The Sun.
London, England, 1833-03-22 00:00:00

Mr. HARPER presented a petition from Henley-upon-
Thames, praying for the better observance of the S tbaath.
Also a petition from the s outhern part of the county of
Oxford to the same effect. This petition was signed by ail
the incumbents in teat part of the country. and presented
a contradiction to the Hon. Member for Oldham's asser-
tion that these petitions came from interested parties.
For his own part, the Hon. Member thought that some-
thing ought to be done with a view to the better °harry •
ance of the Sabbath, and to have us restored to the ancient
policy with respect to that subject To his judgment
much more might be usefully done by the example
of the upper classes—( hear, hear, bear)—than by
any legislative Act that could he passed. Nothing
could he productive of so much coot! as the upper classes
being more attentive to their religious conduct—abstaining
as much as possible from putting labour into movement on
the Sabbath Day, and by paying wages at any oth-r time
than on the Saturday evening, he effect of which was to
occasion a great deal of shopping on the Sabbath
Diy. Even if the House should be of opinion when a
Bill was introduced, that it was necessary to adopt the an•
cient penalties, it would be necessary to recollect that all
penalties, except so far as they concurred with public
opinion, had the eff.ct of creating a❑ unsatisfactory feel-
ing. The next petition be hail to present was from
Chipping N Kum, which prayed the House to adopt mea-
sures for the entire abolition of colonial slavery. On this
subject he I ad devoted all his tff ins to bring about a rea-
amiable but not rash measure, to have this effect.
Mr. COBBET said the Hon. Member appeared to
think something ou,lit to be done to make the present
comfortnable to the ancient practice of the country with
regard to the Sabbath. Now the ancient practice was
that fairs and maikets should be held on the Safibath
thtougbout the country. So much then for bringing back
the modern or present prac•ice to the ancient practice.
The Hon. Member bad also seemed to impute to him
(Mr. Cobtiet,) that he was the originator of the
opinion that these petitions sometimes proceeded from
interes ed motives. I! was the petitioners themselves who
had made this statement. They hail promulgated their
views in the alive of a pamphlet, and hail given the form
of petitions for requesting petitions of that sort to be
drawn out, to be signed and to be presented to the House ;
and, in the outset 01 the pamphlet, they very elaborately
stated the great injustice they sustained in their trade, be-
cause all Other parties did not observe the Sabbath as they
old ; therefore he had said that it had bee❑ made with
them a question of pounds, shillings, and pence.
He did not accuse all the petitioners on this subject of the
same motives ; he bell ved that the petitioners from Scot-
land were actuated its religious motives-0 is he believed
from what he had seen when in Scotland. But atter all,
what was the House to do? They could not pr vent people
tram employing their servants on Sundays—they could not
prevent farmers fiom employing their labourers—they
cool f not prevent rowers frem -ending their apprentices
on errands on Sundays—nor could the% say to the rich they
should not allow their tashionahle ladies to ride out in
their c ,rria.ges on Sundays, and use their footmen and
grooms. He had ha I a good deal of experience in the
en plo)ment of servants, both in town and country, and
he was clearly oh opinion, that no late• could be passed on
this solnect, which would not do more harm than good.
Mr. HARCOURT, in explanation, said that he by no
means expressed an opinion as to what tvie neceasary to
be done in the details of the Bill introduced into this
House, but merely said, tl:a• if the pen )1 system were to
be kept up, it would be desirable to accommodate the pe-
nalties to the change value of money. He was far ftom
having any puri,anical wishes to curtail the recreation of
the poor, who certainly in firmer times, especially in the
country, enjoyed much more recreation on the Sunday
than they now did ; but the object of his argument was
to show, that they would do less by legislation than by
examp'ea
An flocs. MEMBER. said that the present pen ilty was
so low, that parties were known to say that it was worth
their while to break the law, incur the penalty, and pay
three months in advance, in order to save the Bench any
further time.

Alt. BLACKSTONE said he should certainly support
any practical measure for the better observance of the
S‘libath.

Mr. E. J. STANLEY presented a petition from the
master manufacturers of Stockport, praying that furher
evidence might be rak••n before the Factories Bill was
passed, in order that they might have an opportunity of
clearing their character of the imputations cast upon them
in the ex-pciP te evidence brought forward by Mr. Sa der.
He concurred in the prayer of the petition, but could not
concur in some of its statements. The Bill brought in
some years ago, by Sir John Hohhouse, had not had a
fair trial, for it was confined in its operation to a very
small portion of the manufacturers of this country. 1,
had not been tried at all in the woollen, the silk, or the
hemp manufactories, so that how far it would protect
the children employed in that manufacture was not known.
He thought there ought to lie an inquiry instituted into its
effect, in order that it might be seen whether there might
❑ot be some alteration in that Bill to shorten the
hours of labour, to which he was favourable, al-
though not to the extent proposed in the Bill by Mr.
Sadler and the Noble Lord the Member for Dorsetshite,
would not be sufficient to cure the evils of which they a❑
complained, and put a stop to the oppression which had
been undoubtedly exercised. He considered the petitioners
had made out such a case as entitled them to have an in
quity either by a committee or a commission. It
he thought that the object of the petitioners was
to stave off the introduction of a measure that was
so necessary, he would not lend himself to it;
but in his opinion it would have quite the contrary effect
—that by such an inquiry as they prayed for, a measure
that would be satisfactory to all parties might he brought
in and passed into a law, and thereby saving much time.
He trusted that the House would grant the prayer of the
petitioner, and that the inquiry would be immediately
proceeded with.

Lord MOLYNEUX had been requested to support the
petition, which be did with much pleasure.--(Hear.)
He had the honour of representing one of the largest
m inuiacturiniz districts, and from his own knowledge he
could state that the electors had been much wronged in
the statement, that had gone forth to the world on a pre-
vious occasion. He called upon the Members for boroughs
in Lancashire, not to be led away by the fear of lo,ing
their popularity, but boldly to come forward and state the
truth upon this subject.
Mr. C. FERGUSSON said that his opinion upon this
subject was not founded upon any notion of the tyranny of
the manufacturers, but on toe facts stated by the manufac-
turers themselves. His opinion was founded upon the
fact that the children were worked twelve and more bouts
a-d iy. He would take the evidence of the medical men.
who were of opinion tlt.it not even adults could with
safety to their health be worked for that period, and could
it be imagined that children could work so long without
the deepest injury to themselves? Unless the manufac-
turers could alter that fact, he should feel justified in
voting for the Bill.
Mr. HOWARD said that the manufacturers in that
part of the country with which he was connected
(Carlisle), wished for the most rigid inquiry into this
subject, feeling that a stigma bad been c ist upon them
which had been highly injurious to them. They had been
held up to the reproach of the whole nation, and they
naturally felt a desire to meet it. The cotton manufac.
turers alone had been hitherto protected by the Legisla-
ture, but the s,me protection sbou.d extend to the other
branches of manufactures. He was by no means oppot.ed
to the principle of the Bill, for he thought, without pre.