certainty of the weather might suggest | necessities must be admitted into any Bill many a fear. Such was the state of which professed to give increased strictness things now, But let this Bill pass, to the laws against Sunday trading. and gradually all this would come to an Whether the exceptions proposed by the end. The result, of course, would be Bill, whether as to articles or hours, most disastrous to the cause of Sabbath were the right ones, it was not then observance. In his opinion, this measure the proper opportunity for discussing. would let in the thin end of the wedge, That was the business of the Committee. and he believed that the noble and learned Exceptions of some kind, for perishable Lord, instead of succeeding in his high articles at least, always had been and and excellent enterprize of discouraging must be made, and he should, therefore, and putting an end to Sunday trading, feel himself entitled to go into Comwould practically fail altogether in the mittee on the Bill; anxious, on the one metropolis, and would extend all the evils hand, to make such exceptions as were of Sunday trading to the whole of the necessary to meet the poor man's wants country. and convenience, and, on the other, to take additional securities against these needless invasions of the poor man's and the tradesman's day of rest, which are creeping in more and more, especially into the habits of our great metropolis, such securities as can be enforced consistently with the habits and necessities of a great population. THE EARL OF HARROWBY said, he could not agree with the view of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Carlisle), who seemed to think that the law must be held to sanction everything which it did not expressly prohibit. In all legislation there was the difficulty of deciding how much should be left to the domain of private conscience, and how much THE DUKE OF ARGYLL said, that should be undertaken by law; and this having been intrusted with many petitions difficulty, perhaps, existed in legislation on this subject, he wished to say one word, upon the observance of the Lord's Day and one word only. He had presented more than in any other question. The two petitions-one from the Sabbath Aldifficulty arises in this way-all classes-liance in Edinburgh, and another from the wealthier not less than the poorer- Glasgow, and both objected to this Bill on make exceptions to the obsolete rule of abstinence from labour on that day, and thought themselves justified in doing so by considerations of convenience or necessity not very strictly interpreted. Their Lordships, no doubt, had all of their dinners cooked on Sundays, at least, if they imposed no other labour on their households, although the wants of nature might be sufficiently satisfied by cold viands. But there was this difference between their case and that of the poorer classes, that which their Lordships did took place privately within their own dwellings, and, except in pure wantonness, they had no occasion to go out into the streets and make purchases, and infringe a public law. But with the poorer classes it was otherwise. Their necessities, and their imperfect means of making and having provisions for the morrow, might compel them to make these open pur chases on the Sunday, which would be quite wanton in their Lordships. It was clear, therefore, that without any wider interpretation of the law of necessity and convenience that the wealthier classes felt themselves entitled to adopt exceptions on behalf of the poorer classes, and their the religious grounds referred to by the right rev. Prelate. He thought this an erroneous objection, and it had been well replied to by his noble Friend who spoke last. He entirely concurred in the reasons his noble Friend had given as to the necessity for making exceptions. There was a large number of the poorer classes who could not live from day to day, almost from hour to hour, without the purchase of certain articles. Such an exception was, therefore, almost a work of necessity and mercy. The intention of Parliament was not to enforce a theological opinion, but to secure to the working classes of this country a day of rest sanctioned by the traditions of the Christian Church. They did not wish to force on any one their opinions as to the mode of keeping that day; their object was, if possible, to secure to the working classes that day of rest. There would be no necessity of legislation on the subject if the trading classes had free will in the matter; but under the pressure of the tremendous competition which existed, if one opened his shop others must, and therefore the protection of the Legislature was necessary to secure to them the rest of one day in seven. This was the only ground on which I ter to exempt booksellers' shops altogether, they ought to legislate, and he thought otherwise a person would be permitted to they were bound to legislate unless it could sell a penny newspaper of infidel tendenbe shown that the provisions of the Bill cies or immoral character, while he would would impose such restrictions as would be liable to a fine of 208. if he offered for be intolerable. But while their Lordships sale Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, or even were bound to protect, so far as lay in a copy of the Holy Scriptures. them, the sanctity of the day of rest, they were also bound to provide for those exceptional circumstances under which they themselves did not suffer. So far from this being class legislation, he held the enacting clauses to be a protection to the trading class, and the excepting clauses a protection to the consuming class. THE BISHOP OF OXFORD said, he would not detain their Lordships for more than a single moment. He did not entirely agree with what had fallen from his right rev. Brother (the Bishop of Carlisle), but rather with the noble Earl (the Earl of Harrowby) who spoke from the cross benches. One thing only he wished to add. Of course if the Christian Sunday was really by God ordered to be kept as the Jewish Sabbath was ordered to be kept, his right rev. Brother's argument was perfectly sound. We must keep God's law as it was laid down to us to the full, come what might. But it was because he believed that the rest of the Lord's Dayone of the greatest blessings to a nation or an individual that could be conceived was