The Sun.
London, England, 1850-07-24 00:00:00

THE
_SUN,

competition of labour which the absence of a com-
pulsory law like this!' at present gave rise to.
Lie believed that everything that legislation could che to
put an end to the fierce competition which prevailed
among traders on Sunday would be an inestimahi
benefit in preserving the sanctity of that day. but it
would be a benefit much more to the poor than the ix)).
—(Hear.) It was for this purpose of rescuing the Sun-
day from that fierce competition to which the humbler
classes were now subject that he stood there as t. ne ad-
vocate of the Bill.—(Cheers.) The Hon. Memher con-
cluded by moving the second reading of the Bill .
Mr. BARING WALL opposed the second. reading.
The Bill was certainly backed by the authn:•ity of the
House of Lords; but he must call attention to the fact
that in the Select Committee of Lords a great deal of
the evidence taken before that Committeci went
not to the propriety or impropriety of
.passing
a Bill of this description, but to disparzge the
character of many of the witnesses who gave their testi-
mony. Mr. Hayman, who was called before that Com-
mittee, said he knew that there was no opposition
to this Bill, except from publicans and Chartists,
which was far indeed from the fist.—(Hear, hear.)
The Hon. Gentleman then proceeded to read further
evidence from the blue books at some length, from which
he drew the inference that this was a Bill sought to be
imposed upon the poor by the rich. A great part of the
evidence went to show that the Bill would be entirely
inoperative; it was full of anomalies and discrepancies,
and he was astonished that the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman could reconcile it to his conscience to bring in
such a Bill. No man could be mere anxious than him-
self to see the Sabbath properly observed, but he did not
think that this Bill was at all calculated to ensure this
object. TLe Bill was neither a Christian nor a social
Bill, and he objected to the principle and the details.
He had no abstract love of Sunday trading, but he did
not want to deprive the public of the many conveniences
which they possessed and prized. It was on these grounds
that his opposition was rested, and from an anxie:y that
no measures should be passed without some more ex-
tended consideration. The Hon. Gentleman then con-
cluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time that
day three months.
Mr. ANSTEY seconded the motion. _ .

CO. THOMPSON supported the second reading of the
Bill, and offered his assistance to the Hon. Mover in se-
curing to the public the continuance of those conve-
niences to which they had a right. He considered that
the Bill was a great blow to the Sabbatarian superstition,
and calculated to place the question upou:lair and rea-
sonable gr,und.
Mr. ALCOCK supported the Bill.
Mr. ANSTEY contended that this Bill was essentially
a Bill aimed at the poor man, and giving exceptions to
the rich. He believed that this movement had com-
menced in hypocrisy, and was continued through fraud
and ignorance, and be hoped that by voting for the
amendment they would put a stop to the growing super-
stition.

Lord D. STUART supported the Bill in principle,
though there were many of its provisions to which he
had objection.
Mr. G. THOMPSON should be one of the last to
consent to any measure which could restrict the Chris-
tian enjoyments of the people, but he did not believe
this Bill would have that effect, nor did he think it would
impede their liberty, or reduce their rights. Ile believed
that it was indispensably necessary for the sake of
humsnity to prevent Sunday trading that was not
absolutely required by the wants of the community.
The majority of the inhabitants of the metropolis were
favourable to this Bill, and when he was told that those
who were immediately interested in continuing Sunday
trading were also disposed to support it, he was at a loss
to understand why the House could refuse to pass it.
But, independently ot,that reason, he azked the House to
pass the Bill as an act of justice to tha working classes ;
for the law as it now stood encourag.d the payment of
wages late on a Saturday night, and placed the labourer
at the mercy of the unfair trader, who never scrupled to
pass off upon his Sunday customers defective articles
which he could not dispose of on the other days of the
week.

