The Express.
London, England, 1848-07-13 00:00:00

Zg TbLin T ;

;, 'DT T A

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—WEDNESDAT, JULY 12.
The Beekman took the chair at 12 o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
REPORTS OONSTDERED.—Edinburgh police Camendreent and
consolidation of sets. and police and sanitary improvermin) ; New
Rom Port and Harbour;
THIRD READINGS.-Crastord Bridge and Manchester Road;
Thorne Moor Draleage Thmrovement Bala
PUBLIC Rt'sumss.
PETITIONS.---Sir B. BALL from the toktrs
Oagainst the system of labour in their trod.: and St Pancras in fa .•
systemf the Sunday Trading Bill.—Mr. W. PAITBNLfrom pia in "au
whirej ageing certain chimes of the Poor Removal Bill. —Mr
SPOONER, from War wk against the sale of apirits on S •
daya—Mr. BROTHERTON, several, eau Salford &Metro the metro-
politan perisbee, against Sammy Undies Mr. HINDLEY, from Lara-
betb and many of the metropolitan parishes, to the same effect, and in
favour of the bill for preventing iL —Mr. 0. C. LEWIS, from- Radnor-
shire, is favour of superannuation alto. ances to poor.Lw paid of&ere.
—Sir L. O'BRIEN, from Limerick, against Sunday trading.
COMMITTEE—Sunday Trading (Metropolis) Bill.
RETURNS ORDERED.—On the motion of Mr. HUMP, rehire of
the number and designation of persons exempted by law from contri-
bution to the annuity tax in Edinburgh, and the authority under
which they hare claimed and obtained exemption ; similar return for
the burgh of Canoagate ; return of the number of persons in the city
of Edinburgh who are in arrears for the said tax for more than two
years, and the amount of such arrears; and similar return for the
burgh of Canorigute.
COURT OF CHANCERY (IRELAND).
Mr. G. HAMILTON begged to ask the secretary for Ire-
land, whether it was the intention of government to propose
any measure for the appointment of additional taxing masters
of the Court of Chancery in Ireland; also, whether it was
intended to introduce any measure for consolidating and
amending the laws relating to attorneys and solicitors in
Ireland ?
Sir W. SOMERVILLE could not undertake to promise
that the government intended to appoint a new taxing master
in the Court of Chancery in Ireland. Nor was he aware
that there existed any present desi.tn on the part of her Ma-
jesty's government of introducing any measure for consolida-
ting the laws relating to solicitors and attorneys in Ireland,
whatever their intentions might be as to the future.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion that the committee on this bill be poet-
' poned until Wednesday next,
Sir B. HALL complained of the inconvenience and incon-
sistency of the course pursued by the hon, member who had
brought in this bill in not having been present to proceed
frith it now that it !good lint on the orders of the day.
Sir 0. GREY vindicated the hon. member, who, he said,
was necessarily absent, being in attendance en the Dublin
election petition committee.
The bill was then postponed until Wednesday next.
SUNDAY TRADING (METROPOLIS) BILL.
Mr. HINDLEY moved that the order of the day for the
house to go into committee on this bill be read.
Oa the motion that the Speaker do leave the chair,
Mr. B. WALL rose and stated that he had a very serious
com,olaint to make with regard to the conduct of the hon.
member for Ashton-under-Lyne respecting the present
bill. He had been a member of paeiament for
thirty years, and he had never witnessed a pro-
ceeding more unparliamentsry or more unprecedented
than that of the hon. member, not only with respect to the
manner in which he conducted the inquiry before the
select committee up stairs, but also in having practised a sur-
prise upon him (Mr. B.Ws11), whom the hon. member knew
to be opposed to the principle of the bill. The hon. member
for Ashton-under.Lsne had moved the second reading of the
bill at two o'clock in the morning on Friday se'nuight, after
a long debate on another question there were not twenty
members present at the time, and although he (Mr. B. Wall)
had purposely remained in the house, in order to oppose the
second reading of the bill, the hon. member, knowing that
fact, contrived to make his motion in a' low a tone of voice
as to escape observation, and be (Mr. B. Wall) wet
just two minutes too late to prevent this inconvenient and
unjustifiable proceeding from being successful. He now
begged to state that he had given his undivided attention to
the subject of the bill, and had for many years worked hard
at it. He bad been in communication with the working
classes on the subject, and he was fully aware of their views
and wishes respecting the suppression of Sunday trading by
penal ensctments. He was most anxious to communicate
those sentiments to the house, in order that the legislature
might know how the working classes felt respecting this im-
portant subject. The bill before the house was not intended
by its promoters to supersede the present act of Charles 11.
against Sunday trading, but it was to run pori
pouts with that act. The only Sunday hat' fray prohibit ry
act now in force was that to which he had referred, namely,
the act of Charles 11., and the principal clause in it prohi-
bited Sunday trading, under the penalty of forfeiture of all
the goods exposed for sale, within specified limited hours on
the sabbath day. He admitted that the existing law was
not sufficiently stringent to produce the result contemplated
by its framers ; but that was no reason why the bill before
the house should be permitted to pass. If any legal mem-
ber of that house would take the subject in hand,
he was convinced an efficacious measure might be
framed, which would obviate the objections enter-
tained by the people to the bill before the house.
The hon. member read extracts from the report of the Sun-
day trading committee of last year, for the purpose of proving
that the demand for restriction came from persons who,
having themselves made their fortunes by Sunday trading,
were anxious to prevent the interference of others of smaller
means with their profits. Among other extracts read by the
hon. member was the evidence of certain shopkeeper in the
New-cut, Lambeth, who admitted that they added 30 per
cent. to the price of goods sold on Sunday, and that the
extra profit would render any fine that parliament might in-
dict a matter of little or no consequence. One witness—a
clothier—stated that his receipts on 'Whitsunday morning
amounted to 1301. He (Mr. Wall) objected to the bill, both
in principle and detail. Even the preamble stated that
which was not true in aecordance with the evidence, namely,
that the public thoroughfares were greatly obstructed
during the hours of divine service by itinerant traders.
Should the bill reach the committee he would
most stretuously resist the sixth clause, which established
a principle altogether new—that of cumulative penalties—
and that involved the whole principle of the bill. He had
only further to say that he was not indisposed to a decent
observance of the Sabbath, or to any arrangement which
would effect it without interfering with the necessities or
comforts of the poor; but he should always oppose legislation
which dealt exclusively with the humbler classes, while it
left the habits of the wealthy completely untouched.
(Hear, hear.) The bon. member concluded by moving,
" That this house will, upon this day six months, resolve
itself into the said committee."
Mr. SLANEY seconded the amendment, because he
looked upon the bill as a paltry, petty, meddling interference
with the pleasures and comforts of the poor. (Hear, bear.)
Let the hon. supporters of the bill look to the habits of their
own clue. (Hear, hear.) Were the clubs closed on Sun-
day ? Was there any difficulty in a gentleman obtaining
breakfast at the Carlton or Reform Clubs after 10 o'clock on
Sunday morning? (Hear, hear.) Were those splendid
establishments to remain untouched, while the poor, who had
only one day in the week for fresh air and recreation, were
to be prevented refreshing themselves with an orange or a
cup of coffee in their country walks ? (Hear, hear.) If a
bill were necessary to prevent the opening of certain shape
on Sundays he trusted it would he brought in by her Ma-
jesty's government, in whom he had confidence that they
would not propose any legislation for the oppression of the
poor. (Hear, hear.) The bill as it stood would prevent the
sale even of a Sunday newspaper, and thus preclude the poor
man from knowing what his representative!' had been doing
during the week. There was no country in Europe in
which Sunday was better observed than it was here. There
was no necessity for legislation on the subject, and he there-
fore cordially supported the amendment.
Mr. ALCOCK considered some law necessary to pre-
, vent the shameful desecration of the Sabbath which
occurred in some parts of Surrey.
Sir D. L. EVANS had had several petitions forwarded to
him for presentation from persons who, in self protection
were now obliged to trade on Sundays, in favour of this bill.
The general opinion of his constitueuts was in favour of the
measure, and the question was, whether those who were en-
gaged in the lower walks of trade should be compelled, by
the competition they were now subjected to, to toil seven in-
stead of six days in the week. The practice of Sunday trading
encouraged habits of intemperance in the working classes,
who, when they went to make their purchase of necessary
articles on the Sunday, were tempted to resort to the public.
house.
Col. THOMPSON contended that Sabbatical observances,
according to toe Judaical law, were not in accordance with
the Christian religion, or with our own church ; but as he
considered that one day out of seven should be set apart for
rest on political and social grounds, he should support the
motion for going into committee, trusting that the hon.
member would consent so to alter the bill in committee as to
prevent its operation extending to reading-room., the sale of
stamped periodical publications, the hire bt vehicles and
hones for exercise, and the healthful recreation of the

