defect was not merely a misprint, for it extended
throughout the bill. It was the case in the second clause ;
it was also the case in the fifth clause and others that he
could refer to. He was aware that a great number of pe-
titions had been presented with respect to the state of the
morals of the people, but he had never heard of petitions
presented to prohibit drunkenness on any day as well
as Sunday. Drunkenness was undoubtedly a very odious
vice, but there were many others equally so ; for instance,
a want of chastity was a much worse vice, as it affected
others, than drunkenness ; and yet his noble and learned
friend did not propose to interfere with it in any manner.
His noble and learned friend, in point of fact, said that a
man must not get drunk on any day of the week, but that he
might as far as his bill was concerned practice all other vices
with impunity. (A laugh.) His noble and learned friend
made no exception against the commission of other vices on
Sunday; but he (Lord Wynford) was satisfied that one
vice was so odious, it was so obnoxious to his feelings, that
he would put it down every day in the week. (Laughter. )
Now he (the Lord Chancellor) would ask whether there
could be a grosser injustice to the poor publican than the
course which his noble and learned friend wished to pur-
sue ? It would be almost impossible for the publican to
escape punishment. The noble and learned lord proposed
that the publican should be punished who allowed any man
to get drunk in his premises. Not one man in ten thousand
who had sat as long as his noble and learned friend in a
court of justice, or had had experience of courts as his
noble and learned friend and himself (the Lord Chancellor)
would be able to explain this clause in any other manner
than that which he had stated. It proposed to punish
the publican for allowing any person to get drunk on
the premises. Why one man might get drunk after two
or three glasses, and another man might be perfectly sass-
after two or three bottles. (Laughter.) How could the
poor publican judge to which class those who wished
to become his customers belonged ? Could his noble
and learned friend furnish such information to the pub-
lican that he could take upon himself to say to one, you
are a two glass man, and to another, Oh, you are a three
bottle man ? (Laughter.) By the bill of the noble and
learned lord, if the publican furnished a bottle or a pint to
the two glass man, and it made him tipsy, the publican
would be liable to a penalty. The publican, however,
might be most anxious to prevent those men who avoided
the " golden mean" from drinking in his house, and yet be
liable to the penalty. Thus a man might get one glass in
one house and go to another and get a second, which might
make him drunk, and the consequence would be that the
publican must be fined for letting a man get tipsy on his
premises. The unfortunate publican might say to his
guest " Before you pass into my house I will impannel a
jury—not of matrons but of waiters (Loud laughter)—
and you shall be tried in the bar, and I will be chairman,
and a verdict shall be returned as to whether you shall or
shall not drink in this house. (Renewed laughter.) And
yet, notwithstanding all his care, the publican might be
deceived, his guest might get drunk, and he be exposed to
punishment. To be consistent, there must be a punish-
ment for those who did not inform the publican whether
they had been drinking in another house. He might
think that he was perfectly safe in what he allowed his
customer to drink, but it would be impossible for him
to see what had taken place in another house. He
might ask whether his guest was drinking on " a
virgin soil," or whether one glass would make him
drunk, for if it did, it would make one guilty of a
penal act and liable to punishment. (A laugh.) He
(the Lord Chancellor) was sure that their lordships
must see what strong objections existed to such an enact-
ment. Would their lordships send to the Commons to ask
them to agree to a bill containing such provisions? He
repeated that whatever might be the intentions of his noble
and learned friend, the general effect of the bill did not ap-
ply only to Sunday but to every day in the week. (" No,
no," from Lord Wynford.) He (the Lord Chancellor)
contended that it was as he had stated, and referred to the
errors of the clause for confirmation of what he had stated.
" If any person admitted or permitted to remain in any
house licensed for the sale of spirituous liquors, or place
licensed for the sale of beer shall be permitted to get
drunk," &c. There was nothing about Sunday in the
clause; after clauses of the bill alluded probably to Sunday,
but the one he had read did not. He might be told that
the clauses might be altered, but the errors or nonsense of
which he complained ran through the whole of the bill,
and it would not be possible to make any change which
could make it satisfactory. The bill would put a stop to
all business whatever on a Sunday, however urgentitmight
be. He might be told that works of charity and necessity
were specially excepted. Was it to be made a question to
go to a jury to say what works were necessary ? The bill
specially declared that no man should pursue his worldly
calling on the Sunday, and no deed whatever should be
valid that was made on that day. He (the Lord Chan-
cellor) was not of opinion that it was a work of necessity
for a man to make his will on a Sunday under any circum-
stances; but he could imagine cases when it might be necessary
to make other dispositions of property even on a Sunday. He
said that he did not think that making a will was a work of
necessity, as he thought that a man should always do so be-
fore
he arrived at the day of his death. If the matter ever
came before him he would at once decide that making a will
on a Sunday was not a work of necessity. Again, the bill
allows work to go on for the six days, and prevents all but
the performance of household duties on the Sunday. NOW
he (the Lord Chancellor) would ask what business had a
lord, because he happened to be rich and to live in a great
house like a palace, to call for the labour of those under
him, while work for the poor man was prohibited ? A no-

