(NO 92.) COMMITTEE DEFERRED. (Hansard, 7 May 1866)

§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY
appealed to the noble and learned Lord who had charge of the measure (Lord Chelmsford) to consider whether its probable effect would not be to increase the very evil which he intended to abate. The Bill was so full of exceptions that if only a few more were added there would be hardly one commodity in the whole range of commerce the sale of which on Sunday it would prohibit.

LORD TEYNHAM
said, that persons whose interests were affected by the Bill, complained that they had been taken by surprise by the manner in which the measure was pressed forward, and that, moreover, the existing law was sufficient for its purpose. He would urge upon the noble find learned Lord to postpone the Committee in order to give further time for the consideration of its provisions.

§ LORD CHELMSFORD
said, it was idle to say that the present law was sufficient to prevent Sunday trading—it had been found utterly ineffectual, and that was the opinion which had been expressed by Committees of both Houses of Parliament. He was desirous of preventing Sunday trading in the interest of those tradesmen who were anxious to enjoy the Sabbath as a day of rest, instead of being compelled to keep their shops open on that day in self-defence. He was well aware that the subject was surrounded with difficulties. The measure had to encounter two classes of opponents. On the one hand there were those who thought that there should be no interference with the liberty of persons in the employment of their Sundays; and on the other the religious portion of the community were opposed to any sanction whatever being given to Sunday trading in any shape. Now, the reply he was prepared with to the former, was that the law at present prohibited Sunday trading. That law, however, had not proved efficacious, but had, in fact, proved a dead letter, in consequence of the smallness of the penalty and the difficulty of enforcing it. To the latter he said that his object was to extend a boon to thousands of the tradesmen who in self-defence were obliged to continue Sunday trading. He was prepared, in a matter of this importance, and in the hope of passing the measure, to give way in some degree to a portion of the community who required to have their necessities supplied at an early hour on the Sunday morning. If he could really see his way to securing to the tradesman the benefit of a day of 480 rest without introducing into the measure any more exceptions than were contained in the Act of Charles II., he should be very glad to do so; but he implored those who were favourable to the object of the Bill not to frustrate its passing.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY and Lord TEYNHAM
again pressed the postponement of the Committee.

§ LORD CHELMSFORD
said, he was not desirous of pressing the Bill on unduly, but he could not see the necessity for delay. The subject had been for several years in agitation, and that particular Bill was also notorious through the circulation of petitions in its favour from one end of the metropolis to the other.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
said, that one noble Lord (the Earl of Shaftesbury) had objected to the measure that it would increase the evil it was intended to remedy, while another (Lord Teynham) had urged that the attention of those who were interested had not been sufficiently called to the details of the Bill. In reply to that the noble and learned Lord said that the subject was one which had been agitated a good many years, and also that the attention of the metropolis had been called to the matter in consequence of the petition prepared in its favour. Neither of those allegations, however, was a sufficient answer to the complaint that the details of the Bill were not so well known to the public as they might be. For himself, he should have thought that a Bill of that kind might with great advantage be referred to a Select Committee.

§ EARL RUSSELL
said, his opinion was in favour of the principle of the Bill. Either the Act of Charles II. which forbad Sunday trading should be repealed, or its provisions should be made efficacious without inflicting too great an amount of severity, or enjoining too rigorous an observance. It certainly appeared to him that whether the noble and learned Lord had succeeded or not, or whether anybody could succeed in attaining that object, the object itself was a good one, and, therefore, he was in favour of the principle of the measure. There was, however, something in the objection that people had not had time to consider the Bill, and he was inclined to agree in the suggestion that more time should be given before their Lordships were asked to go into Committee. Exceptions would no doubt have to be made, because there were persons who might not 481 have the money to purchase at a sufficiently early hour on Saturday night, and would be compelled to purchase on the Sunday mornings, or go without.

§ LORD CHELMSFORD
said, he would consent to the postponement of this stage of the Bill till that day week.

LORD TEYNHAM
gave notice that when the measure came on again he would move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be committed that day six months, and divide the House on the question.