the Jewish religion laboured, and to justify his introduction of a Bill on the subject." HOUSE OF LORDS, Friday, April 25, 1834. MINUTES.] Bill. Read a second time :-Clerk of the Pipe (Scotland); Flax Bounties Repeal.-Read a third time:English and Irish Judgments. Sir Robert Inglis thought, this was one of those occasions which justified him in departing from the ordinary practice of Petitions presented. By Earls GREY, Fitzwilliam, Ux the House. He admitted, that the usual course was not to object to any measure until the second reading; but, although that was the case generally speaking, he felt it his duty in limine to oppose the introduction of any such measure as that which the right hon. Gentlemen opposite proposed, and therefore he should divide the House on the present Motion. The House divided on the Question: Ayes 53; Noes 9-Majority 44. The House went into Committee, and a Resolution was agreed to, purporting that it was advisable to relieve his Majesty's Jewish subjects from Civil Disabilities. List of the AYES. O'Connell, Morgan Parrott, J. Pelham, Hon. C. A. Strutt, E. TELLERS. Grant, R. Wood, C. List of the NOES. Gladstone, W. E. Inglis, Sir R. H. Johnstone, A. Maxwell, H. Perceval, Colonel Plumptre, J. P. BRIDGE, and HAREWOOD, from a Number of Places, and Dissenting Congregations,-for Relief to the Dissenters. By Lord WHARNCLIFFE, from several Places,-against any Alteration in the Corn Laws; and for Relief to the Agricultural Interest.-By the Bishop of EXETER, from Exeter, for the Better Observance of the Lord's Day.-By the Earl of ROSEBERY, from Kinfairns, for a different System of Church Patronage in Scotland.-By the Duke of GORDON, from Glasgow, against the Ministers of Churches (Scotland) Bill.-By the Duke of GORDON, and the Bishop of LINCOLN, from four Places,-for Protection to the Established Church.-By the Duke of RICHMOND, Marquess CAMDEN, and Lord KENYON, from several Places,-against the Sale of Beer Act.-By the Duke of GORDON, Marquess Camden, Earls GREY, ROSEBERY, FITZWILLIAM, HAREWOOD, and UXBRIDGE, Viscount MELBOURNE, Lords KENYON and SUFFIELD, and the Bishops of EXETER, Derry, London, and LICHFIELD and COVENTRY, from a Number of Places,-for the Better Observance of the Sabbath. OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH.] Lord Suffield, on presenting a Petition from the city of Norwich against the profanation of the Sabbath, signed by 3,550 persons, said, that, among the signatures attached to the petition, were those of the Mayor, the Dean of Norwich, several of the clergymen of that city, and all the dissenting ministers. He need not urge upon their Lordships the importance of the question, either in a religious or a moral point of view, which made it also important as a political matter. He did not, indeed, think that they could make men religious by law, which would be arrogating Divine power over the human heart; but, though they could not control the emotions of the heart, they might modify external circumstances. They might remove obstacles from the path of duty for those who were desirous to pursue it. Whatever restraint their Lordships might think it right to impose upon themselves or families, he would not recommend undue restriction by law upon the lower orders of society, in the enjoyment of their innocent recreations. He could never forget, that "the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." He believed, that two great objects were in view in the benevolent institution of the Sabbath; first, undoubtedly, opportunity for the worship of God, and the study and contemplation of those subjects connected with man's highest interests; secondly, and in a subordinate degree to the first, rest and relaxation from labour, refreshment after six days' of toil. Whatever might be the ob ject of others though he entertained some apprehension lest their well-intentioned ef- that a person carrying on extensive busiforts might tend, by attempting too greatness could afford to pay, to him a small peminuteness in legislation, to injure the nalty, and still derive a large profit after cause they would support-his object was, the deduction; while the shopkeeper, whose not to coerce the unwilling, but to protect transactions were upon a less scale, would, and assist those who were desirous to per- by payment of the same penalty, lose all form their duty. On what class, then, the profit which he might derive from his were restraints, if any, to be laid? Cer- violation of the law. He was fully pertainly, not on the lower classes. What suaded, that more might be done to prevent class was most benefited by the Sabbath? the profanation of the Sabbath, by their Surely those who, if deprived of the oppor- Lordships' individual efforts, in their pritunity afforded by that day for devotion vate capacity, than they could possibly and rest, had no other, while too many of effect in their character of legislators. He the higher orders, in the language of an was led to this conclusion by an instance eminent Christian now deceased, " do every- which fell under his own observation in a thing on the Sunday which they are in small market town, at a distance from the the habit of doing all other days of the metropolis, in which Sunday trading preweek, and on no other day in the week do vailed to a shameful extent. That had that which they ought to do on the Sun- been entirely suppressed, not by the inflicday." It was last year rumoured, that an tion of penalties, but by the influence of Address to his Majesty was contemplated gentlemen resident in the neighbourhood. in the other House of Parliament, to pray With a view to remove every thing like that the Park-gates might be closed on a excuse for opening the shops on Sunday, Sunday; and he should not regret to see their gentlemen prevailed upon their tenants to Lordships' carriages excluded from the Park commence a practice which could not be on a Sunday, but he should deeply lament too generally adopted, namely, that of to see the tradesman and the artificer, who paying all their labourers on a Friday inwere immured in close dwellings six succes- stead of Saturday night, or on the Sunday sive days, deprived of the fresh air of the morning! There could be no doubt that Parks on the seventh. As to Sunday trad- this practice contributed to accomplish the ing, little check probably could be given to object of suppressing Sunday-trading in it by penal enactments, but the present that town. He was convinced, therefore, penalty was unequal, unjust, and insuffi- that their Lordships would do more by cient. To be equal in its operation, it their example than by making laws. ought to be apportioned to the capital of the trader, or to the extent of his business, or be measured, perhaps, by the assessment of his premises. It surely was obvious, The noble Lord also presented similar Petitions from the inhabitants of Hertford, and from a parish in Norfolk. Petitions laid on the Table. END OF VOL. XXII.-THIRD SERIES, AND OF SECOND VOL. OF SESS. 1834. INDEXES GENERAL INDEXES ΤΟ VOL. XXI, XXII. (THIRD SERIES) SESSION 1834. OF HANSARD'S PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES. (A.) SUBJECTS OF DEBATE S. N° I. HOUSE OF LORDS.-N° II. HOUSE OF COMMONS. No II. DEBATES-COMMONS. ADDRESS in Answer to the King's Speech, | Distress (Ireland) Petition, xxii. 81 Agricultural Distress (see Address), xxi. 540, Divisions, Means of taking, xxi. 239 Dorchester Labourers, xxii. 725, 733, 860, Down and Raphoe, Deaneries of, xxii. 64, Dublin Corporation, xxi. 764 Dundas, Mr., Case of, xxi. 999.-xxii. 192 |