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

hear.) It was absurd and unfair to pass Acts for certain
communities, as if they were worse than other commu-
nities, and the House ought not to legislate upon such
a system. The majority of the working classes
did not leave their employment until too late
on Saturday evening to purchase the necessa-
ries they required for themselves and their
families, and they were compelled, therefore, to make
their purchases on Sunday morning. The higher
classes were placed in a different position, and it would
be unjust, therefore, to the labouring classes to pass
such a measure. More good might be done by
example in doing away with Sunday trading,
than by an Act of Parliament which visited pains and
penalties upon the people. He opposed the Bill, be-
lieving that, instead of doing any good, it would be
very mischievous in its operation.
Sir G. GREY said he was very much disinclined to
oppose going into Committee on this Bill, but after a
careful perusal of the provisions it contained, and
after the discussion which had taken place, his
mind was strongly impressed with the difficulty, if not
the impossibility, of legislating upon this subject.—
(Hear, hear.) He thought that the object sought to be
obtained by the Bill would be better effected through
the moral and religious feeling of the country
than by any legislation of the House.—(Hear, hear.)
If there were really any necessity to suppress Sunday-
trading they could go back to the Act of Charles H.
He entirely agreed with the opinion that Sunday was one
of the greatest blessings which a community could
enjoy, and he would be happy to concur in
any practical measure which was likely to
promote the observance of Sunday as a day of
rest ; but, looking at the repeated failures which
had attended previous attempts of the House to
legislate on this subject, he considered that the present
Bill would be altogether inoperative.—(Hear, hear.)
The observance of the Sabbath, he was happy
to say, had been of late years much more at-
tended to than it had previously. Taking into account
therefore, the difficulty of legislating on the subject, the
previous failures, and the late period of the session, he
earnestly advised the Hon. Member not to press the fur-
ther progress of the Bill during the present session.—
(Hear, hear, and cries of " Divide.")
Sir E. N. BUXTON would not discuss the matter as
a question of religion; but simply as one of public neces-
sity. As the majority of the traders of London ought
to be protected against the minority of their class who
persisted in trading on Sunday, and by competition caused
their neighbours to do so, he considered this Bill ought
to pass.—(Hear.) Last Sunday 246 shops were open
out of a total of 386 in the New Cut ; in
Lambeth-walk 130 were opened and thirty-eight
closed, exclusive of public-houses; and Spitalfields, with
which he was connected, presented a similar result.
He regretted that he had received a number of peti-
tions from these neighbourhoods in favour of
the Bill too late to present them at an early
period of the day.—(Hear.) The majority of the
traders of London wished to see Sunday trading in
general put an end to, in order that they, and the per-
sons in their employment, might have one day of rest
during the week.—(Hear, hear.) He considered
that his Honourable Friend had done well in
confining the Bill to the metropolis, because its effect
would be so salutary that it would be soon found essential
to apply it to all parts of the country.—("Divide.")
Mr. CRAVEN BERKELEY said much might be
done in the way of example by the higher class of trades-
men. The Hon. Gentleman then read an extract from
the evidence of a person named Boggy before the Com-
mittee, to the effect that a poor boy without shoes
was threatened to be taken into custody for selling
figs if he continued to do so, while the brewhouse of
Messrs. Hanbury, Buxton, and Co., in Brick-lane, close
by, was in full operation, as evidenced by the clank-
ing of chains and the steam from the chimney.—(Dear,
hear.) Other breweries, it appeared on inquiry,
did the same.—(Hear, hear.) This showed that this
Bill was another instance of class legislation—the fram-
ing of one law for the poor and another for the rich—
(Hear, hear)—and whilst he was of this opinion he
should strenuously oppose the Bill.
Sir E. N. BUXTON wished to explain. No work
was done in the establishment referred to on Sundays,
except what was absolutely necessary.—(Laugh ter.)
The clanking of chains referred to by the Hon.
Gentleman no doubt arose from the movements of the

