The Express.
London, England, 1866-05-18 00:00:00

fRIPERIIL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF ILiItDEI;,!-TatrsarrAY, MAY 17._

.
The Lost) Ciluicsitworteathb wet Oa the troolisele it

EOCLESIABT/CALAg4V-(ISLE OP ItAN) BILL
This.bill was iced s'seeestrtime.
LAND DRApIAGE-SCPPLEMENTAL BILL.
wee reeds seoelid time.
CATTLE VIIIIRANCE BILL.

This bill vas rid • pits On. d time.
Arroluisys AND 280LICITORS (IRKLAND) 1866

&LL.

This hill was read a third time said passed.
SELLING AND HAWKING GOODS ON SUNDAY

On the motion that the rept* of amendments on this
bill be con‘;tlered,
. .

Lord :10VG1ITON etrongl7 urged the noble and learned
lord (Lord C'helmsfordl, to withdraw the bill, as he must
have observed, that although no division bad taken place
upon the principle of the measure, it was not because the
bill was approved of by their lordships, but simply with
the view of affording opportunity for full and fair dis-
mission.

Lord CHELMSFORD said he agreed that it would
have been infinitely better that the bill should have been
introduced in the House of Commons, but he bad intro-
duced it in their lordship,' house upon theadvice of a mem-
ber of the other house representing a large metropolitan
constituency, who considered that it would aid the object
if thebill went down to the lower house with the autho-
rity of their lordships.
Lord I'EYNHAM observedthat the bill proposed to shut
up tobacooniats' shops but to allow the sale of tobacco in
public-houses, and the consequence would be that those
who supported their families by keeping such ahops, and
whose profit was principally on the Sunday, would be in-
duced to take out beer licenses in order to enable them to
continue their business. There were societies all over the
country whose object was to promote temperance, and one
of their principles was that the amount of drunkenness
was in proportion to the multiplication of houses for the
sale of intoxicating liquors, so that under the name of a
bill to prevent Sunday trading they would in fact be in-
creasing drunkenness.
Lord REDESDALE said the bill as it stood would give
indirectly a license to descriptions of Sunday trading
which at present were prohibited by law, and he was
anxious therefore that the existing law should be incor-
porated in this measure. He proposed an amendment the
effect of which would be to prohibit the opening of any
mops for the sale of any articles except medicines being
carried on during the time of morning service—that was
to say, from 10 o'clock till 1 o'clock. He would leave the
old law in force during every other period of the day.
Lord TAUNTON thought a bill of this kind should be
very carefully considered before it received the 'aunt of
their lordships. The more he examined this measure the
more strong was his doubt whether it was possible by legis-
lationit,
of this ption* to introduce a law which should
sot be much likely td do harm than good.
Earl RUBS was glad that his noble friend had
moved his amendment, which would much mitigate the
severity of the bill, whilst the most useful clauses would
be still retained. His noble friend who had just at down
bad truly said that within the last thirty or forty years a
groat difference had taken place in the observance of the
Sabbath, but he suspected that his noble friend was mis-
taken as to the diminution of Sunday trading in the
metropolis. (Hear, hear.) Instead of having decreased, he
(Lord Russell) believed that it had very much increased.
Ilis noble friend had said that the law of Charles 11. was
practically obsolete, but what would it be if the number
of persons selling on Sunday increased from 60,000 to
200,000? The result would be that the matter would have
grown beyond the powers of the legislature to check it. If it
were not checked the principal sufferers would not be the
higher classes, who could make their arrangements
and purchases on Saturday, but the middle and
working chines, to whom the institution of a day
of rest was most valuable. (Hear, hear.) For these reasons
he hoped that his noble friend's amendment would be car-
ried; but still, although their lordships could not prescribe
to the House of Commons what measures it should pau,
he thought they would only be doing their duty by them-
selves passing the bill.
Lord CHELMSFORD defended the bill against the objec-
tions of Lord Taunton, and complained that, after the bill
bad passed through the stormy seasons of second reading
and committee, this amendment of the noble lord the
chairman of committee on the report had taken him by
surprise. He regretted to find the noble earl at the head
of the government supporting the amendment, which he
(Lord Chelmsford) deemed to be so much at variance with
the principle of the bill that if it (the amendment) were
carried he should deem it his duty to withdraw the bill.
Lord PORTMAN hoped that the noble and learned lord
would not withdraw hie bill, but would accept the amend-
ment, for which there was a precedent in the case of the
public-houses. He feared that the employment of the
police would render that force very obnoxious to the
people.
The Erxl of HARROWS Y opposed the amendment. If
they insisted on shutting the shops duriug certain hours
they virtually legalised them remaining open during the re-
mainder of the day.
......—..--_____ .. . . .