based on a different set of Divine charges from what the Jewish Sabbath was based on, that he thought they had full liberty to entertain the consideration of the weaknesses and wants of certain classes of the community, without being in any danger of incurring that Divine wrath. Holding himself quite at liberty in the Committee to deal with any of the exceptions contained in the Bill, he was quite ready to give his support to the present Motion. On Question, That ("now") stand Part of the Motion? Resolved in the Affirmative. House in Committee accordingly. Clause 1 (Penalties for Selling, Offering, and Exposing for Sale) agreed to. LORD CHELMSFORD said, he was not aware that there was any general principle applicable to the exceptions. Each exception stood on its own ground. THE EARL OF HARROWBY thought that some words ought to be introduced which would prevent persons from buying fish on Saturday and requiring their delivery on Sunday. The salesmen in the West End had complained of the delivery of fish and fowl on Sundays, and there had been an improvement in this respect; but the prohibition would relieve them from a labour still to some extent imposed upon them, while it would not affect the poor, who carried away their purchases themselves. LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY inquired whether the clause would prevent any newspaper being bought or delivered after ten o'clock on Sunday morn ing? LORD HOUGHTON understood that the Bill would prohibit the circulation of any important intelligence which reached on Sunday afternoon; and that it would have Clause 2 (Certain Cases to which this prevented the announcement of the fall of Act does not apply). Sebastopol if it had been in operation at THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY asked that time. He should therefore move an upon what principle the exceptions were Amendment to leave out the words "beconstructed? If it was to exempt the sale fore the hour of ten o'clock in the mornof periodical publications it would be bet-ing." An Amendment moved to leave out! ("before the Hour of Ten o'Clock in the Morning.")-(Lord Houghton.) On Question, Whether the said Words shall stand Part of the Clause? their Lordships divided:-Contents 37; Not-Contents 13: Majority 24. CONTENTS: Cranworth, L. (L. Chan- Clancarty, V. (E. Clan cellor.) carty.) Hardinge, V. Hawarden, V. Stratford de Redcliffe, York, Archp. Marlborough, D. V. Richmond, D. Bristol, M. Belmore, E. [Teller.] Oxford, Bp. Carnarvon, E. Chichester, E. Berners, L. Dartmouth, E. Boston, L. Fortescue, E. Harrowby, E. Leven and Melville, E. Strange, E. (D. Athol.) Chelmsford L. [Teller.] Hay, L. (E. Kinnoul.) NOT-CONTENTS. On Question that the clause as amended stand part of the Bill, THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY said, that the Act of Charles II. totally forbidding Sunday trading was not repealed by any provision in the present Bill. As both measures would be in operation simulta-' neously, he wished to know how one would work in connection with the other. LORD CHELMSFORD said, there could be no doubt that the later law would prevail in the event of any conflict. THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH desired that this Bill might be the means of doing some good, but he was afraid that if they drew the string too tightly there would be a reaction against the law. If the Clubs were not allowed to receive their periodicals on Sunday there would be a great outcry. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 3 (Provision as to distinct and separate Offences) agreed to. the Provisions of this Act). LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY observed, that it was an entire novelty to require the police to put a law of this kind in execution. LORD CHELMSFORD said, that the evidence given before Committees was very strong to show that unless the police were intrusted with the duty they might as well not pass the law at all. The omission of such a requisition was partly the reason why the Act of Charles II. had become a dead letter. People would not inform against their neighbours, and the only means of putting the law in force would be by the police. Clause agreed to. Clauses 5 to 8 agreed to. Clause 9 (Limitation of Act). THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY said, that all that they had heard showed the extreme difficulty of Sabbath legislation, difficulty of legislating on that subject arose and he had been forced to the conclusion from the fact that they were attempting that it was utterly hopeless to pass any by legislation to do what they could only Bill of that kind which would be of real effectually do by the operation of moral and permanent benefit. He had himself means. dissuaded his friends in hundreds of instances from attempting to pass such laws. He deeply regretted that the noble and learned Lord-of course, with the best of motives-should have introduced it on that occasion. It would have been much wiser, he thought, to leave matters alone. If it were extended universally throughout England it would do irreparable mischief. In most of the villages and small towns of the country the shops were shut up all day on Sunday; but once a legislative sanction was given to the carrying on of certain descriptions of traffic at particular hours on the Sabbath, he was much inclined to believe, from what he knew of the mercantile spirit, that many of those shops in the villages and smaller towns which were now closed throughout that day would be opened within the permitted hours. The great evil prevailed in large and populous districts, and therefore he thought that if the Bill were made to apply only to towns in England having a population of 10,000 persons, that would, he thought, do something towards the abatement of the evil. The noble Earl concluded by moving the insertion of words to this effect in the clause. An Amendment moved, after ("to") to insert ("Towns containing Ten thousand Inhabitants in.")