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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 12.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
SUNDAY TRADING (METROPOIAIS) BILL.
Mr. B. WALL then rose to move, as an amendment,
that the House should resolve itself into a Committee
that day six months. He complained of the conduct of
Mr. Hindley, which, he said, was unprecedented, in
moving the second reading of the Bill at half-past two
o'clock on Saturday morning se'nnight, when there were
not more than twenty Members in the House, and,
moreover, when he knew that he (Mr. Wall) in-
tended to resist the Bill by a substantive motion.
Although he was in the House at the time, and
within twenty paces of the Hon. Member (Mr. Hindley),
he never heard the motion for the second reading being
put to the House. The Act which now regulated Sun-
day trading was that of Charles 11., the chief clause of
which enacted that no person should purchase, or show
forth or,, expose for sale, any goods, wares, or mer-
chandise, and that every person so offending should
forfeit the goods so purchased or exposed for sale.
He confessed he should have been glad to have bad the
opinion of the Attorney or Solicitor-General, neither of
whom were present, with respect to the exact state of
the law ; he also regretted that the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole)
was not in his place, as the Committee on this subject,
of which that Honourable Gentleman was a member,
derived great advantage from his attendance. It
was indeed a matter for extreme regret that,
owing to -his duties elsewhere, he was not able
to give that attention to the matter which his col-
leagues could have wished. Since the time of James the
First the necessities of the times had rendered many
departures from the law passed at that period absolutely
necessary; for instance, water and hackney coaches
followed the hawking about of mackerel on the
Sabbath; yet very nice distinctions were drawn as to
what was and what was not Sunday trading. In 1838 a
confectioner was fined for selling a penny bun because it
Was made of " dough," and not a cooked article like a
" puff" or " tart," in which case he would have been ex-
empt from the penalty that was inflicted upon him. Pub.
licans obtained their licenses on the understanding
that they intended to retail beer at 4d. a pot;
but if this Bill were passed, the small shops,
not " Tom and Jerry" shops, but small general dealers
and others who sold a poorer description of beer
at 2d. a pot, would be prevented from supplying theipoor
man with an article which accorded more with his purse
than the higher priced article, for they must be closed if
Sunday trading was sought to be suppressed altogether.
He was prepared to support a Bill which would put an
end to unnecessary Sunday trading, but he could not
support a Bill of so stringent a character as that before
the House. He wished to treat a subject of this kind
without the slightest levity, but yet he could not for-
bear from stating some matters which might perhaps
lead to the inference that he was not inclined to treat the
subject with that gravity which it demanded. Since the
examination of witnesses before the Committee with
respect to the condition of Lambeth on Sundays, in
eonsequence of Sunday trading, he had devoted some
little time to inspecting its most crowded thoroughfares
on the Sabbath, and conversing with some of the inha-
bitants on the subject.—(Hear.) One of the church-
wardens of Lambeth stated before the Committee
that two-thirds of the shops were opened on the
Sabbath, that persons of disreputable character
were thereby induced to congregate in the streets, and
that trading on that day was found so profitable, that the
,shopkeepers lost all sense of religion or morality, and
the whole " Cut" (the New-cut) was paralysed—(Laugla -
ter)—and that an Act of Parliament was'imperatively
required to put the evil down. This person thought
that no public inconvenience would arise if the shops that
retailed ginger-beer, oranges, cigars, and fruit were
closed until one. The principle, he said, might be car-
Tled out with respect to a number of other occupations.
He did not object to Sunday trading altogether, but
to the extent to which it was carried in the early part
of the day; he had some doubts whether the
clothing establishment of Mr. Groves, in the New-cut,
should be one of those closed in the early part of the
day. Now he (Mr. Wall) could not understand these
" nice distinctions, for if one shop was closed, all ought to
be closed likewise, and what was done ought to be by
police regulations. It was also stated in the evidence
by a Mr. Charles James, that cheesemongers exposed
bad goods at high prices on the Sunday; that no half-
penny eggs were sold on that day, though plenty were to
be had in the course of the week, and that those sold at
sixteen a shilling were sold for one penny each on the
• Sunday. It wee said that many tradesmen sold at
losing prices in the week, and that they made up for
it for by what they sold on P gilnday.-(Hear, hear.)
The conscientious tradesin •- (lid this came to the
House and asked for a Bit. . . ress Sunday trading.
ghee, Mr. Rutt, the sup oee, Lett of the police, con-
firmed him (Mr. Wall) is his opinion, that no further
powers were required, as he stated that the Lambeth
Improvement Bill gave a sufficient power to the inspec-
tor:: of police to deal with the matter; he said he should
not IA,, to see any further power given, and he was one
of the witnesses brought ley the Honourable Gentleman
the Me.nber r Ashton-under-Lyme (Mr. Hindley),
in support of the necessity for his Bill. The tailor he
had mentioned had several shops, and he said though
he should be a loser by closing on a Sunday, that he
was quite ready to do so provided it became general.
This certainly was a .high-minded and generous prin-
ciple ; but he came before the Committee in a far dif-
ferent aspect. It appeared, from the evidence of Mr.
