The Sun.
London, England, 1850-08-01 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

-35

Mr. THORNEIA." suggested that employers and
1.1;.14, masters of working men in the metropolis should pay
the men in their employment their wages on the Friday
,7=';,;‘,l\ instead of the Saturday, as was the practice in the north,
..,;.VAt \and if that were done forthwith in London, the House
" -would find that by next session there would be no ne-
' Owasity for any such Bill as this.
- Mr. G. THOMPSON said he was far from sympa-
Allan with thc, senseless and absurd crumb which had
4

HOUSE OF COAIMONS, July 31.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
SUNDAY TRADING PREVENTION BILL.
On the motion for going into Committee on this Bill,
Mr. ANSTEY moved as an amendment that the House
resolve itself into Committee on the Bill this day three
months. He Observed that whatever amendments might be
made in it consistent with the title it would not carry out
the object of those who promoted it in another place, and
who professed, he would not say intended, to secure a bet-
ter observance of the Lord's-day. Even supposing that
the evidence given before the Committee which had sat
on the subject showed that it was desirable that a better
observance of the Sabbath should be obtained in the me•
tropolis, to the exclusion of all other parts of her Ma-
jesty's dominions, the Bill was wholly inadequate for
the purpose. Were the iastancee of Sunday trading
which had been seen in the metropolis by the Hon.
Member who introduced the Bill such as to constitute a
nuisance? If so, why did he not name those instances?
He (Mr. Anstey) contended there bad been too much
_ legislation on this subject, and that this Bill was a mass
of undigested nonsense. Hecallod upon the promoters of
this Bill, whom he might term its godfathers, to,
prove the preamble before the House proceeded one step
further. What was Sunday trading? Did it consist in
selling apples or oranges on a kerb stone? No. It be-
gan with the miserable apple-woman and pot house, and
went through all the intervening classes of society up to
the Reform or Brookes' Club. Under this Bill luxuries
were to be sold on the Sunday, because the poor could
not buy them and the rich could. Any Hon. Member
might buy Punch on a Sunday, provided it was stamped,
but if he were to buy an unstamped copy for threepence
he would be deemed a great sinner.—(A laugh.) This
was a Bishops' Bill; it bad been framed by them, and they
had taken care to provide for their own convenience, by
exempting milk and cream from the provisions of this Bill.
He doubted very much whether the promoters of the
Bill were sincere in what they were doing, and in order
totest that he intended to introduce an amendment to
rutdown the driving of carriages on a Sunday, espe-
cially the carriages of those who were entitled to wear
arms. He also intended to move an amendment that ser-
vants should not work on a Sunday. He believed
that a Bill more disgusting, or one that would
stink more in the nostrils of the people, had never been
introduced into that House. It provisions were mon-
strous, and such that, if it passed, would be resented
by the people.—(Hear, hear.) It could do no good,
• but would cause great harm ; and he would venture to
say that it had only been introduced to pamper the ap-
petites of a set of hypocrites.—(Hear, hear.) He con-
cluded by moving that the Bill be committed this day
three months.
Sir G. GREY deprecated any discussion on the prin-
ciple.of the Bill, which was decided last Wednesday,
and complained that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
who had just sat down had wasted an hour and a half of the
time of the House. He was quite aware of the difficul-
ties of passing a Bill of this nature that would be satis-
factory to all parties, but still he thought such a Bill
was calculated to accomplish great practical good, and
he hoped it would be passed in some shape or other.
Mr. ANSTEY explained.
Colonel THOMPSON corrected an error which he said
prevailed amongst his friends that he supported this Bill
because he thought it would lead to reaction. He did
not think anything of the sort. He looked upon it as
a peace offering of a pernicious character, and ho hoped
all parties would join in endeavouring so to amend the
Bill as to make it acceptable to all parties.—(Hear.)
Mr, HUME objected to the Bill on principle. The
parties who proposed it thought they could make people
religious by Act of Parliament. Now, his experience
convinced hint that it was quite impossible to do so.
Such attempt always produced contrary results, and he
regretted that Government had taken up the measure for
the purpose of having it effectually disposed of. Govern-
ment was neglecting its duties upon all questions affecting
the interests of the people. Look, for instance, at the
Post-office. Government declined to step forward to
stop the insane movement of a petty majority,
but perhaps that was the fault of the Members
thedasetves. Really, however, Government ought
to be blamed fer all this, for if they would stand
forth and rn Luridly oppose all measures calculated to
reduce the civil and religious liberties of the pe, iple,
they would find themselves backed by large majorities.
This was a measure directed against the people. It
was of a coercive character, and as he thought the days
for inflicting penalties upon opinions had gone by, he
shoeld support the amendmnsa.—(Cheers.)
Mr. TRELAWNY thought this Bill, like the Post-
office measure, would lead to the desecration rather than
secure the observance of the Sabbath, and he should
oppose it to the last. Domestic servants were a very
oppressed class, and the true object of this Bill was to
enable the middle class tradesmen to oppress the poor
man, as the aristocrat did his domestic. It was very
desirable that one day should be set apart for rest, but
