Commons Sitting of 13 June 1855

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Consolidated Fund
(£10,000,000).
2° Justices of Peace Qualification.
3° Validity of Proceedings (House of Commons).

SUNDAY TRADING (METROPOLIS) BILL.
Order for Committee read.
LORD ROBERT GROSVENORsaid, that in
moving that the House go into step that might induce the working classes to
resort to a system of "tick" or running into debt, instead of paying ready-money
on the Sunday morning. Their Committee on this Bill he must appeal to the hon.
Members for Newport (Mr. Massey), and for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe), who had
given notices of Motions—the first, that the Bill be committed that day
three months; the second, to extend its operation to Great Britain and
Ireland—not to press their Motions. With regard to the first, the Bill
had been read a second time at a very early hour in the day, when it was quite
competent for any hon. Member to have stated whatever objections he entertained
to its principle— as, indeed, the hon. Hember for Lambeth (Mr.
Wilkinson), and other hon. Members had done; and the House on that occasion
determined that the principle of the Bill was one which it would accept, and,
therefore, that its provisions should be considered in Committee. Under those
circumstances, he thought the time was gone by for the hon. Gentleman's Motion.
With regard to the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury, the subject had been
frequently discussed in that House, which had always rejected the proposition;
and it was, therefore, scarcely worth while to delay the progress of this Bill,
which was to affect the metropolis only, by renewing the discussion on the
larger question.
Motion made and Question proposed
"That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair."
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the
Question, in order to add the words, "this House will, upon this day three
months, resolve itself into the said Committee," instead thereof.
MR. MASSEYsaid, that in moving that the
Bill be committed that day three months, he must own that an apology was due to
the noble Lord, the Member for Middlesex, for not having brought forward this
Motion at a former stage, but he had been unavoidably absent on that occasion,
otherwise he should certainly have done so; and, as his objections to the Bill
continued in full force, he felt bound to state them now. His objections did not
arise
1912
from any hostility to the objects of the Bill, for he was as desirous as any man
could be to see the Sabbath decently and religiously observed. The various Acts
of Parliament which had been passed since the time of Edward III., including the
Act of Charles II., for the purpose of enforcing a stricter observance of the
Sabbath, had generally a twofold object—to compel religious worship on
the part of the people, and to insure an abstinence on that day from labour and
from all worldly trades and callings; but one remarkable feature of this Bill
was that the promoters of it disavowed that part of the case which contemplated
a better religious observance of the Sunday. Indeed, Mr. Hayman, a gentleman who
had taken a zealous part in promoting the measure, expressly stated in a
circular which he had issued, that "it was absurd to attempt to make the people
religious by an Act of Parliament." This point ought to be strictly borne in
mind. This was purely a secular measure; it relinquished altogether any attempt
at what was called Sabbatarian legislation, and it professed to have for its
object simply to secure to the tradesmen and working-classes of London a day of
rest from their ordinary labours. Whether they spent that day in innocent
recreation, in attending religious worship, or in any less desirable manner was
a perfect matter of indifference, so far as this Bill was concerned. [Hear,
hear!] From the cheers of the hon. Gentlemen who supported the Bill he
understood that this was a proper definition of the objects which they had in
view. The first thing, then, which must strike every one was the partial
character of the Bill. It affected the metropolis alone, without touching any of
the immense hives of industry in the manufacturing districts, but he must say
that if Parliament assented to this measure for the metropolis, it was a logical
and necessary inference that it must soon be extended to the rest of the
country. No doubt, however, if the Bill were meant merely as an experiment of a
certain policy, the metropolis might be a very fit subject on which to try it,
but if it were meant to stand on its own abstract expediency and necessity in
reference to the metropolis, it was a most singular thing that the evils which
it sought to remedy only existed in a very few districts of the town. In the
great main thoroughfares there was no Sunday trading whatever, and it was only
in certain districts, even

1913
according to the promoters of the Bill—in Whitecross-street, for example,
in some parts of the boroughs of Lambeth, Westminster, Marylebone, and St.
