The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-04 00:00:00

IPERIAJL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The Chard Railway Bill was read a second time, and the
Iledon Corporation and Borough Improvement Bill was
ead a third time and passed.
CHURCH RATES.

The Earl of DARNLEY and the Earl of CAWDOR
presented petitions against the abolition of church rates.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.

Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY presented petitiOns
praying for an alteration of the law with respect to the dis-
solving of friendly societies.
_ _ _

SELLING AND HAWKING GOODS ON SUNDAY

BILL,

Lord COLVILLE of CULROSS presented petitions
against the Sunday Trading Bill.
Lord CHELMSFORD presented petitions from Bays-
water and other places in the metropolis in favour of this
bill.

Lord SONDES presented petitions from Bishopagate,
Holborn, and other places, complaining of the great extent
of Sunday trading, and praying for a law to limit trading
on that day to articles of necessity.
Lord TEYNHAM presented petitions against the bill.
Lord CHELMSFORD then rose to move that the house
go into committee on this bill. The noble and learned lord
said that when he moved the second reading of the bill be-
fore Easter it was arranged that the principles of the bill
should be fully discussed upon going into committee. He
therefore entreated a dispassionate consideration of the bill,
as he felt convinced the more it was understood the less ob-
jection there would be to it, and he thought he ought to tell
them what the bill was before they proceeded to discuss
it. It was not a bill to compel persons to ob-
serve the Lord's day religiously, but it was one to remove
all the obstacles to a proper observance of the Sabbath. The
attempt to make men religions by legislation was impos-
sible, and the bill he proposed did not introduce any prohi-
bition or restriction that the law did not impose ; but the
law being inefficient, it was sought to strengthen the arm
of the law, and to make that which was now weak, strong
and efficient. The subject of Sunday trading had been
under the consideration of Parliament for many years,
and committees had sat, the result being three
large blue books ; but when such was the case, for all good
purposes the recommendation became a dead letter, for
very few persons cared about perusing one of these volumes.
(Hear, and laughter.) The extent to which Sunday trad-
ing was carried on was beyond belief. It was not confined
to articles of necessity, but of things that could well be ob-
tained during the week. The scenes in some parts of the
metropolis, when the blue books were printed, were stated
to be disgraceful; on Sundays crowds of persons congre •
gate; mountebanks exposed their nostrums, thieves and
prostitutes abounded, and a scene' was presented
which was beyond description. (Hear.) He did not think
the scenes at the present time had much altered. The
Bishop of London, in lately presenting a petition from the
Lord's-day Rest Association, stated that about one-half of
the shopkeepers of London kept their houses open on
Sunday, and to check this state of things the law was
altogether paw erless, as the fine imposed by the statute
was only Ss. He was perfectly aware that the subject he
had taken in hand was one surrounded by difficulties, but
he trusted that he should be able to convince their lord-
ships that the bill at present before them would do great
good if it received the sanction of Parliament. He
had had the honour of presenting a . petition
from an immense number of tradesmen, who were
desirous of legislation on the subject, as they were anxious
of being enabled to pay proper respect to the day, but owing
to the state of certain parts of the metropolis on Sunday
they were entirely prevented from doing so. In the
enterprise, as he called it, he found himself assailed by con-
flicting parties. Some parties complained that any relaxation
of the law was an approval by Parliament of Sunday trad-
ing, but such was not the case, and if these perused the bill
they would find that it contemplated all that they required.
One of the great obstacles to abolishing Sunday trading
was the practice of paying wages late on Saturday
night; but from reports that were now being made
in different places by some of the Government departments,
several large establishments were paying their workmen en

