The Sun.
London, England, 1835-03-26 00:00:00

and the interests of religion, which could be shown no better
than by suffering the Bill to be read a second time.
Mr. CLAY said that the opponents of the Bill took their
stand on the fact that Sunday trading was not so great in
amount as to require legislation to prevent it. A great deal
bad been said about not offending the consciences of religious'
people. Other people bad consciences as well as religioits
people, and if the one were protected he did not see why the
other should not be equally so. Why no go to the extent of
the puritans in the time of Cromwell ? If the arguments was
good in the one instance it was good in all. The. Hon. Mem-
ber here quoted a quatrain from a Latin doggrel poem of
" Drunken Barnaby," in illustration of the - length to which
the puritans of that period carried their strictness respecting
the observance of the Sabbath ; and proceeded to show that
such a re-action took place in consequence that in the reign of
Charles 11. the Sabbath was no better observed than it was at

the present day, in France... It was to enable the artisan to
enjoy the luxury of his Sunday dinner that Sabbath labour was
not required; and the same would be-the case if there were
no restriction on Sunday. As far as his (Mr. Clay's) obser-
vation of the metropolis went he would fearlessly say that in
ninety-nine cases. out of one hundred Sunday trading was li-
mited to procuring enjoyment for the artisan, the labourer, and,
generally, the working classes.

Mr PRINGLE said that the Bill was founded on the re-
port,of a Select Conunittee of the House, who bad taken
every pains to produre information on the subject. If the
Hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had read the report
and the evidence given before the Committee, he could not
have stated that Sunday trading was not too great. Any
Hon. Member, however, who wished to take the evidence of
his owe senses on the subject, needed only go through various
parts of London, on a Sunday morning, Tooley-street, Lam-
beth, and St. Giles's, and he would soon be convinced of the
incorrectness of the Hon. Gentleman's statement. It would,
he was aware, be urged against the suppression of Sunday
trading, that the artizan and labourer were not paid their
wages till late on Saturday night ; but all practical men were
agreed that that was the effect and not the cause of it. Most
of the witnesses examined before the Committee said, ‘" Sup-
press the Sunday markets, and you will compel the employers
to pay their labourers and mechanics on the Friday." The
complaints against it were not confined to the religious portion
of the community ; they came from the Sunday traders
themselves. _ _

Colonel EVANS said that the Bill, if passed in the pre-
sent shape, would have the effect of reducing many thousands
to a state of beggary. As he wished all information possible
on the nature, of the Bill, he desired to know of the Hon.
Member whether it o,s contemplated by it to prevent the sale
of fruit, vegetables, fish, and all other perishable commodities
left over Saturday night on the Sunday ?
Mr. POULTEP. had no objection to permit the sale of the
articles enumerated in the exceptions, up to a certain limited
hour on the Sunday. _ _ _

Colonel EVANS wished 'to ascertain whether the Bill did
not mean to put r.O end to the preparation and sale of all de-
scription of Sunday newspapers on two days of the week, Sun-
day and Monday ? That, at least in his mind, would be its
effect, if it should be carried into operation.
Mr. POULTER replied that Sunday papers were printed
on the Sa.turday.—(Na, no.) Well, then, the Bill would deal
with nothing except what should be sold in an open shop
Colonel EVANS asked if the Bill intended to restrict tra-
velling on the Sabbath?
Mr. POULTER replied, that it did not refer in any way
to any species of travelling whatever, either by land or by
water. _ _

Sir A. AGNEW hoped that the Hon. Member for Shaftes-
bury would not enter into any compromise or entertain any
suggestion made by the enemies of Sabbath legislation. If
he did the effect would be an impairing of the utility of the
Bill, perhaps its destruction. lie ( Sir A. Agnew) was
happy to and a growing number of Hon. Members in the
House disposed to respect the petitions of the religious por.:
tion of the community, and interfere to prevent the desecra-
tion of the Lord's Day. The Bill should have his best
support.
Mr. HUME was disposed to vote for the second reading of
the Bill until he had beard the observations of the Hon. Ba-
ronet addressed to the Hon. Member for Shaftesbury. He

(Mr. Hume) was very unwilling to trust the measure in Com-
mittee to a man who could advise another not to listen to any
reasonable suggestion. He wished to know of the Hon. Mem-
her for Shaftesbury whether
,confectioners' shops, or those
traders who travelled from place to place in steam-boats, on a
Sunday to provide refreshments for the passengers, would be
interfered with by his Bill ?
Mr. PO UL TE R replied that confectioners' shops fell under
the equitable construction given to the Act of Charles 11. by
the Court of King's Bench ; and the Bill had no reference
whatever to what was done on board steam-boats.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading
Against it
Majority 76
REGISTRATION OF VOTERS.