Pancras—that Sunday trading did prevail to a limited extent. Before
asking the House to arrest the further progress of the Bill, he had made it his
business to visit some of these districts—Marylebone, in
particular—on a Sunday, and he had found that the shops which were open
were mostly of a very humble order—such as milkshops, lollypop shops, to
which to apply the term trading was almost a ridiculous exaggeration. Their
condition belonged to a degree of poverty little above the condition of a day
labourer. Last Sunday he saw a tradesman sitting in his back parlour pursuing
with his family the usual peaceful avocations of the day, but ready to come into
his shop to earn a penny if a customer came in. Such were the shocking scenes of
which they had heard so much. It was stated that several attempts had been made
to stop Sunday trading by means of a combination among the shopkeepers
themselves, but that the refusal of three or four individuals, who persisted in
opening their shops, prevented such an arrangement being carried into effect;
and, therefore, that Parliament ought now to interfere to secure to certain
tradesmen a day of rest, and grant them a Bill of indemnity against the losses
they would sustain from abstaining from business on one day in seven.
Legislation of that character, however, was unsuited to the genius of the
present day, which discountenanced the principle of giving crutches and
artificial helps to persons in the exercise of their callings. Tradesmen ought
to be left entirely to their own individual guidance in such matters; and, if a
man felt that he required recreation on Sunday, or had religious scruples to
carrying on his business on that day, he ought not to object to make any little
sacrifice that might be incidental to his pursuit of health or pleasure, or that
might be involved in obedience to the dictates of his conscience. It was said
that this Bill would inflict no hardship on the working classes, because they
could easily make their purchases, if they chose, on Saturday night. But it was
not a fair or accurate representation of the case to say that the labouring
population unnecessarily persisted in making their purchases on Sunday in
selfish disregard of the comfort of those with whom they dealt. It
1914
would not do, in discussing this question, merely to refer to the practice of
the Messrs. Maudslay and Co. and other large firms in paying their workpeople on
Friday or early on Saturday; they must rather take the rough with the smooth,
and it would be found that many small employers and middle-men, who did not
obtain their money till late on the Saturday, could not pay their workmen till
an hour go advanced that in their jaded condition at the end of the week's
labour they could not make their purchases that night, but must wait until
Sunday morning. This was the effect of the testimony adduced over and over again
before Select Committees; and, besides the ease of the regular workmen, there
was a numerous class of costermongers similarly circumstanced, who probably had
not a meal in their wretched dwellings on Saturday night, and who would,
therefore, be left to starve if they could not buy food on the Lord's day. It
was all very well for those who had larders in which to place their provisions,
to lay in a stock of meat, bread, vegetables, &c., on Saturday for their
sustenance on Sunday; but there were hundreds and thousands of honest, hard-
working, and sober men in that metropolis who had only one room, or at most two,
in which to lodge themselves and their families; and these poor persons would be
obliged, if this Bill passed, to keep their food in the apartments in which they
lived and slept, the tainted atmosphere of which would render it unwholesome by
Sunday. The inconvenience of such a measure, therefore, would be greater to the
buyer than it could be to the seller; especially seeing that it was not true
that the traffic went on during the whole of the Sunday, because in the limited
localities to which it was at present confined, the greater portion of it was
practically over by eleven or twelve o'clock in the day. It was said that if
they adopted this Bill the relations of master and servant would soon adjust
themselves to its provisions; but there was no guarantee that anything of this
kind would occur; and, if under such a measure the wages of the poor man should
unfortunately continue to be paid late on Saturday night, nobody could deny that
he would suffer a very serious hardship. Moreover, the present Sunday business
was a ready-money business, and the House should be careful how it took any
legislation that might have the effect of causing the publichouse to intervene
and

1915
intercept that part of the working man's gains which ought to go to the
legitimate trader; while, on the other hand, it might lead to the introduction
of the truck principle, which had proved so objectionable in the manufacturing
districts. When examined before the Committee of the House of Lords, Sir Richard
Mayne, the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police, gave important and valuable
testimony on the subject to which this Bill related. He stated that the reports
of his force showed that Sunday trading was decreasing, and that there was now
an improved observance of the Sabbath in London; and, while admitting that the
Act of Charles II. was inoperative to repress Sunday trading, Sir Richard Mayne
also said that he should look with apprehension on any attempt by law to effect
that object, compulsory measures especially being, in his opinion, likely to
aggravate the very evil they were intended to remedy. At one time he (Mr.