Fridays, and he hoped very shortly such an arrangement
would become general. It had been asked why
should a strong compulsory law be passed to
enforce the general closing of shops on Sundays.
The reason why such a measure was necessary was that if
certain tradesmen opened their shops on that day and others
kept theirs closed, the effect would be that the man who
kept his shop open would soon monopolise the whole of the
trade of the district. The bill was not one directed entirely
against the poor; it affected the sale of certain articles to
the poor and the delivery of other things to the rich, so
both were dealt with equally. The great difficulties in all
bills of the kind they now had under consideration were
the exemptions, and he should feel great pleasure in receiv-
ing the assistance of any noble lord who felt disposed to
help him in his labours, and he felt that if the bill passed
he should do a great good ; he would redeem thousands of
tradesmen from loss, and thus benefit their families and
workmen, and if it received the assent of Parliament it
would make the Sunday a day of cheerful rest, of religious
exercise, and one of real enjoyment. (Hear, hear.)
Lord ST. GERMANS said he had paid particular atten-
tion to the subject of Sunday trading, and he could not
give his assent to a bill which would bring about a worse
state of things than at present existed. He could not sup-
port a bill which made that illegal in London which was
legal in Manchester and other places.
Lord TE YNHAM also opposed the bill. It was acknow-
ledged on all hands that whatever change had taken place
as to paying workmen on Fridays and so on, yet there were
a large number of men who did not earn until Saturday
night the means of providing for their families on the Sun-
days. If the present bill passed, thousands of persons who
arrived in the metropolis on. Sundays would have insuper-
able impediments thrown in their way of getting any re-
freshment they might stand in need ot. The Act of Charles
11. was not a dead letter, for he held in his hand a case
which was tried at Southampton under that act in 1858.
In fact there were several in which fines from ss. to Bs. 6d.
were inflicted for such offences as the sale of farthing candles
and a pennyworth of apples. Under the Act of Charles
only one conviction could take place, but the present bill
was much more penal. A tradesman might under it be pro-
secuted over and over again, in short might be smitten com-
pletely to the ground, as the noble and learned lord provided
by the 4th clause for a penalty of 10s. for each offence of
selling or offering for sale on the Sabbath-day. There was
great inconsistency in the noble and learned lord'it bill.
Publicans were not interfered with, but publicans sold to-
bacco. At the same time the tobacconists' shops were to
be shut, so that the publican might do with impunity that
for which his neighbouring shopkeeper incurred a penalty.
The Englishman was permitted to buy his beef, but the
Irishman must not buy his potatoes, nor the Welshman his
leeks. Fruits were permitted, but the pomme de terre was
to be a forbidden fruit. If the noble and learned lord wished
a return to obsolete administration, let him put the Act of
Charles II , which was equi'y itself compared with the pre-
sent bill, into the hands of Sir R. Mayne, and if that func-
tionary did not prefer resigning his office to acting under it,
it would be found amply sufficient for the prevention of
Sunday trading. Lastly, ho objected to the bill as likely to
provoke a collision between the people and the police.
The LORD CHANCELLOR thought that the bill
should be allowed to go into committee, so that some fair
measure might he framed to check the existing evils.

Earl GRANVILLE deprecated legislation on the sub-
ject. The House of Commons would never consent to pass
such a measure.

Earl GREY recommended that the bill be referred to a
select committee.

The Earl of DERBY opposed this course, believing that
a satisfactory measure could be framed in committee.
On a division, the motion for going into committee was
affirmed by 54 to 25.

The house went into committee, after which the further
consideration of the clause was postponed till Monday.
On the motion of the Duke of NEWCASTLE, a select
committee was appointed to inquire what leiislation was
necessary for the regulation of salmon fisheries in Scotland.
The house then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.

NEW ME)IBER.

Mr. BENYON took the oaths and his seat for Berkshire.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

. _
The following bills were read a third time :—Brompton,
Chatham, Gillingham, &c., Water ; Denbigh, Ruthin, and
Corwen Railway ; Edinburgh Railway Station Access ;
London and South Western and Bristol and Exeter Rail-
way Companies; Salisburyand Yeovil Railway; Stockport,
Disley, and Whaley Bridge Railway; Wimborne. Min•
ster and Blandford Forum Road, and Colin River Water.
The Kilkenny Junction Railway Bill and Swansea Har-
bour Trust Bill were read a second time.
PETITIONS.

Several petitions were presented against increased na-
tional expenditure; for and against the provisions of the
Poor-law Medical Relief Bill ; against the Highways
Bill; against the duty on fire insurances ; against the Wine
Licences Bill; from Scotland in favour of the bill to amend
the representation of the people.