people.
Sir B. HALL said it appearedthat this was an experiment
attempted to be ti itd on the metropolis only, by two hon.
gentlemen who had no connection with the metropolis. ff
the bill was to affect the lower orders, and not the higher, it
was a most objectionable bill ; but if it was intended to Fut
all on a footing of equality, and that all amusements were to
be denied to the peer as well as to the poor artisan, they that
object should be explained, which it was not, in the measure
itaelf.
Mr. HINDLEY was prepared to make any exemptions en
the bill which might be thought necessary if it were al-
lowed to go into committee. He had brought forward the
bill at the earnest request of the parochial authorities of the
metropolis—the hon. member for Lambeth, who bad pre-
viously undertaken it, not having time to attend to it. The
sabbath was a meet valuable institution for the workingman
by preventing his having seven days' work for six days'
labour, which would be the case if the Sunday were not by
law required to be observed as a day of rest. His object was
to secure the comforts of the working classes, and not to in-
fringe upon them. He was willing to omit those parte of the
bill which gave the churchwardens the power of the polio.;
in this respect, as in some others, he admitted the ball was
capable of improvement. His desire was to make this an
efficient police measure for the prevention of that down,
non of the sabbath by trading which prevailed in many
parts of the metropolis. Very great benefit had Nulled
from the police bill which compelled public-houses in the
metropolis to remain closed np to one o'clock on Sundays,
and he was glad to understand that a noble lord in another
place was about to introduce, or had introduced, a measure
for extending the operation of that bill to all parts of the
kingdom. Such a measure would be attecded with great
advantage, and was anxiously looked far by the licensed
victuallers of the town he represented.
Mr. HUME thought the bon. gentleman should have
made the bill a general one. He had stated that all classes
were in favour of his measure; if so, where was the Secretary
of State ? He did nos see why an bee. gentleman should
come up to London to teach morality to the people of the
metropolis. (Hear, hear.) Was the swaretuuty of Ashton
' free from the immorality he abused eipdaet London 7 if not,
why did he not first try bit kat el Saar, hear.)
—why not owlowswyr to Wpm OW muds at bis on tor