, .
bleman or other rich With might. give t dinner to '2O on a
Sunday, but whit business had he to endanger the salvation
of the soul of his cook o'r his bUtler b'ygiVihg 1, feast on that
day? As the gervints 'Of the nobleman were employed for
hottsehold purposes he would not be liable to any penalty;
bat tnpposing a poor man wished to start in a sta.ge,O9ach
to visit a sick child, or any other work which he might
consider of necessity, he would lie 'prevented doing so by
this bill. In the one base the poor man who might be en-
gaged on a. Work apparently to him of necessity would be
liable to a penalty ; and in the other the lord who unneces-
sarily gave a feast on that day might do so with impunity.
He should like to know what magistrite=for be, it
recollected that there was to be a sarniaa4 donVictian
without the intervention of judge 'Or .jury—ciAld deter-
mine the merits and character of Vvobrks of necessity or
charity ? He challenged any man to state distinctly what
%vast *fork at necessity and what was not Oiie Mit‘i
might say that it was a work Veces.sit:y t 6 WO and see a
sic child or parent, and, inet_ e'r might consider that it
was not so. Dim hi*Yi *might say that it was a work of
neeessit, Ito male a will on Sunday, while he (the Lord
Chineellor) did not think that it was so. He, however,
thought that there might be a case in which it was a work
of necessity to make a deed or mortgage no a Sanda,Y
whereas it was stated in one of the clauses bt the hill that
any deed or mortgage made en Sunday was void and of no
effect. He doubted whether they could say what was a
work of charity. He knew of no legal definitions in cha-
rity, unless in connection with charitable betpests or
charitable institutions. He was unable to give any de-
finition as to what was a work of charity. Again he saw
but whatever
nothing in the bill to prohibit a post-boy fr`...,m driving a
gentleman in his own carriage on
might be the object to a person not ve,ning * carriage; 10.3
would be unable to t - t h \vas y
ex-
his carriage
ception to
.Ala g prv.,;6l7,:*h°,a. keep
ex-
to visit sick patieao. TVeie Blight be Cases which he
t'aottght of th,c greateitt ttigency, namely, a parent or child
thinin4 gero person was to be allowed to do so pro-
rideiA fit eould keep a carriage, but not so for a poor man.
The noble and learned lord could not restrain the progress
of disease ; he could not prevent the tide of life ebbing out
during the time of divine service; but the apothecary of
the poor man, who did not keep hit carriage, could not visit
a sick patient at a distance during these hours. The noble
and learned lord might say that the defects which he (the
Lord Chancellor) had pointed out might be remedied ;-
but the bill was so full of holes that however anxious he
might feel to amend it, he was sure it would be impossible
to do so. There were many other things in the bill as bad
and objectionable as those he had mentioned ; for instance,
in one of the clauses there was a positive inducement to
conduct much worse than drinking on Sunday. It was pro-
posed in One of the clauses that any master paying wages to
his workmen engaged at a weekly salary, on any other day
but the day before market-day might be called upon to pay
them over again. Was not that opening the door to constant
disputes between master and workmen, and was it not
also holding out an inducement to fraudulent conduct on
the part of the workmen ? The dishonest workman might
in some cases be enabled to get his wages twice • he might
go to his master and state that his wife or his child was ill,
and might work upon the heart of the master so as to in-
duce him to let the man have his wages, and a day or two
after he might turn and say, " Ay, you paid me on such a
day, but that was illegal, and you must pay me over again."
There was no discretionary power given with respect to
this clause, but the workman could enforce payment. He
(the Lord Chancellor) had no doubt that this circumstance
had never been thought of by those who framed the clause,
but it was a strong objection. He would suggest to his
noble and learned friend whether it would not be better to
let the measure stand over for the present. He (the Lord
Chancellor) recommended this course, as he did not wish
or mean to move its rejection. If a bill was sent up from
the other house, both measures could be referred to a com-
mittee up stairs. As to sending the bill to a committee as
it stood at present, he—with any disposition to give full
credit to the noble and learned lord for his labours in it—
felt that it was utterly impossible to vote for it. He (the
Lord Chancellor), after what he had said of the bill, might
move that it be read this day six months; but he would not
do so, because it might appear as if their lordships were not
anxious to concede to the wishes of the people on the sub-
ject. He humbly suggested to his noble and learned friend
that he should postpone his measure until the bills on the
subject came up from the Commons, when the whole sub-
ject could be referred to a select committee.
The Bishop of LONDON, under all the circumstances
of the case, and to avoid a discussion which might be pro-
ductive of results unfortunate to the measure, would re-
commend his noble and learned friend (Lord Wynford) to
adopt the suggestion of the noble and learned lord on the
woolsack. He (the Bishop of London) would also humbly
suggest that it would be better to wait for the measure
from the other house which would, more probably, be suc-
cessful coming from the other house than a measure would
be sent down by their lordships. From what had taken
place in the other house he thought that there was a fair
prospect of something being done; at any rate there could
be no great harm in waiting for a short time.
Lord WYNFORD felt called upon to make some obser-
vations in reply to the speech of the noble and learned
lord on the woolsack ; but before he did so he wished to
observe that he thought he had told his right rev. friend
that he did not intend to proceed for the present beyond
the second reading of the bill. The noble and learned
lord had grossly misrepresented the bill before the house.
He had detected a literal error in the first clause, and hail
assumed that the error applied to the whole bill. The
noble and learned lord ought to have recollected that in a
bill which lie had lately before the house there was an
error much more extensive than any that had been found
in that on the table. The noble and learned lord's bill in-
volved a mistake throughout.
The LORD CHANCELLOR denied that it was so.

