thereby lost that day of rest which is of Committees. He did not doubt that the more value to them than to any other noble Earl wished to advance the object of class. I trust that the Amendment of my the Bill, and not to destroy its effect; but noble Friend the Chairman of Committees the scheme of the Bill was completely will be carried. At the same time, al- different from that of the Amendment, and though your Lordships cannot prescribe to his noble Friend's Amendment, in fact, the other House of Parliament what they went to destroy the Bill and to substitute should do, you will have the satisfaction his own. The Bill before their Lordships of knowing, by passing this Bill, you will was one to prohibit Sunday trading, with have done your duty to the country, and certain exceptions. The Amendment prowill have shown yourselves not insensible hibited trading for two or three hours on to the value of Sunday to the people. Sunday, and the rest of the day was left to the operation of the present law, which it was admitted was obsolete, not enforceable, and a dead letter. Could anything be more different than the two proposals? Under his noble Friend's Bill the shops would be shut and trade would cease for three hours; but when the hand of the clock arrived at the hour of one every shop would be opened for trading purposes, and that day of rest which their Lordships desired to secure to the tradesman who might wish to comply with the law would be destroyed not only by opening the shops at one o'clock, but by compelling him to be on the spot, and to prepare for competition with his rivals. Such a Bill would do nothing to prevent the great evil of Sunday trading. He had only to add that he considered the Amendment to be so much at variance with the principle of the Bill, and likely to lead to so many evils and inconveniences that if it were adopted he should respectfully bow to their Lordships' decision, but at the same time he should think it his duty to withdraw from the measure. LORD CHELMSFORD said, that when he undertook the difficult task of steering this Bill through their Lordships' House he knew he must encounter many obstacles; but he had congratulated himself on having passed through the stormy seas of the second reading and the Committee, and he could not help expressing his surprise that now that he had reached, as he had thought, the safe harbour of the Report, he should suddenly find the wind raised against him: The noble Lord opposite (Lord Taunton) had made a speech which would justify a total rejection of the measure, and which would more appropriately have been delivered on the second reading than at the present stage of their deliberations. As his noble Friend had not previously given their Lordships the benefit of his opinion on this Bill, he might assume that he had not been present on the earlier stages of the measure. He could not understand what was meant by complaining of the petty and vexatious legislation proposed by the Bill. Here was a gigantic evil, admitted by every one -that the Sunday was employed by thousands and thousands for the purposes of traffic. The object of this Bill was to put down such trading. The noble Lord (Lord Taunton) objected to the police being employed to put the law in force. But the noble Lord was probably aware of the decisions of the Courts of Law, and the difficulty of establishing proof of Sunday trading. The mere exposure of goods for sale was not enough, and it was necessary to prove an actual sale to establish the offence. The police were on the spot, but it was a mistake to suppose that they would be called upon personally to interfere. It would only be necessary for them to summon before the magistrate the parties engaged in violating the law. He regretted that the noble Earl at the head of the Government had expressed himself in favour of the Amendment of the noble Lord the Chairman of LORD PORTMAN said, he should be sorry if the noble and learned Lord should decline to proceed with the Bill, for he thought his noble and learned Friend would do very much more wisely to adopt the Amendment of the Chairman of Committees as the first step towards checking the evil of Sunday trading. They had already the precedent afforded by the closing of the public-houses during the hours of divine service on Sunday; and it would, in his opinion, only be reasonable to extend the same principle to other branches of business. It was said that all the trading would recommence after one o'clock under the Amendment, but all the trading excepted under the Bill might be carried on after one o'clock, and so Sunday trading would go on under the Bill very much as it would if the Amendment were adopted. The difference would not be very great, although the Amendment would certainly leave some few tradesmen at liberty to carry on trading who would not be permitted to open their shops under the Bill. He doubted the necessity of the clause which gave authority to and required the police to enforce the Bill. They would have the same authority to carry out the law without this clause. Surely those who governed the police might be trusted to do their duty