Massey) was favourable to a Bill like that now before the House, but having more
maturely considered the subject, he had come to the opposite conclusion, and was
satisfied that it would be most unsafe and impolitic to pass a Bill so one-
sided, so full of anomalies, and founded upon so many contradictions. Those
tradesmen who had had the courage to shut their shops on Sunday, from a
conviction that such was their duty, had not actually suffered pecuniarily in
consequence; and, certainly, for a man to come to Parliament and ask it to help
him to act in accordance with the dictates of his conscience, was neither very
manly nor very English, and much resembled the conduct of those voters who
complained of intimidation at elections. Again, legislative attempts to alter
the habits of a people by direct enactment had invariably failed in their
design. The rapid strides which society had made during the last one hundred
years, gave the only real hope of improvement in that respect. The population of
London, a century ago, was described by historians as being in a state of the
most revolting depravity. The ignorance and debauchery of the lower classes were
then such that the tradesmen pandered to their grovelling vices in the most
barefaced and flagitious manner, posting on their shops placards, stating that
people could there be made drunk for 1d., and that for 2d. they
could get dead drunk, and be allowed to sleep upon clean straw for nothing; and,
in fact, in most
1916
of the temples of debauchery straw was provided for those who were beastly
intoxicated to lie upon until they had sufficiently recovered to be able to walk
away again. In the latter part of Sir Robert Walpole's Administration,
Parliament attempted to repress this profligate state of things by the strong
hand, and in 1736, it imposed a prohibitory duty on gin, exacting also a sum of
50 l. from the retail dealer for his licence, and forbidding a less
quantity than two gallons of spirits to be sold. When this stringent law passed,
the consumption of spirits in this country was 13,500,000 gallons per annum; but
four years after its adoption it had increased to 15,250,000 gallons; and in
1742, when the Legislature at last saw that the measure was totally inoperative,
and therefore determined to repeal it, the consumption had risen to the enormous
quantity of 19,000,000 gallons. Parliament then went to the other extreme, and
passed an enactment of a mere revenue character, together with a licence duty,
only nomial in amount; but this new law was just as inoperative as the
prohibitory Act which preceded it; and so it would be to the end of time.
Legislative experiments to reform morals and manners never had succeeded and
never would succeed. In conclusion, then, he objected to this Bill, because it
would be distasteful to the majority of the working classes whom it would
affect; because it belonged to a category of enactments which had been long
obsolete, and ought now to be repudiated; because it would not accomplish the
object which its promoters had in view; and because it was wholly uncalled for,
the evil against which it was directed, if any really existed, being so
extremely partial and limited in its operation that it would be better to leave
it to be corrected by those causes which had been silently at work during the
last hundred years, increasing the spread of knowledge and self-respect among
the working classes, and inspiring them with a wholesome desire to win more and
more the good opinion and confidence of those who were accidentally placed above
them in the social scale.
