HC Deb 15 April 1847 vol 91 cc839-47
MR. HINDLEY

rose to move, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the prevalence of Sunday Trading in the Metropolis." There had been, the hon. Member said, a Committee in 1832, which entered into the general question of the observance of the Lord's day; but he wished to confine this Committee to the practical point of Sunday trading. However much he might wish to see the Lord's day properly observed, he did not think that any efforts on the part of that House would tend to promote its observance. He had no notion of making people religious by Act of Parliament; but the case which he had to present to the House was that of certain traders, to whose complaints he wished to call the attention of Parliament. There were various laws in operation to prevent Sunday trad- ing; but these laws were not so strict as to prevent a portion of the tradespeople from opening their shops and carrying on business the same as on another day. He had heard from respectable tradesmen that they had kept their shops closed for many years on Sundays, but that they had been at last compelled to open them in self-defence. He thought this was a very hard case. He did not wish at all to interfere with anything which the House might think ought to be sold on Sundays; but he wished to protect the traders in general from undue competition among themselves. They ought either to make the law effectual so as to put all on an equal footing, or else to say at once that they would not interfere on the subject. It might be objected that he was not the person to bring a question of this kind forward; but the fact was, that the matter was formerly in abler hands than his; for a Bill was brought forward last year by the hon. Member for Lambeth and the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Cowper), and his (Mr. Hindley's) name was only added to the back of the Bill as a third; but the two former hon. Gentlemen having both become connected with the Government, did not feel themselves at liberty to proceed with the matter; and, therefore, he had reluctantly consented to bring it forward. In asking for this Committee, it was his particular wish that those Members should be appointed who might feel a prejudice against interfering, as he wished a fair and impartial inquiry. He should not further detain the attention of the House, except to move for the appointment of this Committte.

MR. HUME

wished to know whether the hon. Member proposed to prevent men who could not get shaved on a Saturday from being shaved on Sunday? How did he propose to deal with such cases? The House was to do all sorts of things now, it seemed. Hon. Members proposed to make our men chaste and our women virtuous by law; but he must say, speaking from his experience in his younger days in Scotland, as one who was accustomed to see the Sabbath-day properly observed, and delighted to see it decently kept, that he could not believe that any good would result from any alteration of the existing law upon this subject, with respect to which, indeed, the law was rather stringent already. As far as he had observed the persons who urged measures of this kind, pretending to be very sanctimonious, he had not found them better than other peo- ple, or even than himself—an old sinner, who did not profess to be holier than his neighbours. The Government ought not to lend themselves to such a proposal as this, which could only end in disappointment. Men who were paid late on Saturday night must buy what they needed on Sunday morning; it was done in an orderly way, and we ought to "let well alone."

MR. B. ESCOTT

thought the Motion very objectionable. The parks were crowded with carriages every Sunday, and thronged with people who went there for amusement, and not to make an honest livelihood; but the hon. Member passed by them to interfere with the petty tradesman. If the hon. Gentleman was not satisfied with the present observance of the day, he had better direct his attention to those who got up horse-races here, or who just crossed the Channel to occupy themselves in steeple chases on a Sunday; at least, if he could get the co-operation of the French Government. All the clubs in London were frequented on a Sunday, even during the hours of Divine service, and by persons of station whose example must be influential; but the hon. Member did not and could not touch them, nor could he stop all occupations, and it would be great injustice to pass a law which would in effect single out one class for restraint.

SIR G. GREY

thought it was not desirable to go into a general inquiry. There were certain laws now applicable to Sunday trading; and the object of the Motion was merely to ascertain the bearing of those laws upon Sunday trading as carried on in parts of the metropolis. There might be some hesitation in granting a Committee after the inquiry of 1832, which seemed to include the question now proposed for investigation. But representations had been made from various quarters as to the extent to which the law was violated. Whether the practices complained of had grown up from defects in the law itself, or from defects in its administration, he was not very sanguine that beneficial results could be attained by fresh legislation on the subject. Yet he was not prepared to refuse his assent to the Motion for a Committee, if valuable information could be obtained which might justify the representations made as to the existing system, and the expediency of putting matters on a different footing.

COLONEL T. WOOD

thought no case had been made out to justify the appoint- ment of a Committee. There had been no petitions on the subject, nor had the Members of the metropolis taken up the subject. His own opinion was, that these matters were much better regulated by the general tone of manners in a country than by Acts of Parliament; and certainly Sunday was much better observed in the metropolis now than it was twenty years ago, both amongst the higher and lower classes. He had occasion to be at the east end of the town the other day, when he walked all over the Tower Hamlets; and, with the exception of an occasional cigar or orange shop being open, he must say that the Sunday was observed in a very proper manner. He was therefore opposed to the appointment of a Committee.

