The Sun.
London, England, 1867-05-16 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF COMMONS-LAST EVENING.

----
The SPEAKER took the chair at a quarter past 12 o'clock,
SUNDAY TRADING BILL.

Mr. T. HUGHES presented .a great number of petitions
in favour of the Sunday Trading Bill. The hon. member
said the bill was looked upon with great favour by the
poorer class of traders.
Mr. M'LAREN presented a petition against the bill.
Mr. T. HUGHES, in moving the second reading of the
bill, said he was quite aware of the amount of misunder-
standing and prejudice which existed with respect to the
bill ; but he hoped to show that the feeling ought
not to exist. The old law as it stood VMS
contained i❑ a nutshell, and the first statute was
that of Henry VI. That Act did not create the obser-
vance of the Sunday, but took it as it found it, as a day of
rest, and it enacted that no more fairs should be held on
Sunday except the fair to be holden in harvest time. Four
hundred years ago it was found necessary to protect the
Sunday as a day of rest, and it was not, as had been said,
an attempt to make Englishmen religious by Act of Par-
liament. That statute lasted for 200 years, and then
came the first statute of Charles I. That Act enforced
religious worship of a cmtaiu kind. It enacted that
. . .

no parishioner should attend illegal bull and bear baiting
out of his parish on Sundae, and any assemblage within
the parish on Sunday should altogether be illegal, but that
a due regard should be paid to the religious observance of
the day. The act under which they now lived was that
of the 27th of Charles 11., which prohibited all trading of
any description, excepting the sale of cooked meats at
inns on the Sabbath, and the sale of milk, which was to
be allowed between the hours of nine in the morning
and four in the afternoon. An act of William the

111. made the sale 'of mackerel on Sundays legal,
and by the 12th of Vic. the issue of search warrants was
made legal, and with the enactments of the Act of the 14th
of the present reign, which were mainly connected with
the proceedings in the courts of law. Thus it was to be
seen that Sunday was to be observed as a complete day of
rest, or, as was termed in law, a dies non. Those were the

whole of the Acts in force at the present time. Two re-
ports were presented to the house twenty years ago, in
which it was recommended that a bill should be introduced
enacting that no goods should be allowed to be exposed
for sale at any shop on Sunday, that none except of a
perishable nature should be allowed to be sold,
that no shop should be allowed to remain open after a cer-
tain hour, and that penalties incurred under the bill should
be cumulative. That was what was recommended twenty
years ago, and he felt that the majority of traders in the
metropolis at this time were quite of that opinion at the
present day. If he ventured an illustration to show the
extent to which Sunday trading was carried on he would
not travel out of his own borough, Lambeth, and there,
within a very small space, containing 1,684 shops,
1,034 were open on Sundays, and only 650 closed.
He had received many letters on the subject, and one to
which he would allude was that from the Rev. Mr. White,
and alluded to tho place called the New-cut, where trading
was carried on to such an extent that it really exceeded
that of ordinary working days. The shops of tobacconists,
drapers, booksellers, clothiers, and other traders in that
locality, were kept open, in addition to which, birds,
umbrellas, and dogs were hawked about for sale, and
created a scene of confusion that rendered it almost im-
passable for well-disposed persons going to the Church in
that neighbourhood. Some time ago an attempt was made
by the parish officers to put the act of Charles 11. into ac-
tive force, and no less than 800 summonses were taken out
against tradesmen for keeping their shops open on Sun-
days. Out of the number 700 said they were quite ready
to close their shops, provided others were compelled to
do the same thing, and proceedings were taken against
those who refused to close their shops, but they altogether
flailed. It had been urged that if the tradesmen were in

