The Sun.
London, England, 1850-07-25 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

ROUSE OF CO;IMONS, July 24.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition cf yesterday.)
SUNDAY TRADING PREVENTION BILL.
Mr. C. PEARSON presented petitions from small
shopkeepers in the New-cut, Lambeth; from the butchers
of Clare-market and Newgate-market, nod 17 petitions
from the class of small chandlers in the metropolis, in
favour of this Bill.
Mr. B. WALL presented a large number of petitions
against the Bill.
Colonel THOMPSON presented a petition from a
hairdresser against the BT.
Mr. GEORGE THOMPSON presented a petition, as
we understood, against the Bill.
Lord DUDLEY STUART presented petitions from
St. Luke's and other parishes in favour of the Bill, and
one petition against it. The Noble Lori also presented
a petition complaining of the manner in which petitions
had been got up against the Bill. Many of the petitioners
had been induced to sign a petition against the Bill
under the impression that the petition was in favour of
the Bill.
Mr. C. PEARSON then moved the second reading of
the Bill, which had come down from the Lords. The
other House had passed it after the subject had been
carefully considered by a Committee. It was expected
that a Member in moving the second reading of a Bill
should state something in favour of its principle; but in
this instance is was difficult to separate the principle of
the Bill from its details. It was not based upon religious
grounds—it was rather a measure of police, and he sup-
ported the Bill for the simple reason that one day in
seven ought to be set aside for recreation and rest.
How that one day should be spent he had nothing to do
with. This was a matter which must rest between the
man who ceased from labour on the Sabbath and his God.
This Bill was intended to improve or assist the working
classes. He belonged to that body himself; and as he
was himself often compelled to work on the Sunday from
necessity, it would be a gross act of hypocrisy in him if
he supported this Bill on the ground that it was required
for the purpose of securing the religious observance of
the Sabbath. No one could deny that the parties whose
interest would be most affected by this Bill were favour-
able to its principle; for in many instances the large
Majority of them bad ineffectually attempted to
put it in force by voluntary means, while one trader
(Mr. Groves), who was in the habit of taking in his
various shops 4001. on a Sunday, and others similarly
situated, were prepared to forego their profits for the
ske, net so much of securing the due observance of
the Sabbath as providing for a day of rest in every week,
upon which they could be relieved from the severe
competition of labour which the absence of a com-
pulsory law like this at present gave rile to.
He believed that everything that legislation could do to
put an end to the fierce competition which prevailed
among traders on Sunday would be an inestimable
benefit in preserving the ranctity of that day, but it
would he a benefit much more to the poor than the rich.
—(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 steed there as the ad-
vocate of the Bill.—(Cheers.) The Hon. Member con-
cluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
Mr. BARING WALL opposed the second reading.
The Bill was certainly backed by the authority 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 Committee went
not to the propriety or impropriety of passing
a Bill of this description, but to disparage 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 west to show that the Bill would be entirely
inoperative; it was full of anomalies and discrepancies,
aad he was astonished that the Hon. aad 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 cslculated to ensure this
object. The Bill ems 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 anxiety 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 e second time that
day three months.
Mr. ANSTEY seconded the motion.
Col. 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 upon fair and rea-
sonable ground.
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. 110 believed that this movement had com-
menced in hypocrisy, and was continued through fraud
and ignorance, and he 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 obiection,
• 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 Butt would have that effect, nor did he think it would
impede their liberty, or reduce their rights. He believed
that it was indiopensably necessary for the sake of
hnin inity 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 underasand why the [louse could refuse to pass it.
But, independently of that reason, he asked the House to
pass the Bill as an act of justice to the working classes;
for the law as it now stood encouraged the payment of
Wages late on. a Saturday night, and placed the labourer
at the mercy of the unfair trader, who never scrupleti.to
pass off upon his Sunday customers defective articles
which he could not dispose of on the other days of the
week.

Mr. ITAWES had represented Lambeth in that House
for many years, and he was bound to stats that the vast
raejority 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 he
believed Cie evil practice of Sunday trading had led them:
to entertain that opinion. Suadey trading in Lambeth
reached its present extent by small degrees. At first
the shopkeeper only opened his doors for a few early
hours in the morning., but gradual competition forced
• him to remain open nearly the whole of the day, and he
had no v co other hope of a remedy for the evil he had
brought upon himself except in a Bill of this nature. 1
Mr. W. J. FOX said he would by no means have it
understood that be 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 people 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 °lanes, it was a 13111 required by the well-to-do
ehopkeeper, 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 Bible
or Prayer-book. Throughout all these Sabbata-
nen laws the same contradictions were observable.
bur 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 enjoyment. Before he could sup-
port such a Bill as this he 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 must see the same liberty awarded
to the poor that was enjoyed by the rich man—namely,
that of sp,r.ding the Sabbath in the, manner which
pleased him best He 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
Buda a pencoeding nerved 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 '
die-
position to treat the Sabbath more as a rational day of
enjoyment than as a day of penance, he must decline
to support tiny measure of this kind. •
• Sir JAMES GRAHAM really did net believe with the.
Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that this was a
petty measure. Tree, 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; but, nevertheless, as its promo-
ters had preferred to urge its adoption upon social
grounds, he had no objection to treat it in that light.
'NVell, then, without pledging himself to all
Its deteits, he thought the House might safely
puss tiria Pill ; it W 49 a measure ho believed required
.by the runjority cf the inhabitants of this metropolis, and
:while it more effectually secured the due observance of
the Sabbath, it would neither interfere with the rights
- otor . the enjoyments of the poor man. It
.would rather tend to increase them and improve
• his social condition, and he therefore felt himself con-
strained to support the motion for iee second reading,
air. AGLIONBY, treating the Bill as a measure of
'police, considered it to he a most bungling and
' petty • affair, fraught with evil and mischief.
'lf the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) could not
recommit:id, when in -office, a Bill. of this kind to the
House, he (Mr. Aglionby) could not understand why an
.independent Member should have hoped to carry such a
kilt through the Eluse.—(Cries of "Divide.")
Mr. C. YE ARSON said ho should-reserve what ho
meant to have said in the way of reply to a future stage
. of the Bill, having no doubt that it would pass its second
resting.
• The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading ... 101
E\ S 1' ti Against it
22
. Majority in favour of second reading :: -79
•
COPYHOLDS ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL,
The House then resolved itself into a Committee on
the Copy holds Enfranchisement Bill.

TRECVEN had alwEiya supported this Bill, but
he would suggest to the iloo. Member for Cooker mouth
(Mr. Aglionby), who, had charge of the Bill, that consi-
dering th4late period of the session, it would be desirable
it S not to proceed farther with the Bill at present.