And the said Determinations were ordered to be entered in the Journals of this House. House further informed, that the Committee That Henry Jervis White Jervis, esquire, was not disqualified to be elected and serve in this present Parliament by reason of holding an office the passing of 6 Anne, c. 7, nor as a deputy or or place of profit under the Crown created since clerk in the office of Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for War within the meaning of 15 Geo. II. influence exercised by the said Henry Jervis That no evidence of acts of bribery or undue White Jervis, esquire, and John Kelk, esquire, has been laid before the Committee. fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had THE LORD ADVOCATE approved of the object and principle of the Bill, as he thought it was only fair that the clergy of the Church of Scotland should be assisted in the way that it proposed. He had, therefore, no objection to make to the second reading of the Bill. The only remark he had to make on the measure was this-that some provision ought to be made for those cases of parishes where the population had gone far beyond the present means of its spiritual provision. Provision ought to be made for those cases, which would not probably be very numerous; and the provision might be placed under the control of the Commissioners. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday 28th May. HARWICH ELECTION. House informed, that the Committee had determined That Henry Jervis White Jervis, esquire, is duly elected a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Harwich. That John Kelk, esquire, is duly elected a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Harwich. That no agreement between the said Henry Jervis White Jervis, esquire, and John Kelk, esquire, was made before the Election that the said Henry Jervis White Jervis, esquire, should unduly use the influence of himself and the Great Eastern Railway Company with and over Voters of and in the Borough of Harwich in favour of the said John Kelk, esquire, and that the said John Kelk, esquire, should, in consideration thereof, pay and bear the expenses of and attending the Election of the said Henry Jervis White Jervis, esquire, or any portion thereof, as alleged in the Petition of John Burt and others. That the Petition of the said John G. K. Burt and others against the said Henry Jervis White Jervis, esquire, and John Kelk, esquire, is frivo Report to lie upon the Table. Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee to be laid before this House.(Mr. Gathorne Hardy.) BURIALS IN BURGHS (SCOTLAND) BILL. On Motion of Mr. BAXTER Bill to revive Section Sixty-nine of The Nuisances Removal (Scotland) Act, 1856,' relating to Burials in Burghs, ordered to be brought in by Mr, BAXTER and Mr. CARnegie. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 132. House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS, Thursday, May 3, 1866. MINUTES.]-PUBLIC BILLS-First Reading- Second Reading-Selling and Hawking Goods Referred to Select Committee-Ecclesiastical Com- Committee-Customs Duties (Isle of Man) * (82); THE OATH TO BE TAKEN BY PEERS. On the Motion of The LORD CHANCELLOR, it was Resolved, That the Oath appointed by the Act of the present Session of Parliament, intituled "An Act to amend the Law relating to Parliamentary Oaths," to be made and subscribed by Members of both Houses of Parliament on taking their Seats in every Parliament, be made and subscribed by Members of the House of Peers betwixt the Hours of Nine in the Morning and Five in the Afternoon: Ordered, that the said Resolution be declared a Standing Order, and that it be entered on the Roll of Standing Orders of this House. TOTNES ELECTION GREAT YAR- TION-LANCASTER ELECTION. Messages from the Commons that they have agreed to Addresses (which are severally set forth) to be presented to Her Majesty, to which they desire the concurrence of their Lordships. Report-Poor Persons' Burial (Ireland)* (94); } affected by the question, and who desired Customs Duties (Isle of Man)* (82); Local that Sunday trading should be prohibited Government Supplemental (84). Third Reading-Qualification for Offices Aboli- by law, so that they might be enabled tion (41); Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) themselves to abstain from a violation of (86), and passed. the Sabbath, to which they were at present driven in self-defence. For many years past, various attempts had been made to pass a measure for this object. In 1832, House of Commons sat upon the subject, and again in 1847, a Committee of the and in 1850 their Lordships also appointed a Committee to inquire into the whole subject. All of these Committees received a considerable amount of evidence, proving the extent to which Sunday trading was carried on, the utter inefficacy of the law, and the necessity for fresh legislation. Various Bills, framed in accordance with the recommendations of these Committees, had been introduced to Parliament; but they had unfortunately all been unsuccessful. In 1850 a noble Earl on the crossbenches (Lord Harrowby) introduced a measure which was favourably reported on by a Select Committee and passed their LordSession before it reached the House of ships' House; but it was so late in the Commons that it fell through. The framer of that measure had assisted him to draw up the Bill he had introduced to their noble Earl would cordially support him in Lordships' notice, and