in this matter. The insertion of this clause, therefore, was a waste of power, and would make the intervention of the police more obnoxious than otherwise would be the case. Anything that would secure to the servants of the poorer classes a greater rest on the Sunday would be most desirable; and, believing that the Amendment of the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees would have that effect, he would support it; and, if carried, he hoped his noble and learned Friend would consider the matter, and not withdraw the Bill. THE EARL OF HARROWBY said, he feared that the Bill would be generally held to sanction whatever it did not prohibit, and if it were to make Sunday trading illegal only during the hours of Divine service it would operate as an encouragement to trading during all the remaining hours of the day. It would certainly leave the observance of the Sabbath during all those hours to be determined by the statute of Charles II., which had already been found practically ineffective. The Bill as it stood would be an improvement on the existing law, but the Amendment would afford no real check to the growing evil of Sunday traffic, and would on the contrary, as it seemed to him, give indirect sanction to that practice. He should therefore vote against the Amendment. THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH said, they were told not to be frightened upon that occasion; but he confessed that he was frightened, and that the more he looked at the Bill the more he felt alarmed. The object of this measure was no doubt to abate a real grievance, and he wished it could be abated; but he feared that after the passing of the Bill, or of any other of the same description, they would still have the grievance, and a riot in addition. If the police were to interfere for the purpose of enforcing such a law, he believed that a riot would ensue, and that there would arise that which they ought all to be anxious to prevent, a feud between the police and the people. It might seem a strange reason for opposing the Bill, but he could not help thinking that it would be stopped by the House of Commons, but nevertheless he did desire to do so for that reason. A great observer of both Houses of Parliament once told him that he never knew an instance of any Bill proceeding from their Lordships being received with any favour by the other House. Now, if that were so, the measure of all others which would be least likely to meet with such favour would be one which was supposed to be directed against the special objects of the admiration and affection of the House of Commons at the present day the working classes. He believed therefore that the measure was never likely to become law; but he did not wish to see it rejected in a manner which would be a sort of affront to their Lordships. He saw dangers ahead. He feared that the result of their legislation upon that subject would be a disturbance of the public peace; and being desirous of preventing that he would take the first opportunity of voting against the Bill altogether. EARL GREY said, he agreed it was a matter of great risk to pass laws directed against the habits of some portion of the people. He had not the slightest sympathy with those who held that we as Christians were bound by Jewish restrictions on the Sabbath; but he held with his noble Friend the First Lord of the Treasury that the Sunday rest was an institution of the utmost value, especially to the middle and lower classes, and he felt that the practice of Sunday trading was virtually depriving a large portion of those classes of the rest which they required. Small traders had really no freedom of action in this matter. If they did not adopt the same system of trading as their neighbours, they lost their business not only on the Sunday, but during the week days. He approved generally the principle of the noble and learned Lord's Bill; but when they came to examine it, it was impossible to disguise from themselves that the exceptions were somewhat arbitrary and difficult to reconcile with each other. There were certain kinds of trades which on the Sunday were absolutely necessary, and to draw the line by Act of Parliament between what was and what was not necessary was extremely difficult. Wishing to maintain the Sunday as a day of rest, and yet feeling that the Bill, if carried with all its exceptions, was liable to objection, he thought the best course to adopt would be that which was recommended by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees-because by taking that course they would, at all events, check the system of Sunday trading. Once the shops were closed, he believed they would be very rarely opened again. He would like to see the effect of the Amendment of his noble Friend before going further; for he believed that if a trade were interrupted for three hours of a day, it would be rarely resumed at a later hour of the day. It was unwise to pass a law and not to adopt the most effectual means to enforce it. As to the employment of the police he was persuaded that far less irritation and animosity were created by the enforcement of a law by