. 121
. 45

Lord J. RUSSELL moved the second reading of the Re-
gistration of Voters Bill.
Mr. ORD objected to that clnuse which subjected candi-
dates to be examined on charges of bribery.
Mr. C. W. WYNN approved of the clause.
Lord G. SOMERSET asked a question of the Noble
Lord, which, with the answer, were inaudible in the Gallery.
Mr. WARBURTON when the Bill went into Committee
should oppose the clause which gave the Committee the power
Of opening the whole list of voters, and which in fact would
amount to a destruction of registration altogether.
Lord J. RUSSELL would not persevere in the clause if the
sense of the Committee should be against him.
Mr. H. L. BULNVER would oppose many of the clauses in
the Committee, as he deemed them very unfair.
Mr. FOSTER should object to the cruelty of placarding
people on church-doors for not having paid up their rates.
Mr. WILLIAMS said that the wish to extend the franchise
prevailed all over the country, and he would oppose every part
of the Bill which had a tendency to confine it.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that his object was only to pre-
vent the practice of building small tenements for the purpose
of overwhelming the respectable householders.—( Hear. )
Mr. HUME would wish the Noble Lord to consider whe-
ther many of the clauses which were in the Bill for the better
regulation of polls at elections, now in progress through the
House, might not be introduced in the Bill at present under
discussion?
Mr. MILES protested against the present Bill, as un-
satisfactory, but he should have no objection to support a short
Bill on the same subject.
Mr. C. BULLER did not consider that the payment of
rates or taxes was any test whatever of solvency. He thought
it would be much better to have the Bill referred to a Com-
mittee up stairs.
Mr. BAINES said that the expense of examining into votes
before the Revising Barrister was a most mischievous incum-
brance, and rather than encounter such a scrutiny it was well
known that many Members had been returned to that House
by voters made for the purpose, in order to swamp the real
voters of a borough.
An HoN. MEMBER made an observation that was inaudible.
Mr. ROLFE concurred in many of the impressions of his
Noble Friend who had introduced this Bill, but he would not
pledge himself to support some of the clauses which it con-
tained, particularly that which gave such extensive powers to a
Committee of that House.
Mr. M. PHILLIPS said that it was a great inconvenience
and hardship on parties that they should for the time be dis-
franchised because they transferred their interest from one
property to another, although the transfer might be from a
smaller to a larger property.
Mr. AGLIONBY should wish the Bill to be referred to a
Committee up stairs.
Mr. S HEIL wished to know if it was the intention of the
Noble Lord to extend this Bill to Ireland? The 36th clause
gave to a Committee of that House the power to set aside
votes approved of by the Revising Barrister. That clause
ought, not surely to be extended to Ireland. There were in-
stances in Ireland where the registry was of no use whatever.
Mr. BE RNA L did not consider this to be the proper time
to enter upon a discussion of the details of the Bill. He be-
lieved the Noble Lord who had introduced the Bill was not so
wedded to the clause in question that he would not suffer a
divorce.—(A laugh.)
Sir H. HARDINGE thought the Noble Lord was per-
fectly right in bringing forward the measure. The House
had a right to set aside any votes that it might deem objec-
tionable.
Mr. H. W. ORD agreed that the House did not abdicate
its functions because of the registry or powers of the Revising
Barrister, and he thought that a Committee should rather act
as a Court of Appeal.
Mr. PRA E D said that the Bill was fraught with inconsis-
tency. It said that all decisions of the Revising Barrister
might be gone into by the Committee of the House, but that
those cases that had been passed over sub sileniio by the Re-
vising Bea rister were not to be inquired into, thereby placing
the parties interested in a situation to incur double expense.
Mr. GROTE said that the presumption was that if the
votes were suffered to pass sub silentio by the Revising Bar-
rister they must be good votes.
Mr. GO ULBURN doubted very much whether it would
not greatly increase the expense of a Committee, if the House
were to be deprived of the power of inquiring into every vote,
for it must have the effect of increasing litigation before the
Assistant Barrister.
Lord J. RUSSELL would not offer any opinion now
upon this. clause. It was not intended by the Reform Bill to
question the power of that House to inquire into every vote.
He would not say now whether it was right or not the mat-
ter should so stand, but leave it to future considerations of the
House.
The Bill was then read a second time, and committed for
the 6th of May.
The British. Territories (India) Bill went through a Com-
mittee. Report received.
The report of the Tithes Commutation Resolutions was re-
ceived.
The report on the timber duties was received, and a Bill
ordered accordingly.
The report of the Illegal Securities Bill was received.
On the motion of Mr. PEASE leave was given to bring in
a Bill to consolidate the laws relating to the cruel treatment of
animals.