Lord WYNFORD alluded to the bill brought forward
by the noble and learned lord for the trial of offences in
parts of Essex, Kent, and Surrey, at the Old Bailey, in which
all mention of an extensive class of offences was omitted.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—That was an error of
the press.
Lord WYNFORD—After the error of the press had
been corrected the omission was still continued. The ob-
ject of the noble and learned lord in the extraordinary
speech which he had made—and he (Lord Wynford) had
never heard a more extraordinary speech from any noble
lord—was, from the beginning to the end of it, to throw
ridicule on the whole subject. The noble and learned lord
had said that the Sunday was at present well observed.
Where he got his knowledge on the subject he (b)rd
Wynford) did not know ; but all the witnesses examined
before the committee of the House of Commons gave an
account of the matter directly contrary to that of the noble
and learned lord. The noble and learned lord said that
this measure would be oppressive to the lower orders of the
people, and inimical to their feelings. He was in an ex-
alted station, and had no means of becoming acquainted
with their opinions on the subject. He (Lord Wynford)
would venture to assert that the feelings of the lower orders
were decidedly in favour of the bill ; and he had had many
letters and other communications from public meetings of
the labouring classes in which they urged him to proceed
with his measure, and afford them relief and protection
from the cupidity of their masters. (Hear, hear, hear. )
The noble and learned lord asked how the publican could
judge, on Sunday or any other time, as to the quantity a
person had drunk previous to entering his house. In an-
swer he (Lord Wynford) would only observe that, how-
ever learned the noble and learned lord might be on other
parts of the law, he was completely ignorant of it on this
point ; and, if he would look, he would find that there
were laws in the statute book to prevent men tippling on
Sundays in public-houses. He (Lord Wynford) was also
surprised that the noble and learned lord had never seen
the word " charity" used in any statute but that respecting
charitable donations. The words " works of necessity and
charity" were used in the statute of Charles 1., and in
other statutes to which he could refer. The noble and
learned lord also said that this bill would prevent a man
making his will on a Sunday. There was nothing in it to
prevent a man doing so. All that was prevented was the
execution of deeds on that day, and he had told the noble
and learned lord that he (Lord Wynford) intended to mo-
dify this part of the bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Any person not en-
gaged in works of necessity was to be liable to penalties.
Would an attorney drawing a will be so engaged?
Lord WYNFORD—Making a will on Sunday might be
a work of necessity.
The LORD CHANCELLOR did not think so.