he expected the his endeavours to get the Bill passed. In that year 1855 a noble Lord (Lord Ebury), who was then in the House of Commons, introduced a measure, which was read by at that period grew much agitated upon that House the second time; but the people the subject of Sunday observance-not, he believed, in consequence of the prohouses had been ordered to close at ten visions of that Bill, but because the publicment passed in the previous year-and so o'clock on Saturday by an Act of Parliathreatening was the appearance of the large numbers of the people gathered in the Parks at the time that at the request of the Government of the day his noble Friend was induced to withdraw the measure. In 1860 he himself introduced a similar Bill, and their Lordships' passed it; but it failed to pass the Commons. Considering that all these efforts had been made and failed, it might be very fairly asked why could hope to be successful now. But there another attempt was made, and how he were at the present time certain considerations which led him to hope that the present moment was peculiarly favourable for the attainment of his object. In the first Message to the Commons for Report and evidence taken before the Select Committee of the House of Commons on the Petitions complaining of undue Elections and Returns for the said boroughs. SELLING AND HAWKING GOODS ON SUN DAY BILL.-(The Lord Chelmsford.) (No. 92.) SECOND READING. Order of the Day for the Second Reading read. Lord CHELMSFORD presented petitions from tradesmen of Marylebone, Clerkenwell, Bethnal Green, and Spitalfields, Islington, Stepney and Limehouse, and from persons signing, praying for the adoption of measures to restrict Sunday trading to such articles as are necessary to public convenience: - and from inhabitants of St. George the Martyr, Holborn, West Ham, and Christ Church, Bermondsey, in favour of the Selling and Hawking Goods on Sunday Bill. LORD CHELMSFORD, in proceeding to move that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the petitions he had just presented were signed by not less than 10,000 persons, all of whom were specially place, he believed there was a growing | terests, from doing so, and compelled to opinion abroad that the tradesmen who join the throng of Sunday traders. The complained of the existing system were number of persons computed to be thus subjected to an intolerable grievance, and were entitled to the protection of the Legislature and, in the next place, the work-people generally were released from labour earlier on Saturdays, and were paid their wages earlier in the day, than formerly-arrangements which obviated the necessity of making purchases on Sunday. He believed that much prejudice existed against legislating upon the subject; but that arose chiefly from the efforts made in former times by good and religious men, who caused a cry to be raised that it was useless to attempt to make people godly by Act of Parliament. This idea, perhaps, arose in the first instance from the provisions of the Act of Charles II., wherein it was ordered that "All and every person or persons shall on every Lord's Day apply themselves to the observ. ance of the same, by exercising themselves therein in the duties of piety and true religion, public and private.” Of course, the injunction failed to have any effect; and he desired that it should be expressly understood that his Bill should be looked upon as a measure of protection and not of coercion. He wished to leave it to the dictates of a man's own conscience as to how he should spend the Sunday; but he also desired to insure that he should not be bound to continue his work on that day, and thus lose the blessing the inestimable blessing-of a day of rest, and the opportunity of employing that day in a becoming manner. In the Reports of the Committees to which he had referred, abundance of evidence would be found as to the extent to which Sunday trading was carried on. The facts disclosed might almost be described as startling. Trading of every description went on, and it was computed that 10,000 shops in the metropolis were open every Sunday. Many of the public thoroughfares were thus crowded by noisy multitudes, and the decent and respectable portion of the community were annoyed on their way to church by the scenes exhibited-they were subjected to much inconvenience and sometimes to insult; and worse than this, the tradesmen who desired, for the sake of themselves, their families, and their servants, to enjoy the Sabbath as a day of thankful repose, were prevented, almost by necessity, and certainly from regard to their worldly in engaged was not less than 100,000. It might be said, if these tradesmen were so desirous to have Sunday as a day of rest, why did they not agree among themselves and close their shops? But the experiment had been tried over and over again, and it had invariably failed, because it was found that unless there was a unanimous agreement in a neighbourhood that every shop should be closed it was in the power of a very small minority to defeat the object of the majority, and to compel the latter in self-defence to keep their shops open. It was almost impossible for a man who was striving to obtain a livelihood and support his family to protect himself against the competition of trade and the dread of loss caused by closing his shop. on Sunday. He wished to call their Lordships' attention to a letter written by a butcher in the