HC Deb 03 July 1832 vol 14 cc50-1
Sir Andrew Agnew

presented a Petition from certain Persons in the Cities of London and Westminster, praying that measures might be taken to ensure the better Observance of the Sabbath. The hon. Baronet then observed, that at the very late hour which had arrived, he would not detain the House by any observations, but merely move, that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the Laws and Practices relating to the Observance of the Lord's Day.

Mr. Evans supported the Motion.

Lord Althorp

would not object to the Motion, although the subject was one of difficulty to deal with. The law, he thought, required revision.

Mr. Courtenay

did not understand what was meant to be included under the word "practices," and he should recommend that the inquiry be limited to the state of the law on the subject.

Mr. Pringle

thought the whole subject should be inquired into. He apprehended that the word "practices," was meant to apply to various dealings that were now carried on during the Lord's day, the due observance of which had been greatly infringed upon, especially by the Sunday markets.

Mr. Lamb

did not expect much good from the Committee, but he had no objection to its appointment. He denied that there was any increase in immorality generally in the metropolis. The Sunday markets were in a great measure to be attributed to the payment of wages at a late hour on Saturday night. He objected also to the word "practices." He had no objection to the contradictions of the law being revised, but he did implore hon. Members not to do anything to take from the cheerfulness of the English Sabbath, and to give to it a character of puritanical gloom. Hon. Members also should remember, that the restrictions must fall solely on the labouring classes.

Sir Andrew Agnew

could not consent to leave the word "practices" out, as that would render the inquiries of the Committee of little use.

Lord Sandon

said, the word "practices" was essential to the Motion. If there were no Sunday markets the tradesmen would pay their men earlier than they did.

Mr. Hume

said, that if there were to be restrictions on the poor, there ought also to be restrictions on the rich. The higher classes ought to set the example. If Earl Grey gave a Cabinet dinner on Sunday, was he to be called before the Committee? He entirely agreed with the Under Secretary of State (Mr. Lamb). If a poor man was to be prevented from getting his piece of beef or greens, let the rich man be prevented from getting his ices and other luxuries.

Mr. Shaw

supported the Motion, and thought the word "practices" necessary. The Sabbath ought to be a day of rest, not of amusement and riotous enjoyment, to the labourers.

Mr. Ewart

was sure, that if the poor were debarred of innocent sports they would be driven to what was bad. In his opinion, more liberty ought to be allowed to the poor.

Mr. Lefroy

thought the hon. Member had mistaken the object of the Motion, which was to secure the enjoyment of the poor on the Sabbath.

Mr. Wyse

objected to the appointment of the Committee proposed. It could have no other effect than to place additional restraints on the poor, and embitter still more their already embittered minds.

Committee appointed.