James, that this tailor made a profit of 1/.
out of a 50,;. coat, sold on Sundays, and that
if he were convicted in the usual fine of ss. for every
coat he sold, he could well afford to do so.—(Laughter.)
It was said by the same witness that he took 1501.
on one Sunday morning ; that he should lose .500/.
a year if he closed on Sundays ; that he had pur-
chased a country house ; but if this Bill were passed,
as he wished, he would not give up all the profits
he had made by Sunday trading. He objected to
this Bill, because he believed it unnecessary, and totally
impossible for any practical measure to be carried out
upon the subject. The Hon. Member concluded by
moving that the House should resolve itself into Com-
mittee on the Bill on that day six months.
SLANEY seconded the amendment, believing
the measure to be nothing more than an im-
proper attempt to interfere and meddle with the
enjoyment and recreations of the lower classes of
the country, while the amusements and recreations of
the rich were not touched by the Bill.—(Hear, hear.)
It was unfair when the lower classes had but one day
to enjoy themselves, to throw every obstacle in their way
on that day. If a Bill was to be brought in on this
subject he thought it should be brought forward by her
Majesty's Government, and some confidence might then
be placed in it; but of this he was sure, that no Govern-
ment would ever countenance such a measure as the
present. He admitted that some legislative interference
was necessary, but not a measure like the present. He
believed there was no country in Europe in which the
Sabbath was observed so well as in England.—(Hear.)
Mr. ALCOCI( supported the motion for the com-
mittal of the Bill.
Sir DE LACY EVANS also supported the motion
for going into Committee on the Bill.
Colonel THOMPSON would support the Bill if the
Hon. Member who had introduced it would pledge himself
to do all in his power to prevent oppression under
its provisions. He could not see how any objection
could be raised to reading-rooms being kept open on
Sundays, or the sale of periodical publications on that
day; nor did he see how objections could be taken to
allow bakers to carry on their trade on Sundays.
Sir B. HALL thought the House ought to have some
statement from the Hon. Member who had introduced
the Bill as to what he intended should be its provisions.
If the Bill was to operate upon the poor and not the
rich, he objected to it altogether, and if he intended it
should interfere with the rich as well as the poor, he
should advise him to withdraw it, as he felt convinced he
would never be able to carry out its provisions as they
then stood.
Mr. HINDLEY said it was not his intention in the
Bill to make any exceptions in favour of any class in
the &immunity. He thought that in bringia and forward
the Bill he had done no more than his duty,
it would be admitted that the provisions were neces-
eery to protect the regular trader.—(Hear, hear.)
He was convinced that the feeling in the metropolis
against Sunday trading was so great that an election
of a metropolitan Member would in a great
degree depend upon the support which he gave to
such a Bill as the present. The Honourable Member
for Shrewsbury (Mr. Slaney) had seld that
the
Bill was in favour of the rich and against the poor, but
such he contended was not the case, because the 1100.
Member for Salford (Mr. Brotherton), who was a great
advocate for the poor, had given his support to the Bill.
He was willing to admit that the Bill was capable of
great improvement, and if any practical improve-
ment could be suggested, he would be happy
to aid in inserting it in the Bill.—(Hear' hear.)
He could not sufficiently impress upon the House the
anxiety of tradesmen in the metropolis.. who now, for
the sake of sieing, were slaves to the custom of
opening their 'Shops on a Sunday, as to the result
of the debate in this House ; and happy would
they be if the Bill should pass, and ultimately re-
ceive the royal assent. Business was now carried on to
such an extent in the metropolis on Sundays, that the
Act of Charles 11. was not at all sufficient. Very great
good bad resulted from the passing of the Police Act,
which prohibited the sale of liquors in London
before the hour of one on a Sunday after•
noon. In consequence of a vast number of peti-
tions having been presented to the House of Lords,
a Bill had been brought into that House, and would
shortly be brought before the house of Commons, for the
purpose of extending the provisions of the Act to all parts
of the country. The licensed victuallers of the town he
represented (Ashton-under•Lyne) had requested him
to give his support to that Bill. His object in hringint,
in the present Bill was to endeavour to put down a great
grievance, which pressed heavily upon a great number
of her Majesty's subjects, and be trusted, therefore,
that his motion for going into Committee would be
acceded to.
Mr. HUME said ho thought the Hon. Member, on
his own showing, ought to have made the Bill a general
Bill.--(Hear, hear.) He said that all classes called for
the Bill, but if that were so, it was the duty of the Go-
vernment to provide a remedy for the evil complained of,
and not the Hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. He
must say that he did not like to see a gentleman from
Ashton-under-Lyne coming there to legislate for the
people of London.—(A laugh, and hear, hear.) The
llon. Member had assumed to himself the position of a
monitor to the people of London,whom whose mora
was
ls,
and he
he said, were very lax,
desirous to keep in order. If a Bill was brought
in at all on the subject of Sunday trading, it ought to be
left to the charge of the Secretary of State for the Home
Department. He was as desirous as any one to advance
the morality and religion of .the people, but he did not
think such an object could be attained by troublesome,
partial, and interfering acts of parliament.—(Hear,