New Cut, Lambeth, which put this part of the question in a very strong light. The writer said "My Lord, I trust your Lordship will pardon the liberty I take in addressing you for the purkind aid and support to the Bill now before Parpose of soliciting the favour of your Lordship's liament in reference to Sunday trading. Permit me, my Lord, to state that I have carried on the business of a butcher in this locality for the last ten years, and have a wife and port. As nearly all the shops are open on Sunnine children entirely dependent on me for supday, I am compelled to do the same. Were I to close while others are open, in all probability my business (in a neighbourhood like this) would be reduced one-half, and my family might be ruined. I find, however, that the system subjects me and my dependents to much unnecessary toil and degradation, and entirely prevents my giving that attention to the duties and responsibilities which I am sure your Lordship will feel devolve upon one having the care of so large a family. We are generally in business eighteen hours on Saturday, and from seven o'clock up to dinner time on Sunday, and I hardly need assure your Lordship that the whole of the afternoon and evening of Sunday is scarcely sufficient to recruit been made by the tradesmen themselves to close our exhausted energies. Many attempts have their shops by voluntary arrangement, but a very small minority have invariably defeated the object, and it is clear that nothing short of a legal enactment will cure the evil. There cannot, my tradesmen and their assistants, but the labouring Lord, be a shadow of doubt that not only the classes, would be greatly benefited by confining Sunday trading as much as possible to articles that are perishable, or those absolutely needed by liberty I have taken in thus addressing you, I beg the public on that day. Again apologizing for the most respectfully and urgently to intreat your Lordship's serious consideration of the subject and your Lordship's powerful support to the Bill | readiness to pay six months' penalties in now before your Lordships' House." Another person who was engaged in the have attended a number of meetings of the news trades, who number about 4,000 in London alone, and at each of those meetings I have put the question, whether they wished Sunday trading to be done away with, and I have always found the meetings unanimous in wishing to do away with it. I have not the slightest doubt, if the Bill is brought before Parliament this time, it will be carried without opposition; but I trust it will be a Bill entirely doing away with trading in newspapers on Sunday, and every other article that can be procured on Saturday." But advance. He proposed by the present Bill to render the law more efficacious by increasing the penalty for the first offence to any sum between 58. and 208.; and after a conviction for the first offence, he proposed to exact cumulative penalties for every separate offence on each Sunday. He also proposed that the Bill should extend to the whole of England, and that the police should be required to enforce the law. These were the main provisions of his Bill. He anticipated two classes of objections. In the first place, there were persons who would not admit the necessity for allowing any kind of trading on Sundays, and who contended that the Lord's Day ought to be preserved strictly and exclu. sively for religious purposes. They would regard his Bill as giving a legislative sanction to Sunday trading. The Bill of 1860 was in some degree defeated by the action of the persons connected with the Association for the Religious Observance of the Lord's Day. They sent 13,000 circulars to the clergy and Dissenting ministers throughout England, and they stirred up an opposition to the Bill by a not very faithful representation of its character. he would ask the members of this Association whether they could hope to enforce by law the strict and rigid observance of the Lord's Day. If not, why should they object to this Bill, which was at least a step in the right direction? He knew perfectly well by experience that there was not the slightest chance of his getting the Bill passed unless the exceptions which he should propose were embodied in the Bill; but he had reason to believe that if their Lordships passed the Bill in its integrity it would ultimately receive the sanction of the other House and become "Publicly cry, show forth, exhibit, or expose law. The other class of objectors to whom to sale any wares, merchandise, fruits, herbs, he alluded were those who thought that goods, or chattels whatsoever on the Lord's Day." there ought to be no restrictions at all By a somewhat extraordinary decision of on the liberty of persons to employ the the Courts, it was held that the only Sunday as they liked. To those perproof of exposing goods for sale was the sons his Bill would oppose no new restricactual sale of such articles. But the penalty tions whatever. Their objection ought of 58., which might have been a consider- to be, not that this Bill imposed reable sum in the days of Charles II., was strictions, but that it would make the at present insufficient to insure the observ- law effective to prevent that Sunday tradance of the law; and as one penalty co-ing which they were desirous of carryvered the trading on the whole of any given Sunday, a man who followed a lucrative business would cheerfully pay 58. to be allowed to continue it, and