The Sun.
London, England, 1855-06-13 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS--(THIS DAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at 12 o'clock.
The Severn Valley Railway Bill, and the Somerset
Central Railway 33.11 were read a third time and passed.

PETITIONS.
Petitions were presented (4) by Sir J. Walmsley from
the metropolis gensrally, and from Woolwich, against
the Sunday Beer Eill ; also a petition from Leicester,
praying for amendment of the Poor-law Bill, so as to
give local control ; by Lord Stanley, from Colchester,
praying that steps may be taken for the restoration of
peace ; by Mr. Palmer, from Berkshire, against the
Sunday Trading Bill, and one against the endowment
of Maynooth ; by Mr. Pellatt, 12 petitions from Dis-
senting congregations in favour of the Marriages Bill.
SUNDAY TRADING (METROPOLIS) BILL.
On the order of the day for the house going into com-
mittee on this bill,
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a large number of
petitions from various parts of the metropolis against
the bill, complaining that the bill is a gross attack on the
liberty of the working classes.
Mr. WILKINSON also presented a number of peti-
tions from Lambeth with the same prayer, and one in
favour of it.
Lord R. GROSVENOR then presented several peti-
tions from the Tower Hamlets, Finsbury, and West-
minster, in favour of the bill.
Lord R. GROSVENOR then appealed to the bon.
member for Newport (Mr. Massey) to postpone his
amendment (that the house go into committee on the
bill that day three months), as he should have proposed
that amendment on the second reading.
Mr. MASSEY regretted that he had omitted to pro-
pose his amendment at the second reading of the bill,
for he believed it to be a bill unjust, iniquitous, and mis-
chievous in principle, and one which he felt bound to
oppose in every stage of its progress. He contended
that the bill, besides being bad in principle, was
partial in application, for it would affect only the
metropolis, leaving entirely untouched the great
hives of manufacturing industry in the large towns,
where the habits and manners of the-people were pretty
similar to those of the working classes of the metropolis.
(Hear.) Besides, he contended there was not any trading
on Sunday in the metropolis calling for such a measure.
A man might walk through the heart of London—from
the Bank of England along Che,apside, Feet-street, the
Strand, and go on to Hyde Park Corner without seeing
any shops open or any trading. (Hear.) The same
remark would apply to the other great line of thorough-
fare—Oxford-street. (Hear.) He had himself gone through
many of the more humble streets on a Sunday to ob-
serve what sort of trading was going on there, and it was
true he found some shops open. But what were they?
They were small milk shops, bakers, lollipop shops, and
such as contributed to the necessities or comforts of the
working classes—(hear)—and to call that a desecration
of the Sabbath was the grossest exaggeration. (Hear,
hear.) He thought such legislation as this bill belonged

Ito an age gone by ; he thought those matters ought to
be left entirely to the judgment of inGividuals them-
selves. (Hear.) If the bill were passed, the observ-
ance of the Sabbath would not be advanced an inch, nor,
indeed, did the promoters of the bill themselves pat it
on that footing. There were thousands of poor coster-
mongers, and others of that class, who rose on the Sun-
day morning without perhaps a meal in their
wretched dwellings, and were they to starve ?
It was said, too, that why should not
the working classes purchase their provisions on the
Saturday ; but it was well known that thousands of
honest working men, who did not frequent public-houses,
who occupied but one or two rooms, and were they to
be compelled to keep their food for four-and-twenty hours
in a close, and often unhealthy atmosphere ? If they
were, he considered Lat would not be the
way to promote either the self-respect or the
health or habits of those industrious classes. (Hear.)
He contended that, even in those localities where Sunday
traffic moat prevailed, the traffic was over at a compara-
tively early hour—say by 11
,o'clock in the morning.
The hon, member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley)
expressed dissent, but he (Mr. Massey) knew that in
those districts the trading was so sensibly dimi-
nished by one o'clock that thus was no re-
munerative reason to induce the tradesmen to keep
their shops open after that hour. (Hear.) Was any gen-
tleman in the house prepared to bring in a bill to fix the
time on which a master should pay his servants ? He
believed the day for such legislation as that had long since
passed away; yet it was well known the workmen did not
receive their wages till late on Saturday nights, and such
a bill as this would probably compel the labouring
classes to resort to a " tick" system or a " truck" sys-
tem, which would be most injurious. The hon. member
then referred to the evidence given by Sir Richard
Mayne before the Lords' Committee on Sunday trading,
who stated that though the trading was on the increase,
the observance of the Sabbath was at the same time
more and more kept up, and he also stated that the
enforcement of the prevention of Sunday trading was a
matter of the greatest difficulty. Such legislation as
this was calculated to drive the working classes to the
low gin shops, on the windows of one of which he lately
saw an invitation to the people to come in and " get
drunk for a penny ; dead drunk for twopence; and clean
straw to get sober upcn for nothing." He would not
trespass further on the house, but would conclude by
saying the bill was unjust in principle and partial in cha-
racter—that it was uncalled for, and that it would be
much better to leave such subjects to the self-respect of
the workirg classes, which, he thanked God, was daily
increasing, as was also their knowledge and intelligence,
and therefore he thought it much better to desist from
any legislation on this subject. He therefore moved an
amendment that the house should go into:. committee on
the bill on that day thr?e months.