LORD STANLEYsaid, he was confirmed in
his approval of the Bill of his noble Friend by seeing that the hon. Gentleman
who had just addressed the House, and who had evidently devoted some care and
attention to the subject, had not been able to make out a stronger case in
support of his opinions than he had done. The

1917
hon. Gentleman entertained a decided and very natural opinion in favour of
voluntary agencies, and against compulsion of any kind; and he had quoted, in
favour of that opinion, an instance of what he (Lord Stanley) believed to be a
very unwise interference on the part of Parliament, for the suppression of a
popular vice, about 100 years ago. Now, that recital might be quite in place in
a discussion on the Maine law; but as regarded the present question, it only
showed— what, he supposed, none of them were inclined to
dispute—that it was possible to legislate, with the best intentions, in a
very injudicious manner. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the improvement
which had taken place in the habits of the people of this metropolis, and
inferred that that improvement was to be attributed entirely to voluntary and
moral agencies. But he (Lord Stanley) apprehended that the hon. Gentleman had
forgotten some agencies which were not of a moral or voluntary character, but
which were very material in their nature—that he had forgotten, for
instance, the effect of an improved police, of better lighted streets, and other
material improvements introduced among us of late years. There was one objection
raised by the hon, Gentleman to the Bill which was founded simply on a
misconception. He had drawn a very pathetic picture of a labouring man, having
but one room for himself and his family, and compelled to buy his provisions on
the Saturday, and to keep them in that room until the Sunday. But had the hon.
Gentleman read the Bill? Because the third clause of the measure made a careful
exception in favour of all necessary articles of food, which were allowed to be
sold before the hour of nine o'clock on the Sunday morning. That was a direct
mode of guarding against that very evil which the hon. Gentleman wished to
advert. When the hon. Gentleman quoted the high authority of Sir Richard Mayne,
as a witness for the impossibility of carrying such a Bill as that into effect,
he (Lord Stanley) had only to observe that he had great respect for the
authority of Sir Richard Mayne, but that, before he accepted it upon such a
question, he should like to know a little more specifically and definitely what
the particular provision was which Sir Richard Mayne said it would be impossible
to enforce. Violation of the law in some cases there, no doubt, might be,
through the neglect of the police; all laws were occasionally violated; but
certainly the
1918
hawking of goods about the streets, and the keeping open shops on
Sunday—the particular offences against which this Bill was
directed—were offences which could not be carried on in secret, and the
detection of which Vas therefore easy. The hon. Gentleman bad told them that
purchases must be made by the labouring classes on the Sunday, because they were
not paid their week's wages until the Saturday night. Now, in the first place,
he (Lord Stanley) would repeat that necessary purchases on the Sunday morning
before nine o'clock were not prohibited by the Bill; and in the nest place he
should observe, that he saw no reason to think that the masters would object to
accommodate themselves to the proposed change of the law, and to make their
payments to their workmen on the Friday night. What possible advantage could a
master have in paying on the Saturday instead of the Friday? The only reason, he
believed, why wages had been hitherto paid on the Saturday was, that the working
classes thought— perhaps erroneously—that it was their interest to
receive them on the eve of their only holiday. The hon. Gentleman seemed to
apprehend that the Bill would tend to introduce a system of credit among the
working classes in their dealings with shopkeepers; and he (Lord Stanley)
readily admitted that such a system would be productive to them of the greatest
evil. But he did not understand why that evil should arise. The hon. Gentleman
had spoken of the public-house interfering between the labouring classes and
their employers, swallowing up their earnings as soon, as these were received:
but the fact was, that the public-house did so interfere at present, and that
one of the great objects of the Bill was to remove that inconvenience. As far as
the Bill would affect that matter at all, it would affect it in an opposite
manner to that stated by the hon. Member, and would tend to decrease and not to
increase the evil to which he referred. Another objection of the hon. Gentleman
was, that the Bill was confined to the metropolis, and would not extend to the
whole empire; but such a measure seemed necessarily to apply to great towns,
rather than to a country district; but all that he (Lord Stanley) could say upon
that point was, that he would be perfectly prepared to extend that experiment to
the other towns of the kingdom, if it should be found to operate beneficially in
London. There was

1919
nothing new in the practice of legislating in an exceptional manner for the
metropolis, and they had at present on the notice paper of the House a Bill for
applying a different system of local government to the metropolis from that
which was adopted in other towns. He thought it was not unreasonable that when
they were trying an experiment of that kind—for an experiment it
was—they should be anxious to try it in the first instance in the
locality in which the evil which they were seeking to suppress was most severely
felt. Another argument used by the hon. Gentleman, in opposition to the measure,
was that the number of people at present employed against their will on a Sunday
was so small as to be hardly deserving of becoming the subject of legislation.