a public authority whose duty it was to enforce it than by the action of private persons and interested informers. If the Bill passed it ought not only to empower, but require the police to act. He was reminded that the Smoke Prevention Act was not carried out so long as the enforcement of its provisions was left to the action of private persons, but a great improvement was effected as soon as the police were required to act. Therefore, this Bill ought not only to give power to the police, but it ought to impose a duty upon them. pro On Question, Whether the Words posed to be left out shall stand Part of the Bill? their Lordships divided:-Contents 40; Not-Contents 54: Majority 14. CONTENTS. Harrowby, E. [Teller.] Nelson, E. Sommers, E. Bangor, Bp. Bill to be read 3 To-morrow; and to be printed, as amended. (No. 121.) LORD CHELMSFORD said, that after the division, he was not personally disposed to proceed any further with the Bill; but as many of their Lordships were in favour of some of its provisions, it would not be respectful in him to move that the order be discharged. He would leave it to any noble Lord who chose to Gloucester and Bristol, take up the Bill to do so. Overstone, L. Saltersford, L. (E. Cour Sheffield, L. (E. Shef town.) field.) Sherborne, L. Sundridge, L. (D. Ar- LORD TAUNTON gave notice that, on the Order for the third reading to-morrow (this day), he would move that the Bill be read a third time that day six months. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Thursday, May 17, 1866. MINUTES.] SELECT COMMITTEE-On Thames * * First Reading-Elections (Returning Officers) [161]; Reformatory Schools [162]; Industrial Schools [163]; Nuisances Removal* [164]. Second Reading-Tenure and Improvement of Land (Ireland) [130], debate adjourned; Customs and Inland Revenue [145], deferred; Local Government Supplemental (No. 2) [150]; Belfast Constabulary* [159]. Committee-Labouring Classes' Dwellings (Ireland) [92]; Solicitor to the Treasury [152]; Naval Savings Banks [114]; Companies' Act (1862) Amendment [139]. * Report Labouring Classes' Dwellings (Ireland) [94]; Solicitor to the Treasury [152]; Naval Savings Banks [114]*; Companies' Act (1862) Amendment [139]. Third Reading Life Insurances (Ireland) * [141]; Divorce and Matrimonial Causes [H.L.] [102]; Hop Trade * [36], and passed. MR. H. A. BRUCE stated, in reply; that the printed Report had been ordered to be delivered to every Member of the House, and he hoped that in the course of a few days it would be in their hands. No evidence was taken. It was not the Re port of a Commission; it was only the Report of the Veterinary Department. SCOTLAND-GUNPOWDER STORAGE AT THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON said, in reply, that in consequence of the representations received from the municipal authorities of Edinburgh and Leith during the last year or two, the quantity of powder stored in Edinburgh Castle and Leith Fort had been considerably reduced. In Edinburgh Castle the quantity of gunpowder stored, with the exception of the small arms ammunition, which was much less liable to explosion than gunpowder in barrels, was exceedingly small. At Leith Fort it had not been found practicable to reduce the quantity to so great an extent; but it had been greatly reduced during the last two years. He had received Reports from the Officers of the Department with reference to the selection of other sites for the erection of magazines; but, inasmuch as the preparations for the erection of such buildings would occupy a consider. able time, the matter had not been finally decided upon, pending the inquiries that were being made in reference to making gunpowder storage more safe. But if he hoped that next year they would be those inquiries had no successful result, able to recommend the erection of a new magazine. THE MONETARY CRISIS-BANK ADVANCES.-QUESTION. CAPTAIN GRIDLEY said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he is aware that the Directors of the Bank of England have declined to make advances upon the lodgment of Government Securities, on the ground that they ought to be realized; and whether he considered the Directors have complied with the expressed understanding that they, on getting permission to increase the issue of Bank Notes, were to afford accommodation to Bankers and Merchants? MR. WYLD said, he would beg to ask LEITH FORT AND EDINBURGH CASTLE. is true that the Bank of England has Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If it QUESTION. MR. W. MILLER said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether he expects soon to be able to give a favourable reply to the various memorials which have been sent to the War Office during the last two or three years praying for the removal of the gunpowder stored at Leith Fort and Edinburgh Castle, the quantity in the magazine at the former place being said to amount to one hundred and thirty thousand pounds weight? refused to make advances on Consols, and has otherwise neglected to give to Merchants, Bankers, and others, the accommodation not only implied, but expressed, when they obtained power to increase their issue of notes? