The Sun.
London, England, 1847-04-16 00:00:00

ass, 1..
/ He thought he should try his hand in putting down the
horse-racing and steeple-chasing which were at present
carried on on Sunday. lie should also direct his atten-
tion to the Clubs of London, which were resorted to on
interfered o with,fs
o
e ithatety. dayTbhye grreettaston
wnumbershy theyof thewe
rheingohte cl
he supposed, ere tried. As he did not
was
ibctita7e any such attempts would be
utterly ineffectua .
believe that any good result would follow the present
motion, he would vote against it.
Sir G. GREY said that the Committee was only asked
for in order to inquire how far the present laws were
calculated to answer the end for which they were enacted,
and not to enforce new penalties. If these laws were
inoperative, they perhaps might as well be repealed. He
must confess that he did not believe that the present laws
were framed to answer the end for which they were
proposed.
Colonel Sir T. WOOD said that, having had occasion
to walk over the Tower Hamlets on a Sunday, he was
quite struck with the correct manner in which the day
was observed. He did not think a case was made out
by the Member for Ashton, he had not even presented a
single petition in its faionr.
Mr. HAWES said that the object of the Committee
was only to inquire how far the present laws were re-
spected. Many persons suffered severely from the non-
observance of the day by their rivals in business. All
they desired was to be put in the same position as the
others. His Bill had no other object than to put down
open trading on the Sunday morning.
Dr. BOWRING said that every person regarding
society, in the metropolis, could not but be impressed
with the fact that there was a very marked improvement
in the observance of the Sabbath-day. The Hon.
Gentleman asked an Act of Parliament to effect that
which it was out of the power of any Act to accom-
plish. The laws were sufficiently stringent, and let them
be resorted to, if there was any complaint.—(Hear.)
Mr. WILLIAMS said that the present Bill would
only affect the comforts of the poor. Why should not
the principle of the Bill be extended against the
wealthier classes—against the bishops and judges of the
land, who employed their cooks upon a Sunday.—
(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman himself had em-
ployed, no doubt, his servants upon that day as well as
any other.
Mr. COWPER was in favour of the Bill, and he con-
sidered that everything that was said only proved the
necessity cf the measure. It was a very hard thing that
a small shopkeeper residing in those parts where Sunday
trading was going on, should not have his Sunday as
much to himself as the more opulent tradesman of Regent-
street. They had, he thought, a perfect right to appeal to
the House for the enforcement of such a law, and there
could be no objection to an inquiry into the best means
of effecting the desirable object of keeping the Sabbath
inviolate.
Mr. WAKLEY objected to the method in which the
Bill was proposed to be introduced. It was a sort of
piecemeal Legislation, which would be found wholly in-
efficient. The Bill was to put down Sunday trading in
the metropolis, as if the metropolis was the only place
in England where Sunday trading was carried on. It
could not be denied that the practice of trading on a
Sunday was carried on in London and other cities and
towns in England to a most discreditable extent; but the
question was, how was the evil to be dealt with? How
etas the inquiry to be made? Had any application been
made to the Commissioners of the Police?—for they
were able to furnish the House with more information
in twenty-four hours than the House could obtain in an
inquiry of a month. He did not see how the evil was
to be got rid of, unless it was by educating the people so
as to induce a greater feeling of self-respect. In his
opinion such a Bill would be quite futile, and he there-
fore hoped that the Hon. Member would not divide the
House upon his Bill.
Mr. MUNTZ said that the only and the best way of
preventing Sunday trading, was to enable the people to
get so good a livelihood in the week that they would
have no occasion to trade upon Sunday. Why was not
the same principle to be carried out with regard to
other persons besides shopkeepers. The Post-office
clerks, in all country places, were compelled to work all
Sunday, while those in London were not. They should
remove this evil as well as the trading on Sunday,
otherwise it would be partial in its operation, and, conse-
quently, of little or no avail.
Captain PECHELL wished to know what was to be
done with cargoes of fish which arrived in Billingsgate
on Saturday night, if they were not sold on Sunday
morning. Cargoes of lobsters fought and tore each
other; and were they to remain fighting and destroying
each other all Sunday, because they might not be sold.
After a few words from Mr. CHAPLIN and Colonel
Wool), which did not reach the gallery,
Mr. Alderman COPELAND said, that in the Broad-
way of the city of Westminster, he saw shops of every
class open on Sundays. It was a disgraceful sight, and
he thought it was quite time to put a stop to so great
an evil.
Colonel SIBTHORPE said that the tobacco and cigar
shops were open all the Sunday, and he thought that it
was less harm to allow a loaf, or some such necessary
to be purchased on Sunday, than to allow the people to
purchase cigars and tobacco for the purpose of wasting
the day in the practice of smoking.
Mr. HINDLEY did not wish to inflict any injury upon
the small class of shopkeepers by this Bill,but he thought
that the Committee of Inquiry ought to enter into proper
details, so as to hear the opinion given by the classes
most likely to be affected. He did not wish to interfere
with or injure any class, but he thought that the practice
of Sunday trading was carried too far at present. A
Committee of Inquiry would be enabled to ascertain how
far the principle could be carried, without pushing it to
a mischievous extent.