horses—(Cheers)—and the steam no doubt arose
from the necessity of keeping hot water in the coppers
to prevent them from cracking.—(Hear.) He would
not say that no work was carried on on the Sabbath.—
(Hear, hear.) Men were required to attend to the horses;
but they were enabled to spend as quiet a Sunday in the
brewery as elsewhere.—(Laughter.) Everything that
could be done to render the work of the 300 men em-
ployed in the brewery as little oppressive as possible was
done. If the Hon. Gentleman would visit the brewery
on a week day, he would find that the clanking of the
chains referred to arose from the movement of the horses
as he had stated.—(flear.)
Mr. BROTHERTON said, though his name was on the
back of the Bill, he had not taken an active part in
bringing it forward—(Hear, hear)—but, believing that
it would tend to a better observance of the Sabbath,
he had felt it right to lend the humble weight
of his name in its introduction.— (Hear, hear.)
Whilst he possessed a mill ho never allowed
any work to be done on the Sabbath, believing
that no gain accrued from working on that day.
He should not be deterred by the sneers of those Mem-
bers who felt pleasure in teaching the people that there
was no difference between right and wrong from sup-
porting the Bill, believing as be did that it would not
interfere in the slightest degree with the liberties of the
people.—( Hear.)
Mr. SPOONER heartily concurred in the observations
of his Hon. Friend the Member for Salford. He thought
much good would accrue to the country if the House
possessed the moral courage to take up such subjects as
these in the proper spirit, and to discuss them on reli-
gious grounds.—(Hear, hear.) The Honourable Gen-
tleman deserved great credit, and ought to be
supported, even though he had brought it forward on
the comparatively lower ground of public necessity ;
but, looking at the statement of the Right Hon. Baronet
(Sir G. Grey), at the great blow which would be given to
the Bill, if negatived by a British House of Commons,
he advised his Hon. Friend to withdraw it, to mature its
principles during the recess, and re-introduce it during
the next session.—(Hear, hear.) If his Hon. Friend
determined to divide, of course he should vote with him;
but he thought the end his Hon. Friend had in view
would be more advanced by his withdrawing it for the
present.
Lord D. STUART suggested that they had better go
into Committee pro forma, and take the discussion on a
future day.

Mr. HINDLEY said he had no objection to adopt the
suggestion of the Noble Lord.
Mr. MUNTZ said the Sabbath was as much broken
by the rich as tho poor, and before he consented to
legislate upon this subject, the Bill must aim at a higher
class of the community than it did at present. The
Hon. Baronet below him told them that nothing was
done in his brewery on a Sunday but that which was
absolutely necessary. Now, had the Hon. Baronet asked
the boy who sold the figs why he Tended them on Sun-
day, no doubt he would hare told the Hon. Baronet that
it was absolutely necessary that he should do so.
The House then divided, when there appeared-7

For going into Committee
75
Against it
Majority in favour of going into Committee —2B
Mr. HINDLEY proposed to go into Committee pro
forma.
Mr. SMITH said it was a waste of time to go on dis-
cussing this Bill now, seeing that there was no prospect
of carrying it this session. It would have been much
better had the Hon. Gentleman withdrawn it altogether,
but if they were to go into Committee let them do so
with the view of going into the clauses at once.
Mr. ELLIS did not think the Hon. Gentleman would
be justified in proceeding with the Bill at this period of
the session.
Sir G. GREY said he understood that after they had
gone into Committee pro forma the Hon. Gentleman in-
tended to withdraw it with the view of introducing a
new Bill next session, and he hoped the House would go
into Committee at once, and waste no further time upon
the measure.
Mr. SLANEY hoped the Hon. Gentleman opposite
would state positively what course he intended to pur-
sure in respect of the Bill. For one, he confessed, he
thought the Hon. Member would exercise a sound dis-
cretion in surrendering the Bill intu the hands of the
Government.

Mr. HINDLEY said he wished to go into Committee
pro forma now, and on Monday he would state whether
he intended to go on with the Bill this session or not.
The House then went into Committee pro forma, and
the House having resumed, the Chairman reported ac-
cordingly._

Mr. BERKELEY moved that the report be con-
sidered this day six months.
The motion having been seconded,
Mr. V. SMITH supported the motion, and in doing
so called upon the Hon. Member who had charge of the
Bill to state what he intended to do with it this session.
Mr. GLADSTONE aho appealed to the Hon. Gen-
tleman to state now what he proposed to do with the
Bill.

Mr. HINDLEY said he would state on Friday what
he intended is do.

The motion was then withdrawn, and the Committee
re-appointed for Friday.
QUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS BILL.
Mr. MOFFATT, in moving the second reading of this
Bill, told the House that it involved no principle-. The
rule of the House was, no Member should have an in-
come of less than 3001. a year, and of course this Bill
would not be applicable to those Hon. Members who had
conformed with that regulation. It was notorious that
many gentlemen had endeavoured to secure seats
in the House to protect them from arrest--(Hear,
hear)—and, the simple object of this Bill was to
give the creditors of such Hon. Gentlemen a remedy
against the protection which the rules of the House
threw around every Gentleman who had the honour of
a seat in it.
Mr. NEWDEGATE thought the measure was ex-
ceedingly imperfect, and calculated to lead to a
good deal of annoyance and injustice. (Hear.)
He trusted that at this late period of the session the
House would not accede to the Bill.—(Hear, hear.) If
it went into Committee, like the Bill last before the
House, it must be withdrawn for great amendments.
Sir GEORGE GREY said as soon as the Bill was
printed, he placed it in the hands of the gentlemen ap-
pointed for that purpose, and he considered the Bill was
one which required great amendments. Considering
the necessity of those amendments, and the late period
ofwell to
the
session, he thought the Hon. Gentleman would do
postpone it. He should not like to see this Bill
rejected on a division, and therefore he advised him to
accAeldre. to his
E said advice.
all his Hon. Friend wanted to know
was whether insolvents should. be allowed to sit in the
House or not. It was a question of principle, and one
of much importance.