HC Deb 10 May 1849 vol 105 cc250-2
MR. HINDLEY

moved for leave to bring in a Bill to prevent unnecessary Sunday trading in the metropolis.

MR. BARING WALL

considered that this Bill was founded upon no principle at all. He did not wish to enter into any discussion upon it in the present stage; but he objected to it because it involved the principle of cumulative penalties—because it would give greatly increased powers to the police—because it would lead to constant feuds and discords—and because it was contrary to the whole spirit of the British constitution and the legislation which had taken place on this subject since the days of Charles II. It was for the House now to say whether they had such confidence in the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, that they would consent to the introduction of a Bill which he had proved himself totally incompetent to carry through the House last Session. He (Mr. Wall) begged to move the previous question.

MR. HINDLEY

said, that when he had formerly introduced this Bill, it had been supported on every division by large majorities; and it was only at the request of the Home Secretary, and on account of the late period of the Session, that he had consented to withdraw it. Sunday trading was carried on in that metropolis to an extent of which hon. Gentlemen could scarcely be aware. In Lambeth and other parts of the metropolis—boots, shoes, clothing, paintings, and a thousand other things were as regularly sold on Sunday as on any other day. He understood that about 8,000 tradesmen, with about 15,000 assistants, were employed on Sundays quite unnecessarily, and that many of them were exceedingly anxious that the state of the law should be altered. He trusted, therefore, that the House would not refuse him leave to introduce the Bill.

SIR G. GREY

wished to correct a mistake on the part of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. The hon. Gentleman had said that the Bill which he brought in last Session was almost successful, and was likely to have met with the sanction of the House, when he (Sir G. Grey) interposed and asked him to withdraw it in consequence of the lateness of the Session. Now, the fact was, that when the Bill got into Committee, the hon. Gentleman found himself involved in such difficulties with respect to its details, that he (Sir G. Grey) believed it was absolutely impossible to prosecute it during that Session. Under these circumstances, he suggested to the hon. Member that his best course would be to withdraw the Bill, and take further time to consider its details with a view to introducing it in the ensuing Session. At the same time, understanding that it was the earnest wish of many tradesmen in the metropolis that the law should be made effective for the suppression of Sunday trading, he told him that he would willingly give him such assistance as he could in considering a Bill for that purpose. He could not conceal from himself, however, the great difficulty of any attempt to legislate on the subject, and he hoped that, if the House did consent to the introduction of the hon. Member's Bill, it would be found in such a form as would render its success more probable than it was last year.

LORD D. STUART

said, that this was a Bill in which a large body of the inhabitants of the metropolis took great interest—and he trusted, therefore, that no opposition would be offered to the introduction of the Bill.

MR. B. WALL

withdrew his Amendment.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hindley and Mr. Brotherton.