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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

ROUSE OF COMMONS, 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
whoprofessed, 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 instances 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. Recalled 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 Peach on a Sunday, provided it was stamped,
but if he were to buy en unstamped copy for threepence
he would be deemed a great sinner.—(A laugh.) This
Was a Bishops' Bill ; it had 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
putdown the driving of carriages on a Sunday, espe-
lly 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 he 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 him that it was quite impossible to do so.
Such attemps 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
themselves. Really, however, Government ought
to be blamed fa. all this, for if they would stand
forth and manfully oppose all measures calculated to
reduce the civil and religious liberties of the people,
they would find themselves backed by large majorities.
This was a measure directed against the people. Is
was of a coercive character, and as he thought the days
for inflicting penalties upon opinions had gone by, he
should support the aniendm-nt.—(Cheers.)
Mr. TRELAWNY thought this Bill, like the Post-
office measure, would leal to the desecration rather than
secure the observance cf the Sabbath, and he should
oppose it to the last. Domestic servants were a very
oppressed class, and the tree object of this Bill was to
enable the middle class tradesmen to oppress the poor
man, as the aristocrat (lid his domestic. It was very
desirable that one dry 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
Sibba'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-
ported 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
Heim had attempted to overthrow it before
it h ail a f sir trial, end now it was proposed to reject this
Bill in the face of the lsrze number of petitions which
the metrappli, had presented in its favour.
1::r. T. DUSCOMBE paid that after this repudiation
of the Bill by the Government, he thought he had a right
to know who was the f ether of the Bill. An Hon. Glen-
tlem*e, !;:,•r! hei tte-nr!
e: t'atstl 1); icod Mr. Ritlq;'l".
bat n., 11^
11.) enrryzh with
regard to tho Sabha.th bur.iness without
doing any more. They had great talk about the petitions
which were presented to the House on this
sithiect, bit he VS, .1 is 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 colt and hypocrisy of Exeter
Hall; but 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 larders; let them pay them their
wages early on Saturday evening, and then legis-
late.—(flear, hear.) He thought that the Government
were wasting' tlae time of the House by not coming
forward decidedly, they were delaying valuable Bills by
this trumpery diemssion. He would much prefer leaving
the objects sought to be attained by this Bill to the pro-
gress of education than to leglislation.
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 this, because it was within ten
days of the end of the session. He did not think that
this Bill was a practicable Bill, and he could prove
that from the evidence of the Committee on which this
Bill was founded. They had the direct testimony of
Mr. Elliot, the magistrate who had to administer the
provieions, against the Bill. He considered it quite im-
possible to carry it into working. There were points in
the Bill respecting which he 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 exetioptedi? There were already three Acts by
which Sunday trading could be restrained, and he could
see no occasion fn. another. Under these circumstances.

he called upon the House at any rate to po3tpone this
Bill—to press 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. He should not attempt
to follow the Hon. Gentleman who had jast sat down, or

the Hon. and Learned Member for Youghal, throurta

the whole of their arguments, bat simply content him-
self with asking the House to go into Committee. He

supported the Bill, not on Sabbatarian principles, but
on social grounds, and he thought if the House allowed
the Bill to go into Committee, they would be astonished
to .ee 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. He
felt very disinclined to vote on such subjects.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD considered that it
was impossible to carry this all. 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 he had received from
the proprietors o' the principal weekly papers. including
the Weekly Dispatch, Sunday Times, Illust,•ated London
Aews, Era, Lady's Newspaper, Lloyd's Weekly Xeu•s-
paper, Weekly Times, courier de r 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 fur 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 vo
into Curemittee, he believed there was ample time to
carry it; hrough the House before the close of the pre-
sent session.

The /louse then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment for adjourning
the debate ...
Against it ...
Majority

... 36

-35

Mr. THORNELY suggested that employers and
masters of working men in the metropolis should pay
the men in their employment their wages on the Friday
instead of the Saturday, as was the practice in the north,
and if that were done forthwith in London, the House
would find that by next session there would be no ne-
cessity for any such Bill as this.
Mr. G. THOMPSON said ho was far from sympa-
thising with the senseless and absurd crusade which had