Mr. COLLETT thought that if they were to hinder
the small tradesman from keeping open his shop on Sun-
days, they should make the Bill extend to more aristo-
cratic evils, such as keeping open the club-houses.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion 5l
Against it
M sjority —32
NAVAL ARCIATECTURE.
Mr. HUME wished to state. that with regard to cer-
tain returns fur which he had given notice of motion, he
would procsed with part of them at once, and should de-
fer the remainder in order that the Board of Admiralty
might not have to complain that he bad taken them by
surprise on so important a question. He should be
anxious to defer the discussion of the whole question un-
til that day fortnight. The portion of them for which
he should move, was for a copy of the instructions from
the Board of Admiralty to the Committee of Naval Con-
struction, appointed to inquire into the state of naval
architecture; and copies ot the several reports which
that Committee have made to the Board ot Admiralty
on the state of the ships of her Majesty's fleet. Also,
copies of all melon, issued by the,Cotninittee of Construc-
tion, or by the Board of Admiralty, in consequence of
the reports a that Committee respecting tile alterations
of those ships laid down, or in progress of buiEing, or
built, according to the lines or plans of Sir William
Symonds, the surveyor of her Majesty's navy, or any
other constructor.
Mr. WARD said, that when he came down to the
House, he was not prepared for the extent of the Hon.
Member's motion. Ile thought that he should be en-
abled to show him that it was impo.sib!e to give copies
of the instrue:ions from the Board of Admiralty, as they
were strictly confidential papers. He admitted that the
Hon. Member had, to a certain extent, made out his
ease, and, therefore, he had no objection to the first part
of the return. But, with respect to the last portion, to
produce the instructions issued to the Committee of
Construction, he could not consent to that, as it never
had been the practice to lay such instructions on the
table of the House. The Hon. Member had better delay
that portion of his motion for a fortnight, when the
question would come before the House in another form.
To-morrow he would lay before the House that portion
of the returns to which he gave his assent.
Mr. WILLIAMS thought the proposition of the Hon.
Member was very fair, still he could not agree with him
that the instructions to the Committee of Construction
should be held as private and confidential, and withheld
from the House.
Mr. WAWN said he had no objection to producing
the first part of the motion, but be could not consent to
producing. the instructions issued to the Committee of
Construction. At a future time he would be prepared to
give good reason for adopting this course.
After a few observations from Mr. WA LEY and Mr.
Hume, the motion was withdrawn.
Lord MORPETH. moved to refer the Towns Im-
provement Clauses Bill to a Select Committee, to con-
sist of the following Members :—Viscount Morpeth,
Mr. Greene, The Attorney General, Viscount Sandon,
the Lord Advocate, Sir William Heathcote, Sir Wil-
liam Somerville, Mr. Brotherton, Mr. Escott, Mr. Loch,
Mr. Beckett, Dr. Bowring, Mr. Wilson Patten, Mr.
Morgan John O'Connell, and Viscount Ebrington.—
Agreed to.
Captain PECHELL moved for a copy of the Order
in Council of the year 1834, relative to the reduction
of the sea emoluments of the Paymasters and Pursers
of the Royal Navy, which they surrendered for the
purpose of creating a fund for the benefit of those offi-
cers of their class who were on half-pay ; with a return
of the amount annually accruing since the passing of
the said order :—Also, the annual amount caused by
any subsequent reductions in the sea emoluments of the
Paymasters and Pursers, with the date when the same
took effect. Likewise, a return of all sums that have
been applied to the increase
.of the half pay, and to the
formation of a retired list of the Paymasters and Pur-
sers since the Order in Council of the year 1834, with
the date when the same took effect.—Agreed to.
VAGRANCY (IRELAND) BILL.
This Bill was introduced and read a first time, and
ordered to be read a second time on 'Tuesday next.
ARMY SERVICE BILL.
Oa the order of the day for readieg this Bill a third
time,
Sir HOWARD
DOUGLAS rose to oppose it, as her
e
Bon
wie orveerini.,,naree,ntwohuaida
confinest struck
himselfo oat one
to halfth aotf p tot;
,sti,Gthp
numberservservice,
oant.
t 1 era,
:.e.„nd,Saidnceeoratinheunßicialltiohoasd
fcroommeabgerfoeraet
the House, he ha
d they
other parties connected with the
int,iited in deprecating the Bill, as
likely to operate in
Tbheceopmninncgipmleoorfe limited enlistment was iluaricayoFuticiloY4y
nit lees, and one that must
fie
un-
populargiven woipt
atsti ei
tm military
maintained in case
ttrao•
that a war arose between this and
He had said that this measure would not d:
men to the service, nor would it, if
joined, induce them to continue in it. The Hon, 'lard
Gallant Genileman quoted from one of the public
prints in support of this opinion. The same
organ added—(Several lion. Members—What organ ?)
—Mr. Fox Maule—A single barrelled organ—
(Laughter)—that it would be impossible to induce a re-
spectable man to re-enlist if he were once freed from the
service. A good pension was the one thing needful.—
(Laughter.) He repeated it, a good pension was the
only thing needful to raise the character of the service,
and he ;should wish to have a distinct declaration from