-(The Earl of Shaftes bury.) LORD CHELMSFORD thought that this was a good illustration of the difficulty of legislating on this question. The Bill which he introduced in 1860 was rejected because it was confined to the metropolis; and now when he introduced a general Bill his noble Friend objected that it would be very prejudicial by causing persons in small towns to open their shops on Sundays. He (Lord Chelmsford) very much doubted whether any such advantage would be taken of the exceptions in the Bill; and he could not see why the application of the Bill should be confined to towns of 10,000 persons, rather than to towns of twice that population. He believed that such a limit to the operation of the Bill would introduce another element of discord; and therefore he proposed that the clause should stand as it was. EARL GRANVILLE said, the extreme On Question, their Lordships divided: Contents 7; Non-Contents 26; Majority 19. Carnarvon, E. CONTENTS. Harrowby, E. [Teller.] Leven and Melville, E. Romney, E, Shaftesbury, E. [Teller] THE EARL OF CARNARVON, in rising to move for copies of Correspondence be tween the Privy Council Office and the local authorities of Hull and Liverpool, relative to a recent outbreak of Cholera, and to ask Her Majesty's Government, What precautions they had adopted in relation thereto ? said, that the Question he had to put was of a very serious and pressing character. Several cases of cholera had recently occurred in Liverpool, and although there was nothing to cause panic, there was everything to justify the greatest caution on the part of the Government and the local authorities. There was no doubt as to the origin of this outbreak. A large number of German emigrants had landed at Hull, and had travelled by railway to Liverpool, and it was at Liverpool, without an exception, that all these cases had arisen. The most formidable outbreak had occurred on board a vessel that had sailed from Liverpool for New York. It was at Liverpool, again, and among this body of emigrants, that diarrhoea and typhus had been prevalent, and the House was aware that diarrhoea was the first stage, and, at all events, the harbinger of cholera. The habits of these emigrants were the reverse of cleanly, and they were congregated together in the most unhealthy quarters of the town. A case had been stated where 150 of these emigrants lived in one house in Liverpool, and forty in a single room. If these persons really came from cholera-infected countries, were these not all conditions that would justify them in expecting cholera to break out? Assuming that the theory of quarantine was a sound one, it was most desirable to take precautions against this through-traffic of emigrants from these cholera-infected districts. He did not pretend to point out how this was to be done, but probably the best way might be for Government to enforce the laws of quarantine that were already laid down, and to institute any fresh precautions that might seem necessary. A frightful mortality had already taken place, and there was no advantage to this country in running the risk of receiving emigrants who carried with them the seeds of cholera poison into a thickly populated town. A few days since there had appeared an Order in Council on the subject of cholera, which laid down four rules-first, that no one should land from a ship infected with cholera without the permission of the local authorities; secondly, that a medical inspection should take place; thirdly, that the sick should be removed to some hulk; and fourthly, that the bodies of the dead should be thrown into the deep sea. Looking at the question from a common sense point of view, these measures were, no doubt, good as far as they went; but they ought to have gone further. He did not know why such powers should have been placed in the hands of the local authorities. The prohibition to healthy passengers to land seemed to him to be of very doubtful advantage. They might say that the medical authorities would not give permission to the passengers to land unless they were healthy; but unless they exercised a constant surveillance over each person, to satisfy themselves that the disease was not incubating among the passengers, such inspection would be useless. To keep people separate from the rest of the community by detaining them on board ship would be a thing unheard of except during a state of strict quarantine. The regulations issued appeared to him to apply only to persons on board ship, and, if he did them no injustice, they made no provision for the separation of the sick and the healthy, which would be impossible without the provision of a proper floating hospital. He would be glad to hear what recommendations had been made to local authorities with regard to those persons who had landed, and how far those recommendations had been carried out. Accounts had been received from Liverpool which stated that some of the emigrants who had arrived there had been placed in the workhouse, that others had been placed in lodging-houses, and that a third party had been provided with a separate room by the workhouse authorities, and, having spent the night there, they were discharged next morning. If the latter were infected, it was obvious they would carry infection wherever they went. The requirements of a hospital were very simple indeeda construction of the most temporary character would answer the purpose, so long as there was cleanliness and good ventilation. He believed that these requirements were effectually combined in hulks, and he would invite the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty to state how far it might be possible to place a sufficient number of hulks at the disposal of the proper authorities. No doubt hulks would be only a temporary expedient, but the ventilation in them was very fair, and by means of their isolation might be rendered complete, and communication with the shore might be entirely cut off. The noble Earl concluded by moving an address for, "Copies of Correspondence between the Privy Council Office and the Local Authorities of Hull and Liverpool, relative to certain Cases of Cholera."-(The Earl of Carnarvon.) EARL GRANVILLE said, that the question had the serious consideration of the Government both this year and last year. If the Government did not adopt what the noble Earl called half measures they must do one of two things-either make no regulations at all and allow persons sick of cholera to land wherever they liked, or establish a rigid quarantine. It was doubtful whether even quarantine, as carried out by foreign Governments, was effectual in preventing the spread of cholera, for, notwithstanding quarantine, we knew how much Marseilles and other |