Lord WYNFORD—AII that was meant in the clause
was that a man should not engage in trading in his worldly
calling on the Sunday. He (Lord Wynford) begged to
remind the noble and learned lord that it was customary to
construe acts of Parliament by their general meaning, and
not by detached sentences.
The LORD CHANCELLOR wished to know whether
an attorney making a will was not engaged in his ordinary
and wordly calling ?
Lord WYNFORD presumed that the noble and learned
lord intended his observation for a joke, like the rest of his
speech, which was merely a string of jokes. (A laugh.)
The noble and learned lord, when he alluded to the attor-
ney, ought to have remembered that when the principal
was innocent the accessary was also innocent. If the
noble and learned lord was determined to make so manY
jokes on the bill he ought at least not to have misrepre-
sented it. He (Lord Wynford), in conclusion, would only
observe, that in pressing the second reading of the bill he
did not intend to press it until it appeared whether any
measure would be sent up from the other house.
The LORD CHANCELLOR was anxious to say one
word in explanation. Every noble lord who had heard his
(the Lord Chancellor's) speech must feel surprised at the
accusation brought against him of misrepresenting the bill
on the table. One of the clauses of the bill distinctly de-
clared that no trader, or artificer, or labourer, or any other
person, should be engaged in his ordinary calling on the
Sunday, or be employed in any other work. blight not
an attorney be informed against under this bill for pursuing
his ordinary calling ?
Lord WYNFORD called the noble and learned lord to
order.

The LORD CHANCELLOR was not out of order, as
he was explaining to show that he had not been guilty of
misrepresentation. The noble and learned lord had taken
credit to himself for his good humour, with which, how-

, .
the present occasion he appeared to be tittle 1
troubled:
Lord PLUNKET begged to ask the , noble and learned
mover whether a marriage contract entered into on the
Sabbath Day would be ITb:del-ea Mill and void by the pre-
*thit inetkire?
Eord WYNFORD—Before I. answer that question I
beg to be allowed time to consider of it.
Lord PLUNKET was sure that the noble and learned
lord would take plenty of time to consider on such a matter
if it were his intention to enter
,again into the blessed state
of matrimony: ) Ilia Was ektremei
tb itiO'Ve as i.ll amendment that the bill should be read a
eceilitt time that day six months ';but he felt that he would
be obliged to a. to ,fthe noble and learned lord persisted
in hts •
ZOO NVIIXFORD said his great object now was to
lia‘rethe bill read a second time. _

