The Sun.
London, England, 1848-07-12 00:00:00

VourtifilSbittou

SUN OFFICE, Seven o'clock.

IMPERIAL PAR,LIA3IENT.

(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)
SUNDAY TRADING (METROPOLIS) 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, ware, 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 had 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
es hat 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 the,poor
man with an article which accorded more with his purse
than the higher priced article, for they must-be closed if
Sunday trailing 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
consequence 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
thee no public inconvenience would arise if the shops that
retailed ginger-beer, oranges, cigars, and fruit were
closed until one. 'l'he principle, he said, might be car-
ried ,at 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, fur if one shop was closed, all ought to
be closed likewise, and what was done ought to be by
pelleesegulations. It was also stated in the evidence
by,ei Mroclaslea +James, - that cheesemungers exposed
bad, geodei at li4igh .priees the Sunday ; that no h BP-
penny eggs were sold on that day, theugh-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 was said that many tradesmen sold at
losing prices in the week, and that they made up for
it for by what they sold on a Sunday.—(Hear, hear.)
The conscientious tradesman who did this came to the
House and asked for a Bill to suppress Sunday trading.
Then, Mr. Butt, the superintendent of the police, con-
firmed him (Mr. Wall) is his opinion, that no further
powei4.were required, as he stated that the Lambeth
Improvement Bill gave a sufficient power to the inspec-
tors of police to deal with the matter; he said he should
not like to see any further power given, and he was one
of the witnesses brought by the Honourable Gentleman
the Member for 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.
'Tole certainly was a high-minded and generous prin-
ciple ; but he came before the Committee in a far dil-
-1 'went aspect. It appeared, from the evidence of Mr.
ilienies, that this tailor made a profit of 1/.
out of a 50g. 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 acid by the same witness that he took 1501.
on one • ,Sunday morning ; that he should lose 5601.
a yeas if •he closed on Sundays ; that he had pur-
chased a country house ; but if this Bill were passed,
as ho wished, he would 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.
Mr. 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
un 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. ALCOCK supported the motion for the com-
inKetal 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
in. Member who had introduced it would pledge himself
to sio 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
ei,y; nor did he see how objections could be taken to
al low bakers to carry on their trade on Sundays.
Sir B. HALL thought the House ought to have some
st ,t,,teent 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
abeuld interfere with the rich as well as the poor, he
should advise him to withdraw it, as he telt convinced he
w eteld 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 community. He thought that in bringing forward
the Bill he had done no more than his duty, and that
it would be admitted that the provisions were neces-
sary 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 flenouri!.ble Member
for Shrewsbury (Mr. Slaney) bad said that the
Bill was in favour of the rich and against the poor, but
leach he contended was not the case, because the Hon.
?eqeerater fur 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.—(Bear, hear.)
He could not sufficiently impress upon the House the
.anxiety of tradesmen in the metropolis, who now, for
the sake of a living, 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 had resultid 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 P eti-
-then% having been presented to the House of Lords,
a Bill had been brought into that House, and would
shortly b© brought before the ;louse of Commons, fur the
p urpose of extending the provisions of the Act to all parts
of the country. The licensed vicSuallers of the town he
represented (Ashton-undei-Lyne) had requested him
to s ve his support to that Bill. His object in bringing
in ts to present Bill was to endeavour to put down a great
griei emoe, which pressed heavily upon st great number
of her Majesty's subjects, and he trusted, therefore,
that his motion fur going into Committee would be
acceded to.
Mr. HUME said he thought the Hon. Member, on
his own showing, ought to have made the Bill a general
Bill---(Heare hear.) He said that all classes called for
the Bill, but if that were so, it was the duty of the Go-
vornrrient to provide a remedy for the evil comillai neirof,
toed r ,ot the Hon. Member tor Ashton-under-Lyne. He
must . say that he did not like to see a gentleman from
A Jab .ton-under-Lyne coming there to legislate for the
pi to ple of London.—(A laugh, and hear, hear.) The
H u a. Member had assumed to himself the position of

monitor to the people of London, whose morals,
he said, were very lax, and whom he was
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,
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
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, ho 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 dittoes the matter as
a question of religion; but simply as one of public neces-

sit3'. 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 teat 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 lion. 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. Millbury, 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.—(clear,
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.—(Laughter.)
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 tracking.—(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 he done to render the work of the 300 men em-
ployed in the brewery as little oppressive as possible was
done. If the lion. 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.—(hear.)
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
uny 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 he 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 fur the
present.
Lord D. STUART suggested that they had better go
into Committee pro forma, and take the discussion on a
luture 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 the 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 vended them on Sun-
day, no doubt he would have told the Hon. Baronet that
it was absolutely necessary that he should do so.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
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 bad 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 nest 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. Fur one, he confessed, he
thought the llon. 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.prma now, and on Monday he would state whether
he
The
eenHdeodu to go on with the Bill this session or not.
resumed,went intothCeocmhmaiitrtmeeanprro
the House hseavtihnegnßnefpoormrtead
ac-
cordingly.
Mr. C. BERKELEY moved that
the report be con-
sidered this day six months.'
The motion having been seconded,
Mr. V. SMITH supported the moat) in •n, and 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 also 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 300/. a-year, and of course this Bill
would not be applicable to tl.ose 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._

NEWDEGATE thought the measure was ex-
ceedingly imperfect, and calculated to lead to a
good deal of andoyance and injustice.— (Hear.)
lie 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
Iloase, 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
of the session, he thought the Hon. Gentleman would do
well to postpone it. He should not like to see this Bill
rejected on a division, and therefore he advised him to
accede to his advice.
Mr. HUME said 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.
Sir W. HEATHCOTE said the question was one of
so much importance that he trusted his Hon. Friend
would not heed an adverse decision.—(Hear, hear.) It
was incumbent that the House should clear itself from
the just reproach pronounced upon it, in consequence of
persons in insolvent circumstances seeking the protection
of the House against their creditors. He did not think
any public right would be violated by removing persons
of this class from the House. This would not punish
those who had been compelled to become bankrupts.
After a few words from Mr. MACKENZIE and Mr.
FORBES,
Mr. MOFFATT said he wished simply to get the
House to affirm the principle of the Bill; if so, he
should not press it into Committee.
Mr. BERNAL advised the House not to be in such a
hurry to vindicate its purity.—(Hear.) Were there not
persons out of the House who resorted to dishonest ex-
pedients to thwart their creditors from their due.
He challenged his Hon. Friend to name five
Members out of the whole number of which
the House consisted who had: rendered themselves
amenable to such a Bill as this. Let them not be in too
great a hurry to become jurists. The Bill was full of
matters which he might turn to ridicule; but he should
forbear from doing so; for instance, no power of appeal
was given.
Mr. EWART advised his Hon. Friend to withdraw
his Bill till next session. He had attained his wish,
namely, an expression of opinion in favour of his Bill.
He was in favour of its principle ; but the objections to
this Bill were insuperable.—(Cries of "Divide," and
" Withdraw.")
Mr. MOFFATT withdrew the measure ; but inti-
mated that he should renew it early in the next session,