earnest in the matter they would arrange the matter
or themselves, but that had been tried, and also
had resulted in failure, and altogether repudiated
the notion that it was an attempt to make people religious
by act of Parliament. If that was the object of the bill he
would most certainly have had nothing to to with it. He
had his own opinion with respect to the way a day of rest
ought to be observed ; and if any person felt disposed to lie
flat on his back the whole of the day and drink beer ho
should only pity him, and not find fault with him, because
his notions of rest differed from those which he entertained.
The bill he now asked the house to read a second time con-
tained three propositions. The first was to enumerate those
articles which should not be sold on Sunday ; the second
enacted the hours during which perishable articles, such
as butcher" moat, vegetables, and fish might be sold, which
was sot down that it was to cease at 9 o'clock in the morn-
ing; and the third related to cooked articles, things that
were sold at confectioners' and refreshment houses, the
bill enacting that no such shops should be open after ten in
the morning or one in the afternoon. He might be asked
what the bill proposed with respect to publichouses and beer-
shopi. The measure did not touch that portion of trade at
all, because special legislation was intended on that matter.
-2fanlirtrharalaittfera
house to its second reading. It had been said that "_the
cream must be allowed to rise" before legislation could
take place; but in this instance the cream, in his belief, had
been allowed to rise with a vengeance, and now it was
only a question whether they would allow the whole of the
mess to get sour.
Mr. PRESHFIELD opposed the bill. He looked upon
the bill as a wolf in sheep's clothing, or as an act to
licensing certain trades. The law at present in force was
quite sufficient for the purpose, and he thought it would
have been better had the hon. gentleman given evidence
to show how the enactment of the Act of Charles 11. could
be carried into force. He looked upon the measure in its
present form altogether as objectionable, and therefore he
moved that the bill be read a second time that day six
months.

Mr. POWELL objected to the bill as it at pr.sent stood,
but if it was improved in committee he would give it his
support on the third reading.
Sir B. BRIDGES supported the second reading of the
bill.

Mr. EVANS thanked the hon. member for introducing
the bill, and although he thought it susceptible of amend-
ment in committee, he should vote for its second reading.
Mr. HORSFALL doubted whether nine-tenths of the
population were iu favour of the bill. He knew that in the
borough which he then represented the feeling was quite
the other way. What was wanted was a bill to enable the
constituted authorities to administer the law that at pre-
sent existed, and not a measure such as that now under
discussion.

Lord C. HAMILTON said he supported the bill
because he looked upon it as a protective and
not a coo cive ono. It was a bill to enable the
tradesman to have the Sabbath for himself, and not be
forced by competition which was illegal, an evasion of the
law, to carry on his trade during a day which was ordained
to be one of rest. He was surprised at the hon. member
for Oldham (Mr. Horsfall) opposing the bill on the ground
that ho did. He told the hon. member opposite (Mr
Hughes) that if he brought in a bill to enable the autho-
rities to carry into effect the present law he would give
him his support. He thought such a statement was
a clear proof that the present law was altogether
inoperative, and required amendment. He also denied
that the act was one for licensing Sunday trading, and
was certain that nothing was contained in the bill respect-
ing any of the enactments at present on the statute-book
He hoped the house would read the bill a second time, in
order that the amendments which it was said were required
might be made in committee.
Mr. M'LAREN thought the bill vicious in principle
and therefore it ought to be at once to be rejected by the
house. He opposed the bill because he believed it was
going against the growing feeling amongst the people, as
to a total cessation altogether of work on the Sabbath.
Mr. RUSSELL GURNEY supported the bill, as it did
not interfere with any enactments at present in force.
Mr. WALPOLE said he had very little confidence in
legislation Oh Sunday trading. When the law was in
such a state that it could not be enforced, he for one was
compelled to own that a strong case was made out for
the interference of Parliament. The bill did not re-
peal any of the provisions of the Act of Charles
11. The main feature of the bill was to keep free to the
trader a larger part of the Sabbath than at present was the
ease, and he thought the bill deserved the greatest atten-
tion in committee, but in that stage it would require ma-
terial alteration.
Mr. GRAHAM said if the bill was confined to the me-
tropolis he should give it his support. If not he should
be compelled to vote against its second reading.
Mr. HENLEY would vote for the second reading merely
with a view of going into committee upon the measure to
ascertain if it was possible to make it a good and efficient
bill. If such was not done he held himself free to vote
against its third reading.
Mr. NEWDEGATE supported the .bill for the sa►he
reason.

Mr. HUGHES s Lid he had no objection to the provi-
sions of the bill being confined to the metropolis, if such
should be the general wish of the house.
The bill was then read a second time, without a di-
vision.