MR. HAWES

said, he had, a short time ago, attended a meeting of between 200 and 300 persons representing every parish in the metropolis, and their representations were certainly of great weight. It was not proposed by this measure to deal with the general question of Sunday observance; nor would it extend the operation of the existing law; still less was it intended to create a case of oppression—if it were, he certainly would have nothing to do with it. But it was proposed to inquire whether or not the existing law was sufficiently effective; and whether there were not certain districts in the metropolis where on the Sunday mornings there were extensive open markets held in the public streets. As far as he knew his own borough, there were many parties who would willingly close their shops if other people would do the same. But in the present state of the law there were many parties who kept open their shops on Sundays, and thus others were compelled, in self-defence, to do the same; so that, for a certain number of hours on the Sunday mornings, the whole of the shopkeepers were kept in a state of bustling activity. That was the object of the measure; and, far from being an injury, it was intended as a benefit to the trading class of this metropolis; because at present even those who desired a day of recreation or of leisure were compelled to forego it, and to open their shops, because of other parties, who cared neither for recreation nor for religion. He hoped, therefore, the House would grant the Committee.

DR. BOWRING

objected to interfering with the subject at all, because every body who looked at the state of the country must have seen that there was a gradual and growing improvement on this subject, and a better appreciation of the value of the Sabbath-day.

MR. WILLIAMS

thought it would be better to leave the tradesmen of London to manage their own affairs, for he was sure they understood them better than the Members of that House. He was anxious to promote the better observance of the Sabbath; but then it must be by a legislation that would reach all classes, not by measures that would go over the heads of the rich, and strike only at the poor.

MR. COWPER

thought the speeches which were made against the Motion, only went to show the propriety of granting the Committee, for it seemed that there were differences of opinion as to the facts of the case. The hon. Member for Middlesex said, the shops in London were shut on Sundays; whereas he was informed that in the Old Kent-road, and in the Lambeth-cut, and in various other thoroughfares, shops were open every Sunday morning. Now, a Committee would be the best means of ascertaining these facts. Then, the hon. Member for Montrose, on the contrary, asserted that the laws as they stood were sufficiently efficient; while the parochial authorities of Lambeth and Southwark asserted quite the contrary. He thought it was a grievance that poor-traders should not have a day of leisure, as well as the rich. The shops in Regent-street and Oxford-street were closed on Sundays, and the rich occupiers could spend the day as they pleased; while the poor and small traders, who lived in other streets, were compelled either to open their shops on Sunday, or to lose a considerable portion of their annual profits. The law had settled that the shops should be closed on Sundays, and so long as that law remained upon the Statute-book it ought to be enforced.

MR. WAKLEY

felt surprised at the tone assumed on the present occasion. The hon. Member for Ashton had proposed his Motion somewhat in the spirit of the Pharisee. He seemed to say, "Thank God, we of Ashton are not as other men are, we are not like the people of the metropolis." An inquiry into Sabbath trading in the metropolis! That was what the hon. Gentleman proposed; as if there was no Sunday trading in Ashton! And the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department seemed very much of the same opinion with the hon. Gentleman. Was there no Sunday trading in Devonport? Yet the right hon. Gentleman wanted inquiry about the metropolis, and not about Devonport. This was one of those delicate subjects which ought not to be dealt with in detached portions. The right hon. Gentleman knew the state of the metropolis; but the difficulty was to be staved off by proposing a Committee of Inquiry. Was it lessened by accumulating information? Why, the difficulty was increased. In many towns Sunday trading was carried on to a discreditable extent, and Sunday was a day of the greatest importance to the working classes. It was a day of rest; and he wished they had two such days instead of one. He admitted that it was a great evil that men should be obliged to trade on Sunday in self-defence, because an unscrupulous fellow, who happened to be located next door to them, did so; but he did not see how the evil was to be remedied. He certainly saw no use of appointing a Committee. If anything was to be done, in the matter, why could not the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Grey) apply his mind to it? Could not the police authorities supply him with more information in a few days, than could be furnished by a Select Committee sitting a month? Well, when the information they affected to want was thus in their possession, or, if it was not, when there was such easy means of obtaining it, what was the use of appointing a Committee of that House to call before them persons from all parts of the metropolis to give them information? He wished Sunday trading could be put an end to; but he believed the difficulties in the way were insurmountable. He confessed he saw no way of effecting it, except by educating the people and teaching them self-respect. He did not believe that the most stringent laws would do any good. He concluded by expressing a hope that the hon. Member for Ashton would not divide the House on his Motion, but would leave the Government to take up the question; though he feared that direct legislation would be altogether unavailing.