many of the Sunday traders even professed their Having shown the desire that existed for the introduction of some such measure, the only remaining questions were the necessity for legislation, and whether the existing law was sufficient to prevent the evil. The Act of 29 Charles II. c. 7, imposed a penalty of 58. upon every person who should ing on. He had no intention whatever by the Bill to lay any restrictions upon the private observance of the Sunday; but what he would say to those persons was this-"If you publicly employ your Sun day in such a manner as to produce an- | bath for the metropolis and another for the noyance to others, and to promote social provinces would be contrary to reason and and moral evil, then it is the duty of Par- religion. He, therefore, congratulated the liament to step in and restrict you." These were the grounds upon which thousands and thousands of persons had thronged their Lordships' House and entreated that the inestimable blessing of a day of rest should be secured to them. Even as a civil institution it was impossible to overrate the inestimable value of the Sunday. Incessant toil on every day of the week, including the Lord's Day, not only tended to enfeeble both mind and body, but also to demoralize. Upon this subject he wished to call attention to the eloquent words of Lord Macaulay, who said “Rely on it, that intense labour beginning too early in life, continued too long every day, stunting the growth of the body, stunting the growth of the mind, leaving no time for healthful exercise, leaving no time for intellectual culture, must impair all those high qualities which have made our country great. On the other hand, a day of rest occurring every week, two or three hours of leisure exercised in innocent amusement or useful study every day must improve the whole man-physical, moral, and intellectual." Even in a political point of view, therefore, he would earnestly ask their Lordships to pass this Bill. But he could not help anticipating better results from the measure if it became law. Besides giving that inestimable boon of the day's rest from incessant toil, it would prevent the evil example of Sunday traffic in those districts where that traffic was carried on; it would introduce a healthier state of feeling, and, he trusted, in the result, would make Sunday what he desired it to be, a day of thankful rest, of religious exercise, and of innocent and cheerful relaxation from toil. Moved, "That the Bill be now read 24" -Lord Chelmsford.) noble and learned Lord that the present measure was to apply to the whole of England. Whether there was to be one law of the Sabbath for England, another for Scotland, and another for Ireland, he knew not; but so far as the Bill applied to the whole of England he was in accord with the noble and learned Lord. It had been stated by the noble and learned Lord that one reason why the law as it now stood was inoperative was the smallness of the fine, amounting to only 58. for each offence. But perhaps their Lordships would allow him to remind them that just about the period when the noble and learned Lord introduced his last Bill an attempt was made by the police of Southampton to put in force the law as it now stands. There were five old persons keeping stalls in that town who were taken up and fined 5s. for the offence of selling on the Lord's Day; and if his memory did not fail him, in two or three of these cases the 5s. fine could not be recovered without a distraint. It might be true, as the noble and learned Lord stated, that there were persons in trade who were perfectly willing to pay 58., and pay it in advance for twelve months, to be allowed to carry on their trade in peace. But what might be innocuous to a man in a good line of business might be ruin to a small greengrocer or a poor woman sitting at the corner of the streets keeping a stall to sell apples and oranges. Besides, according to the Bill the fine of 58. on the poor woman might, at the discretion of the magistrate, be raised to 208., and might be inflicted for every separate offence; and thus in the name of the religion of a God of love and of a Saviour who came to proclaim liberty to the captive their Lordships were asked to ruin a poor creature for this offence! If there were nothing else ob LORD TEYNHAM said, he congratulated the noble and learned Lord (Lord Chelms-jectionable in the Bill than the accumuford) on having introduced a measure in some respects less objectionable than one which he had some years ago succeeded in passing through their Lordships' House. The powers of the Bill to which he referred were to extend no further than the metropolitan districts; so that, had the Bill become law, there would have been one law of the Sabbath for London and another for the country-a principle altogether objectionable. England from some received the title of a Christian nation, and that they should have one law of the Sab lated penalty, it ought to be sufficient to induce their Lordships not to entertain the measure. But then it was proposed that there should be a tacit allowance of the sale of certain articles. Was it possible that their Lordships could in any way consent to an exemption of that kind unless as regarded matters of necessity on that day? As he understood the Billand the noble and learned Lord would correct him if he were wrong-it would permit selling in a shop while it prevented selling in a stall or with a basket in the |