The Earl of ELIENBOROI-CH said that the more he
looked at this bill the more be was alarmed. (Hear, hear.)
The objects it had in view were, he admitted, good ; he
only wished they were attainable. Sunday trading was a
great grievance, hut his fear was that if the bill
they would have the grievance with a riot on its back7sell
the poor women hawkers were taken up there would cer-
tainly be a riot, and a feud would be at once established
between the people and the police. He should have
objected to this bill before if ho were not certain that
it would be rejected by the House of Commons. It had
been said that bills from that house were seldom received
with favour by the House of Commons, and, looking at the
great affection which had recently sprung up in that house
for the working classes, he did not think that this bill was
likely to be more fortunate than its predecessors. He saw
mischief in the bill, and should take every opportunity of
voting against it.
Earl GREY had not the slightest sympathy with those
swim would give Jewish rigidity to the Christian Sabbath,
but, on the other hand, he held that the Sunday of rest
was an institution of the utmost value to the middle and
working classes. He approved of the general scope and
object of his noble and learned friend's bill, but when he
came to examine its details, he must confess that he
thought its exceptions somewhat arbitrary and difficult to
reconcile. There were certain trades which were neces-
sary on Sunday, and for parliament to draw the line would
be extremely difficult. If trade was interrupted
for three hours, he believed it would in very
few cases be resumed during the day. He was
convinced from experience that far less animosity
would he created in the minds of Sunday traders by the
enforcement of the law by the public authorities, than by
leaving that duty to be performed by private persons or by
informers ; therefore if this bill should be paned, that
clause should be retained which empowered the police to
act, but, further, they should be required to do so. (Hear,
bear.)
Their lordship. then divided :
For the clause—Contents 4l
For Lord Redesdale's amendment—
Non-contents

The amendment having been carried,
Lord CHEL3ISFORD and, that so far as he himself was
concerned, be was not disposed to proceed further with the
bill, but as there were many noble lords who were in
favour of the bill as amended, it would not be respectful
to the house to move that the order be discharged and the
bill withdrawn, but he would leave it to any noble lord
who chose to do so, to take charge of the bill. He would
not say anything further upon the subject.
The other amendments were agreed to, and the third
reading of the bill was ordered for to-morrow, and
Lord TAUNTON subsequently gave notice that on the
!notion for the third reading he would move as an amend-
ment that the bill be read • third time that day sir
months.

•
The following bills were !Tad a third time and .
The Contagious Diseases Bill, the Inclosure Rill, trestr-
hour Loans Bill, and the Superannuation (Officers, Metro-
politan Vestries, and Di',trict Boards) Bill.
The house adjourned at 20 minutes to 7 o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—TurnsDAT, MAY 17.
The SPEAKER took the chair at a few minutes to four
o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The following bills were read a third time and passed ;
Abercarri Roads ; Aberdeen County and Municipal Build-
ings ; Belfast Burial Ground ; Bridport, Lyme, and South
Coast Railway ; Combni.mtin and Ilfracombe Road ; Dub-
IM and Kingstown Railway (Lease) ; Glasgow (City) Im-
provements, in. ; Kilmarnock Water ; London and South-
Western Railway (Additional Powers) ; Manchester, Shef-
field. and Lincolnshire Railway (Additional Powers) ;
Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway (New
Lines); Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (Outer Works
Alteration) ; Mersey Pneumatic Railway ; Metropolitan
Railway (Additional Powers) ; North Walsham and Dil-
haw Canal ; Salisbury and Yeovil Railway ; Solway Junc-
tion Railway (Capital) ; Yentnor Gas and Water; Walker
and Wallsend Union Gas.
THE REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS BILL.

Mr. CROSLAND gave notice that when the bill for the
redistribution of seats was in committee he would move
that the borough of Huddersseld was entitled to an ad-
ditional member, and that such additional member be ac-
cordingly given to that borough.
Mr. H. BAILEY gave notice that on the same occasion
he should move to add to schedule B all those boroughs
that had more than 8,000 inhabitants and less than 10,000.