But he (Lord Stanley) believed it was stated in the Report of one of the
Committees which had inquired into that subject, that the number of persons so
employed on the Sundays against their will exceeded 50,000—and this was
not a number so insignificant as to be undeserving the consideration of the
House. The hon. Gentleman further contended that the business transacted was so
trifling as not to impose any considerable amount of labour; but it seemed to
him (Lord Stanley) that such a circumstance could only serve as an argument in
favour of the measure, because if the trade were in itself inconsiderable there
was the less reason to think that it could not be dispatched on six out of the
seven days of the week. Let the House observe that there was a difference
between interfering with the opening of shops at a certain period, and
interfering with labour. If they were to enact that the producing classes should
not work on any day on which they had been accustomed to work, then the
interference with industry would be to that extent an actual and positive
diminution of the capital of the country; but when they declared that certain
persons having to carry on a certain amount of trade should carry it on during
six days and a limited portion of the seventh only, they would not diminish the
amount of the traffic; they would merely limit the time within which the sales
were to be made. The hon. Gentleman had in one respect done justice to the
promoters of the measure; he had said that it was not conceived in a Sabbatarian
spirit. That was, he (Lord Stanley) believed, a fact; and if he thought
otherwise he would not support the Bill. He was opposed to any compulsory
1920
enforcement of what was called the sanctity of the Sabbath-day; but in the
present case they were asked, not to enforce any religious observance, but to
protect a national right—they were asked to protect ninety-nine men in a
100 who were anxious to close their shops on the Sunday, against one man in a
100 who wished to open his shop on the Sunday. In a large town where shops were
contiguous to one another the pressure of competition was so urgent on the
shopkeeper that it became practically impossible for one tradesman to close his
shop on Sunday, except at a great loss, when his neighbour in the same line of
business kept his open. He was confident that if it were possible to ascertain
the feelings of the London shopkeepers upon that subject, it would be found that
a very large majority of them were in favour of the Bill. His only fear was,
that the measure, being reasonable and moderate, would be encountered by a
hostility arising in opposite quarters. Some, like the hon. Gentleman, thought
it went too far; others complained that it did not go far enough, and he held in
his hand a paper, in which it was energetically denounced, not because it
prohibited trading on the Sunday, but because it virtually legalised a certain
amount of trading on that day. Now, that was not the view which he took of the
matter. He thought they had combined all the advantages that could be attained
by the measure; and while it proceeded on a renunciation of the Sabbatarian
spirit, he believed it would give a fair reasonable protection to the tradesman,
without inflicting an injury on the working classes; but that, on the contrary,
the interests and character of the persons affected by the Bill would be
benefited by the change.
MR. W. J. FOXsaid, it was his
conviction that a great change had been going on during the last fifty years in
the manners and habits of the people of the metropolis, and he was fully
satisfied that the progress of civilising influences might be safely left to
work out its own results without interfering by legislative enactments to put
down Sunday trading. It was true, as the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) had stated,
that this Bill was not satisfactory to a certain class of the religious world,
and hon. Members must take care that in propitiating one class they did not
offend another. The Sabbatarians were already remonstrating against this Bill as
not being of a sufficiently restrictive character.