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, it may be convenient that in answering the questions of the two hon. Members who have just addressed the House I should combine them together, as they are so nearly akin. In the first place, I may say that I have not received complaints from any persons who consider themselves aggrieved by the conduct of the Bank of England. At the same time, certain rumours have got abroad, and it is in respect of those rumours as embodied in the questions of the hon. Members that I give my reply. The two points principally raised are these-first, whether I am aware that the Directors of the Bank of England have declined to make advances upon the lodgment of Government securities on the ground that they ought to be realized; and secondly, whether I am of opinion that the Directors have complied with the expressed understanding that they, on getting permission to increase the issue of bank notes, were to afford accommodation to bankers and merchants. I think these questions have been very opportunely put, because they enabled me to remove a misapprehension that has got abroad, and which appears, from all that I can see, to have taken possession, to a certain extent, of the public mind. The misapprehension refers equally to the subject of advances upon bills and discounting of bills, and also to advances upon Government securities. The best account that can be given of the operations of the Bank of England with regard to these two great branches of banking is to state the figures relating to them, and I think it will be found on referring to them that the Bank of England has not refused to make advances on Government securities. These figures are as follow:-The advances made by the Bank of England on Government securities on Friday, the day of the panic, amounted to £919,000, on Saturday to £747,000, and on three subsequent days various amounts, making up the total amount advanced on these securities in five days to £2,874,000. Then, with regard to the accommodation of commerce in general, the best measure that can be given of the manner in which the Bank has exercised its functions is shown in this-that it has made advances upon bills and has discounted bills to the extent of £9,350,000, making a total of advances and discounts in five days of £12,225,000. Looking at these figures, I do not think that a very strong prima facie case has been made out of the Bank having declined to afford to commerce the accommodation it should have given; but it is only due to the Bank that I should point out certain words in the letter of Government which was expressly intended to serve as a notice to the world that the Bank of England was not to be expected, in the then circumstances of difficulty, to depart from all rules of caution. The conditional promise made in the letter signed by the First Minister and myself was a promise to apply to Parliament for its sanction in case it should happen that necessity should require the Bank, for the purposes of making advances and discounting bills, to issue notes beyond the limit fixed by law, subject to the restriction that the Bank was not to give to everybody everything that was asked, but that it should be governed by those prudent rules of caution by which it was generally guided. That was a very important limitation, and it reserved, I think, entirely, as it was meant to do, the discretion and the judgment of the gentlemen of the Bank of England, in whom we have every reason to place confidence. With regard to the Government securities and other points, the foundation upon which the rumours rest is of the slightest possible nature. I cannot find that there is any possible ground for supposing that any limit was placed by the Bank on its advances on securities either upon Friday, the day of the severest pressure, or upon Saturday, which was also a critical day; but on Monday, when the panic began to subside, and when Government securities were brought to the Bank for advances, the Bank Directors suggested, in various instances, to the holders of those securities, that it would be better for them to try the open market and to realize for themselves. In consequence of that view-in my opinion not an unreasonable one on the part of the Directors of the Bank-certain sales of securities were effected. These sales, I believe, were effected by one, two, or three persons only; and wherever representations were made to the Bank that sales could not be made-meaning, I presume, thereby, without serious loss-the Bank met all the reasonable demands of the parties. With respect to other kinds of accommodation, commercial accommodation strictly so called, I have not been able to discover, nor are the authorities at the Bank aware of any other ground for the rumours existing than the circumstance that applications did arise from one or two quarters, not for an amount of discount to a given limit, but for an unlimited amount of discount to be made use of in case necessity should arise. The Directors of the Bank of England did not consider that their duty compelled them to accede to such demands, and, as far as I am able |