Mr. HAWES bad represented Lambeth in that House
for many year; and be was bound to state that the vast
majority of the inhabitants of that borough were favour-
able to some Bill of this sort. Certainly, the whole of
the shopkeepers were anxious for such a measure, and be
believed the evil practice of Sunday trading had led them
to entertain that opinion. Sunday trading in Lambeth
reached its present extent by small degrees. At first
the shopkeeper only opened his doors fur a few early
hours in the morning, but gradual competition forced
him to remain open nearly the whole of the day, and he
had now no other hope of a remedy for the evil he had
brought upon himself except in a Bill of this nature.
Mr. W. J. FOX said he would by no means have it
understood that he undervalued the importance of a
day devoted to rest and recreation; but the question
which he had to decide now was, would this Bill enable
the pebple to secure that day more effectually than they
did at present? He did not think it would, he rather believed
that this and all such petty measures detracted from the
due observance and enjoyment of such day. It was
nonsense to tell him that it was a Bill demanded by the
working classes, it was a Bill required by the well-to-do
shopkeeper, who wanted to increase his own comforts at
the expense of his customer. The laws of this nature
already in force were ridiculously inconsistent. For
instance, a man could buy a copy of Dickens's publica-
tion on a Sunday, but could not purchase a Bit ale
or Prayer-book. Throughout all these Sabbata-
rian laws the same contradictions were observable.
but this Bill was the most inconsistent of them. It
would, in fact, stop the functions of the baker, the cook
of the parish, and deprive the poor hard-working man
of many sources of enjo)menr. Before he could sup-
port such a Bill as this be must be satisfied that
the Sabbath, as a day of rest and recrea-
tion, would be treated more generously than
it was at present. He mug see the same liberty awarded
to the poor that was enjoyed by the rich man—namely,
that if sp, nding the Sabbath in the manner which
pleased him best. lie objected altogether to any at-
tempt on the part of the Legislature, or of any other
body, to force the poor man to spend the Sabbath ac-
cording to their peculiar sectarian notions, because
such a proceeding served only to debase the poor man,
making him either a dreamy hypocrite or a creature
who indulged in brutal habits, and until he saw a dis-
position to treat the Sabbath more as a rational day of
enjoyment than as a day of penance, he must decline
to support any measure of this kind.,
Sir JAMES GRAHAM really did not believe with the
Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that this was a
petty measure. True, it dealt with a subject surrounded
by great difficulties, while, according to his own private
opinion, it ought not to be disposed of without refer-
ence to religious views; Cut, nevertheless, as its promo-
ters had preferred to urge its adoption upon social
grounds, he had no objection to treat it in that light.
Well, then, without pledging himself to all
its details, he thought the House might safely
pass this Bill ; it was a measure he believed required
by the majority of the inhabitants of this metropolis, and
while it more effectually secured the due observance of
the Sabbath, it would neither interfere with the rights
nor the enjoyments of the poor man. It
would rather tend to increase them and improve
his social coedition, and he therefore felt himself con-
strained to support the motion for its second reading.
Mr. AGLIONBY, treating the Bill as a measure of
police, considered it to be a most bungling and
petty affair, fraught with evil and mischief.
If the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) could not
recommend, when in officeos Bill of this kind to the
House, he (Mr. Aglionby) could not understand why an
independent Member should have hoped to carry such a
Bill through the House.—(Cries of " Divide.")

Mr. CHARLES PE'ARSON said he should
reserve what he meant to have said in the
way of reply to a future stage of theßill, having no doubt
that it would pass its second reading.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For Wet second reading lOl
' Against it 22
Majority. in favour of second reading -79
COPYHOLDS ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL

The Ilouse then resolved itoe3 into a Committee on
the Cops holds Enfranchisement Bill. _ _ _

Mr. .lIRE WEN had always supported this Bill, but
he would suggest to the Hon. Member for Cockermouth
(Mr. Aglionby), who had charge,,of the Bill, that consi-
dering the late period of the session, it would be desirable
not to proceed further with the Bill at present.
Mr. AGLIONBY felt that he was to some extent
pledged to the House to proceed with the Bill, and
therefore he had no other alternative but to go on with it.
Sir G. GREY said, two years ago the Government had
ught to introduce a Bill of this description in the
House of Lords, but the difficultii s to its being carried
were so inLuperab!e, that they were obliged to abandon
it. He had to state that it was the intention of the Go-
vernment, early next session, to bring in a Bill relating
to the entrancbi!ement of copyholds, more limited in its
object than that before, the House, the main purpcse
of which would be to encourage facilities for the enfran-
chisement of copyholds, but not to go the length of
' making such enfrunchisements compulsory.
Mr. AGLIONBY declined to withdraw his Bill on
any such vague intimation of the intentions of the
e,t
n(tSrai (Sir
eGh.i
sGe
rnr eey2t.
Government as that v.hich had fallen from the Right
Hteound.edßathroant withoutH (Nl rc
0.
mApgul Aglionby)
w)
be wholly illusory. ocounld-
Mr. HENLEY. was of opinion that it would not be
advisable to proceed further with the' Bill at this late
period of the session, and after the intimation which had
fallen from the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey), he
(Mr. Henley) would move that Mr. Bernal leave the
chair.

Mr. AGLIONBY would resist the motion of the Hon
Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) to the last; even.
if he (Mr. Aglionby) should be alone he would divide
the House against it, and if he was beaten he would next
session again and again introduce a Bill on the princip'e
of compulsion.—(llear, hear. and cheer:.)
AfLbr a few words from Mr. SPOONER and Sir GEORGE
GREY,
The House divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment •••
Against it ..
Msjotil

••• ••• 36
..•
•.• -25