—Lord STANLEY said he felt bound to give his sup-
port to the bill. The honourable member who bad just
sat down drew a very pathetic picture of a poor
man being obliged to keep his food for 24 hours
in his room ; hut had the honourable gentleman
read the bill ? "Why the third clause provided that
any article of food, meat, poultry, &c., may be sold on
Sundays up to the hour of nine o'clock. (Hear.) As
to the objection of the hon. member that this bill
would affect only the metropolis, there was nothing
unusual in that ; it Was quite customary to legis-
late for the metropolis on a separate scale from the
country, and, in fact, there was at this moment
a bill before the house for the local manage-
ment of the metropolis, which would not at all affect the
country. (Hear.)
He, therefore, considered the bor.
member had not made out any case against the bill.
Mr. W. J. FOX said he knew the metropolis now for
a period of nearly fifty years, and he believed that
the inhabitants of the Working order had increased
in knowledge, self-respect, and civilising influences
in that time to a most extraordinary extent, and he be-
lieved such legislation as this bill proposed was utterly
uncalled for. As to the absence of necessity for making
purchases on Sunday, why, if workmen received their
wages at an earlier hour on Siturday than now their work
would be stopped at an earlier hour; so that, in f.ct, such
a step would in reality be to inflict a penalty on the
workmen. (Hear.) By our Sabbath, from 12 o'clock
on Saturday night till 12 o'clock on Sunday night, we
restricted a great many useful things. That was not
the original Sabbath, which commenced at sunset of
one day, and ended at sunset of the next day, and there-
fore he considered we did much mischief by
our modern read.ng of the Sabbath. This bill
fixed upon trading exclusively, leaving out amusements
and work entirety, and that was a point which the Sab-
batarian legislators shrunk from touching. To interfere
with work would affect our great clubs and coteries • it
would interfere with the cooks, and footmen, and but-
lers, and carriages of the aristocracy ; and he thow_fht
that to stop short of the legislation that would affect
those was a pitiful and sordid hypocrisy. (Hear.)
Mr. KER SEYMER wished the house would go
into committee on this bill. He was not a Sabbatarian,
but he was not prepared to give up the Lord's-day as a
day of rest. Although Sunday was a day of rest it
should be also the Lord's-day. The hon. gentleman (Mr.
Massey) said there was little trading on Sundays in Mary-
lebone ; he (Mr. Seymer) wished the hon. member had
accompanied him last Sunday to Houndsditch. He went
purposely to see that district, and the amount of Sunday
trading there was very extensive ; and not only trading,
but a public meeting was placarded to petition against
this bill. He did not see many people sign the petition,
for he believed it would be highly inconvenient for
most of the people he saw there to state their names and
residences. (Laughter.) He thought that all that had
taken place on the discussion of this bill showed in the

strongest way the necessity for the adoption of the pre-
sent bill.

Sir J. SHELLEY supported the bill.
[LEFT SPEAKING.]

FIFTY THOUSAND A-YEAR.—In the Vice-Chancellor's
Court, the case of Manby v. Bewieke and others, has,
within the last few days, been argued. The statements
in the bill are assumed, for the purpose of the demurrers,
to be true. The plaintiff, a common day-labourer and
gardener, living at Louth, Lincolnshire, seeks to esta-
blish his title, as heir-at-law of a certain Dorothy Wind-
sor, and of his grandfather, Stote Manby, to certain pro-
perty in Newcastle-upon-Tyne and the county of North-
umberland, producing a rental of nearly 50,000/. a-year.
This case came before Mr. Baron Parke at the last
assizes for Newcastle, and attracted considerable atten-
tion, as Mr. Warren, Q.C., the author of " Ten Thou-
sand-a-Year," appeared for the plaintiff, and in a power-
ful and romantic speech, sketched the history of the case,
and intended to have called three witnesses of the re-
spective ages of 103, 101, and 98, in support of his case.
The learned counsel, however, after hearing some obser-
vations from his lordship, consented to a non-suit, and
the case has, therefore, come on again. On Monda
Mr. Wil'cock, Mr. Warren, Q.C., Mr. Teller, Mr.y, Roxburgh, Mr. Nalder, and Mr. L. Webb, having con-
cluded their arguments, the Vice-Chancellor said the
plaintiff, although represented as a pauper, had had the
advantage of three very able counsel to defend him. He
was obliged to conclude that, even assuming the aver-
ments of the bill to be proved, there was nothing to show
that the parties had obtained possession of the estates
by fraud. There was also a careful avoidance of any
averment that if there was fraud it had been completed.
He must allow the demurrer on these grounds—that no
fraud was so sufficiently averred as would enable the
Court to deprive a party of possession after so long a
period ; that there was nothing to show that the party,
by due diligence, might not have discovered the alleged
fraud at a much earlier period ; that enough was not
shown to connect the defendants with any participation
in the alleged fraud. He had great difficulty in saying
that any amendment ought to be allowed. It was de-
sirable that the Court should not encourage demands of
so stale a character. He allowed amendment, because
it seemed impossible to believe, if the plaintiff's case were
true, that some docements must not be in existence
which would throw more light on the matter. He was,
however, far from encouraging the plaintiff to proceed.