1921
They considered it a Bill of profanation and desecration, and said that it would
positively legalise Sunday trading to an extent truly extraordinary, relaxing on
the one hand what it professed to strengthen on the other, so that the ill
effects of the law would be greater than its benefits. It would be well for
those who insisted so strongly on the observance of the Sabbath to remember that
the Mosaic Sabbath as a matter of public convenience, as well as a provision for
public rest and instruction, had a great superiority over the present observance
of our Sabbath. Taking the Sabbath from twelve o'clock on Saturday night to
twelve o'clock on Sunday night put a complete stop to many things which were
indispensable to the enjoyment and comfort of the people. The real original
Sabbath commenced at sunset on the evening of one day, and terminated at sunset
on the evening of the next day, and thus afforded the opportunity for a variety
of operations which were most important to the well-being and comfort of
society. If we would substitute our modern reckoning for the ancient
computation, let us at least have some counterbalance either in the morning or
evening for the necessary requirements of the day thus set apart. He did not
believe, with the noble Lord, that conscientious persons would suffer from
competition if they shut up their shops on Sunday, because, if a man were
believed to be in earnest and to act from religious motives, what he lost in one
direction he would gain in another. He would join himself to some Church, or
sect, or congregation; and it was notorious that in many professions there were
strong inducements to persons to connect themselves with religious bodies,
finding, in so doing, profits in this life, as well as in the life to come. But
whether they were repaid for their spiritual sacrifices or not, he did not think
they had any right to call upon the Legislature to step in for their protection,
and he considered the present Bill objectionable, not merely as affecting the
interests of the working classes, but on account of the strange selection of
topics to legislate upon. The Bill picked out trading exclusively for penalties
and prohibitions, and left work, amusement, and occupation out of the question.
But the cessation of labour on Sundays was still more important than the
prevention of Sunday trading, and ought assuredly to be considered with it in
any enactment like the
1922
present. The fact was that the promoters of the Bill shrank back from touching
the question of labour, because they would then influence a more powerful class
of society against them. They would then interfere with the gentry and clergy,
with the members of clubs and coteries, with peers, and bishops, and
archbishops. The employment of cooks, of footmen, and of grooms, and the use of
carriages, were far more point-blank against the original anathema than the
exercise of any of those trades which accommodated the poor man with the food
and refreshment necessary for his comfort on the Sunday. The public would
tolerate no measure on this subject which did not strike manfully, boldly, and
conscientiously at Sunday work as well as trading, wherever it was carried on.
To stop short of this was only a pitiful and sordid
hypocrisy.
MR. KER SEYMERsaid, that the hon.
Gentleman (Mr. Massey), who had moved the Amendment congratulated the House that
this had not been made a religious question. But, although he (Mr. Seymer)
agreed that the measure could not be regarded as a religious one, he was
unwilling to look upon the Sabbath as a mere day of rest. He believed that it
would not be for the interest of the working classes that it should be so
considered, for he felt convinced that, in order to make that a people's day, it
should first be made a Lord's day. They had been told that there were many parts
of the metropolis in which such a Bill would not be required. It should,
however, be remembered that those districts would not be affected by its
provisions; but he believed there were other portions of the town in which it
might most usefully be brought into operation. He had himself visited
Houndsditch on Sunday last, at about eleven o'clock, for the purpose of seeing
what was the character of the Sunday fair which was known to take place in that
quarter; and he would tell the House what had been the result of his inquiries.
With some difficulty he had entered a very crowded street, which led to the spot
in which the principal mart was held. The first thing that struck him in the
place was a large placard with the inscription "Liberty of the subject in
danger," and containing an announcement that a meeting was to be held in
reference to the Bill then under the consideration of the House. But what was
that "liberty of the subject?" It

1923
was the liberty of buying and selling stolen goods on the Sunday during the
hours of Divine service. The next thing that attracted his notice was a man
calling in a loud voice upon the crowd around him to sign a petition in favour
of Sunday trading. He could not say that he saw many persons complying with that
request, and he believed that in point of fact a number of those present would
have found it exceedingly inconvenient to sign their names and their places of
abode. He had then seen a man addressing another knot of persons, and protesting
amidst many disgusting and blasphemous expressions, that he made no distinction
between religions, and that he was only anxious to do good for his fellowmen.