The Earl of WICKLOW deprecated the long string of
witticisms in which the noble and learned lord on the
woolsack had so copiously indulged. No single bill, no
matter of what description, etlitildintrodoced
house which, With the tents bowers p6S-
SeSed by the noble and learned lord, might not be treated
With exactly the same levity that the present bill was
treated with. He, however, 'aloe that the piiseawas
not the most 'opportune oeesiieh . a. nis-play of those pe-
culiar pOW-eit.. -For his own part, he really did not think
any new legislative enactment necessary to enforce the
better observance of the Sabbath Day. He would suggest
to his niLle and learned friend to withdraw his present
oill, and to prepare another, whiel4 he hsd rill dotilit,
would meet with the greett'Cihilideration of the house.
Tip...LAMI '6l- RADNOR concurred generally with what
bAd Fallen from the noble earl ; he thought, however, that
at the present time the Sabbath was, taking it altogether,
extremely well observed. He agreed with the noble earl
as to the suggestion thrown out to the noble and learned
lord who had brought in the bill, and he hoped that that
suggestion would be attended to. He felt that it was
utterly impossible to argue the bill seriously. There was
no single clause from the beginning to the end, except,
perhaps, the last clause, which was not a mere matter
of form.

Lord WYNFORD begged to say a few words as to the
withdrawing of this bill. If the noble earl objected to the
principle of the bill, no bill of a similar character, no mat-
ter how it might be amended, could prove satisfactory to
him. For his own part he wished that the bill might be
allowed to have a second reading, and be amended after-
wards; but, if noble lords thought otherwise, he begged
them to throw it out at present altogether.
The Bishop of EXETER could not, though he acknow-
ledged the faults in the measure, give a negative to the
second reading, since it was his opinion that some legisla-
tive enactment was necessary to provide for the better ob-
servance of the Lord's Day.
Lord AUCKLAND had compared the original bill with
the printed copy, and found that they did not differ. The
clerical errors complained of were scarcely any, and no
blame wai to be attributed to the officers of the. house.

The LORD CHANCELLOR wished to say a word or
two in explanation. Of all the extraordinary misrepresen-
tations he had ever heard, either in that house or without
its walls, was that made by a noble earl (the Earl of Wick-
low) who had lately addressed their lordships. It was a
most extraordinary and uncalled-for misrepresenta-
tion ; yet he did not attribute it to wilfulness
on the part of the noble earl, but to the fact that
the noble earl did not understand either the scope,
drift, or course of his argument. The noble earl
had said that he had treated the bill before their lordships
with levity. No one else but the noble earl could perceive
that the scope of his argument savoured of levity. He ar-
gued the bill seriously, and his great objection to it was
that it would render unpopular the importance of having
the Sabbath religiously and decorously observed. It was
the absurdity of the measure, and not any observations of
his, that created laughter.
After a few words from the Earl of WICKLOW,
The house divided—
Contents
Contents

Majority in favour of the second} 3
reading of the Bill
Their lordships then adjourned to to-morrow (this day).

HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 15.
The SPEAKER took his seat againabout five o'clock.
NEW WRITS.

On the motion of Mr. C. WOOD, the following new
writs were ordered—

For Edinburgh, in the room of Francis Jeffery, Esq.,
who has accepted the appointment of a Judge of Session.
For Leith, in the room of J. A. Murray, Esq., who
has been appointed Lord Advocate of Scotland.
For North Derby, in the room of Lord W. Cavendish,
now Earl of Burlington.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY.

On the motion of Mr. O'CONNELL, the following
members were added to the committee of inquiry into the
case of Mr. D. W. Harvey :—Mr. Nichol, Mr. E. Deni-
son, Lord Eastnor, and Mr. Alderman Thompson. They
were appointed in the room of members who could not
attend the investigation.
TOLLS IN IRELAND.
- - -

Mr. LITTLETON, on presenting a petition from
Youghal on the subject of tolls in Ireland, referred to a
former inquiry by a committee, which had ended in the
printing of evidence, but in the delivery of no opinion.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that the report had not been
completed, on account of the change in the administration.
Mr. LITTLETON had good reason to know that the
committee had come to no opinion.
Mr. O'CONNELL had been a member of it, and knew
that they had been in the fairest way to arrive at a decision.