MR. MUNTZ

remarked, that there was another way of putting an end to the evil in question, and that was, to enable the people to make as good a living without Sunday trading as with it; though he confessed he did not know how that could be done. For himself, he did not object to legislating on this subject, provided the legislation was made general; but he protested against keeping up the feeling which prevailed too strongly already, that legis- lation was directed against the poor, and not against the rich. The hon. Member for Lambeth had said, that the case of the small traders and that of the members of clubs were not analogous, inasmuch as the members were not obliged to attend the clubs on Sunday, while many of the traders were to keep open their shops. But how was it with respect to the servants of the clubs? Were they not compelled to work on Sunday? Was it not the fact that they had no holiday—no chance of rest or recreation? In order to show the necessity of Government taking up the subject, he begged to refer to the case of the Post Office clerks in country towns, who had no holiday on Sunday, but were obliged to work all day, which he considered to be a case of great hardship.

CAPTAIN PECHELL

opposed the Motion. The Committe was unnecessary, for there was no want of any further legislation on the Sabbath.

MR. CHAPLIN

observed, that there was a general understanding in that House that an alteration should take place in the Smithfield market day; and as he was quite agreed with those who thought it was of no use dealing with the question of Sunday trading by piecemeal, he would suggest that the consideration of the Motion now before the House should be postponed for a few weeks, till the measure relating to Smithfield should be discussed more fully; because there was much said about Sunday trading and Sunday travelling; but if they did not remove the cause, what was the use of touching the effect? The public conveyances were obliged to be kept in motion on Sunday, so long as the cattle market, corn market, fish market, and other markets, were held, as at present, on the following day. He hoped, then, that the hon. Member for Ashton would consent to keep the Motion in abeyance for a week, till the other measure to which he had referred was considered.

ALDERMAN COPELAND

suggested to those hon. Members who thought the Sunday well kept in London at present, to visit the Broadway, Westminster, any Sunday morning, and judge for themselves, whether the scene there presented, of shoemakers' shops, stationers' shops, toy shops, and numerous other places of business—all open and busy as on ordinary days—was not a disgrace to a Christian land. For himself, he hoped the time would soon arrive, when, if the present law should be found unable to put down such scenes, some other steps would be taken for that purpose.

COLONEL SIBTHORP

doubted whether, in legislating on this subject, they would not be attempting to do that which was wholly impracticable, and thereby creating a greater evil than that which it was their object to cure.

MR. HINDLEY

, in reply, said, he had been taunted by one side of the House for attempting to do too much, and by the other for attempting to do too little. His object was, to get the House to take the subject fairly into consideration, with the view of doing justice to all parties. He had no wish to do injury to any. If he should prove, as he hoped to be able to do, that there were great abuses practised in reference to Sunday trading; that gross injustice was thereby done to respectable tradesmen: that a remedy was desired by those tradesmen themselves, as well as by the parochial authorities; and if he could show that this remedy could be applied without injury to any other class—then the Committee he now asked for would be of some value. If, on the contrary, he should not succeed in making out such a case, there would only be a few days spent in the inquiry, and they would, at all events, be able to satisfy the parties who now asked their interference, that there was no means of affording them redress.

MR. J. COLLETT

said, that the more he had heard on this subject, the more he was convinced that the object of those who proposed such legislation was to interfere with the privileges of the poor, not to meddle with those of the rich. If they were to put down Sunday trading, they ought also to shut the club-houses, and prevent carriages and horses from entering the parks on Sunday.

The House divided:—Ayes 51; Noes 19: Majority 32.

List of the AYES.
Aldam, W. Ebrington, Visct.
Arundel and Surrey, Earl of Gore, hon. R.
Greene, T.
Baring, rt. hon. F. T. Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.
Barnard, E. G. Hawes, B.
Bellew, R. M. Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir T.
Bodkin, J. J. Labouchere, rt. hon. H.
Boldero, H. G. Langston, J. H.
Broadley, H. Lowther, hon. Col.
Brotherton, J. Macaulay, rt. hon. T. B.
Buller, C. M'Donnell, J. M.
Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G. Maitland, T.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E. Mangles, R. D.
Copeland, Ald. Maule, rt. hon. F.
Dalmeny, Lord Monahan, J. H.
Douglas, Sir H. Morpeth, Visct.
Morris, D. Sibthorp, Col.
Mostyn, hon. E. M. L. Somerville, Sir W. M.
Nicholl, rt. hon. J. Spoonor, R.
Ord, W. Talbot, C. R. M.
Parker, J. Tufnell, H.
Plumptre, J. P. Turner, E.
Rawdon, Col. Ward, H. G.
Reid, Col. Wyse, T.
Rich, H.
Russell, Lord J. TELLERS.
Seymour, Lord Cowper, hon. W. F.
Sheil, rt. hon. R. L. Hindley, C.
List of the NOES.
Berkeley, hon. C. Muntz, G. F.
Bowring, Dr. O'Connell, M. J.
Chaplin, W. J. Ogle, S. C. H.
Collett, W. R. Pechell, Capt.
Collett, J. Thornely, T.
Disraeli, B. Wakley, T.
Escott, B. Watson, W. H.
Ewart, W. Wood, Col. T.
Forster, M. TELLERS.
M'Carthy, A. Hume, J.
Mitchell, T. A. Williams, W.