that must be done through the common sense of the
people, and not by Act of Parliament.
Mr. R. SPOONER. said the real object of the Bill
was to prevent unnecessary trading on the Sabbath, to
prevent undue competition amongst small traders, who
were as anxious that this Bill should pass as the veriest
Sebba'arian either in or out of the House. He was at a
loss to know what the Post-office measure had
to. do with the question, except it was
im-
pported into it to show how disgracefully the
House behaved itself when a measure was
backed by the prayers of the people. Not-
withstanding that the great mass of the people
approved of the change in the Post-office, the
House had attempted to overthrow it before
it had a fair trial, end now it was proposed to reject this
Bill in the face of the large number of petitions which
the metropel;s had nreseated in its flavour.
Mr. T. DUNC9.I.I mill that after the repudiation
of the Bill by the Government, he thought he had a right
to know who was the f.thor of the Bill. An Hon. Gen-
tleman who had lately resigned his seat ha I moved the
second reading for hie absent friend Mr. Hindley,
but where was that gentleman? 110 should have
thought that the House had done enough mischief with
regard to the Sabbath in the Post-office business without
doing any more. They had great talk about the petitions
which were presented to the House on this
subject, but he was convinced that they were
fictitious; the working classes, who were most affected
by the Bill, knew nothing at all about the Bill. This
Bill was the result of the cant and hypocrisy of Exeter
Hall; hit he thought the public would have no more of
Exeter Hall, They had seen enough of that clique.
Ile wished that Honourable Members who desired to
legislate for the metropolis would carry the Bill
to their own constituencies, and see how they liked it.
there. Let them build fresh houses for the poor, and
give them good birders; lot them pay them their
wages early on Saturday evening, and then legis-
late.—(Hear, hear.) He thought that the Government
were wastine the time of the House by not coming
forward decidedly, they were delaying valuable Bills by
this trumpery discussion. Ho would much prefer leaving
the objects sought to be attained by this Bill to the pro-
gress of education than to leglislatioo.
Mr. B. WALL thought it was a lamentable position
in which the House was placed, when they were asked
to consent to a Bill like thi,, because it was within ten
days of the end of the session. He did not think that
this Bill was a prneiiceble 13111, and he could prove
that from the evidence of the Committee on which this
J3lll was founded. They had the direct testimony of
Mr. Elliot, the magistrate who had to administer the
provisions, against the Bill. Flo considered it quite im-
possible to carry it into working. There were points in
the Bill respecting which ho should like to make some
inquiries from the Attorney-General. He should like
to know whether that species of cheap unfermented beer,
which was sold at small shops without licence, would
be included in the restrictions of this Bill,
while the beer sold under licence would
be exempted!? There were alreaily three Acts by
which Sunday trading could be restrained, and he could
see no occasion fei another. Under these circumstances,
he called upon the House at any rate to postpone this
Bill—to piess upon the Government the duty of seeing
that the Sunday was properly observed. It was absurd
to suppose that such a Bill ever could become law.
Mr. ALCOCK said that, in consequence of the unex-
pected resignation of Mr. C. Pearson, the conduct of
the Bill had fallen upon him. Ho should not attempt
to follow the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, or
the [lon. and Learned Member for Youghal, through
the whole of their arguments, but simply content him-
self with asking the House to go into Committee. He
, supported the Bill, not on Sabbatarian principles, but
ott social grounds, and he thought if the House allowed
the Bill to go into Committee, they would be astonished
to see how moderate its provisions were.
Lord ARUNDEL considered that Sunday was not a
Divine ordinance, but merely a regulation of the Church.
In foreign countries they would find that shops were
open quite as much on Sunday as on other days.lie
felt very disinclined to vote on such subjects.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD considered that it
was impossible to carry this liih, It was only impeding
more useful business, and he should move that the de-
bate be adjourned.
Sir G. PECHELL suggested that the Bill should be
withdrawn.
Mr. C. ANSTEY wished to mention that this Bill, if
it passed, would materially injure the interests of the most
respectable Sunday papers. He was enabled to state
this from communications which ho had received from
the proprietors of the principal weekly papers, including
the Weekly Dispatch, Sunday Times, Illustrated London
Aews, Era, Lady's Newspaper, Lloyd's Weekly Yews--
paper, Weekly Times, Courier de l' Europe, and the
Leader.
Mr. W. J. FOX said most of the weekly.newspapers
had been already seriously injured by the recent postal
alterations, and he thought it hard if the proprietors of
those papers were to be further prejudiced, as they would
be,. under the provisions of the Bill.
Lord DUDLEY STUART complained that the Hon.
Member for Youghal (Mr. Anstey) had attacked this Bill
and its promoters in a spirit of bitterness which was
undeserved.—(Hear.) He (Lord Dudley Stuart) believed
that this measure might be made a great boon to the
working classes; and if the opponents of the Bill would
meet its promoters in a candid spirit and allow it to go
into Committee, he believed there was ample time to
carry it; hrough the House before the close of the pre-
sent session.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment for adjourning
the debate ... ... 36
Against it ...
Majority