But, unless that man's countenance greatly belied his character, he (Mr. Seymer)
should be extremely sorry to trust to his humane and fraternal feelings. He had
afterwards entered a large covered bazaar, crowded with persons selling every
article except articles of food. He thought nothing but the pen of Dickens could
describe what he saw in these Sunday bazaars. Having on one occasion met a
policeman, he asked him if that state of things was to be witnessed every
Sunday. The policeman said, "Yes, and I wish Lord Palmerston or Lord John
Russell would come and see it." In the course of conversation the policeman
asked him to pay a visit to the pick-pockets' exchange, where they sold the
handkerchiefs stolen in the course of the week. He accordingly went, and saw
wretched-looking men disposing of silk handkerchiefs that they never could have
come by honestly. He was informed that many persons frequented the place in
order to get cheap bargains. But it invariably happened that a man, on
purchasing a handkerchief, was robbed of it by the confederates of the party who
sold it to him, even before he left the bazaar. He was bound, however, to say he
saw no outrage or violence going on. And, having remarked that to the policeman,
his reply was, "Oh, yes, things go on pretty regular, except that there is some
thieving." There could not have been less than 15,000 or 16,000 persons present.
He knew men could not be made religious by Act of Parliament; but these were
scandalous symptoms, and for that reason he should support the
measure.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he should support
the Bill because he believed the welfare of the working classes of London
1924
depended on a Bill of this kind, so that after a certain hour on the Sunday they
might get an opportunity of having a holiday. There were certain classes in
London—he alluded especially to the barbers, those who shaved the
community— who it was perfectly well known had not for years had an
opportunity of having their hats on. He denied that this Bill was for the
interest of the trading classes; but, on the contrary, he believed it to be a
Bill for the interest of the working classes.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he could not but
observe that the promoters of this Bill appeared particularly reluctant to
discuss the Bill on its merits. The Bill was brought in without discussion or
explanation, and, on the second reading, the noble Lord (Lord Robert Grosvenor)
tried to coax the House against discussing it on that occasion, by stating that
the House had already, on several previous occasions, affirmed the principle of
a Bill for prohibiting Sunday trading. He should certainly take the sense of the
House upon the question of going into Committee. The inhabitants of the
metropolis objected to have experiments of this kind tried on them; let the case
be reversed, and if the measure succeeded in the rest of the kingdom the
metropolis would then think, perhaps, about adopting it. A great deal of trading
went on in other large towns, and if the Bill were so perfect, why should the
metropolis monopolise its benefits? He believed that if his proposition were
agreed to, many hon. Members who now supported the Bill would combine to kick it
out of the House. Where did the hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. K. Seymer)
derive the information that the goods he had seen exposed for sale in
Houndsditch were stolen? If they were stolen, it was the hon. Gentleman's duty
to inform the policeman of the fact, and give the thieves into custody; but he
thought the hon. Gentleman would have been much better employed in attending his
parish church than in spending his Sunday in Houndsditch. Having seen the
iniquities he had described, the hon. Gentleman ought to have gone at once to
the Lord Mayor, within whose jurisdiction they had taken place, and whose duty
it was to put a stop to them. Why should the House interfere if the Lord Mayor
did not? He objected to the Bill, because it was much more stringent than any
which had previously been brought forward, and he

1925
thought that if any measure on the subject was necessary it ought to be
introduced by the Government. The noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Viscount
Ebrington) had supported the Bill upon sanitary grounds, upon the principles of
political economy, and also upon religious grounds; and certainly this was a
religious question, or else it was no question at all. The supporters of the
Bill resorted to a cowardly evasion upon this point; they told the House that
they rested the Bill on purely secular grounds, while they told the Sabbatarian
party that their object was to put a stop to the desecration of the Sabbath, at
all events, after nine or ten o'clock; and if they could once get in the thin
end of the wedge they would soon abolish Sunday trading altogether. The Bill was
founded on the 29 of Charles II., although it altogether ignored that
Act, and was much more stringent in its provisions; for instance, all
proceedings under the Act of Charles II. were to be commenced within ten days
after the offence had been committed, but by this Bill any proceedings might be
commenced within three calendar months. Any person convicted under this Act, if
he had no money to pay the fines, might be sent to the House of Correction for
fourteen days; by the Act of Charles II. the penalty for non-payment was
imprisonment in the stocks, and it applied both to rich and to poor. The Act of
Charles II. was still in force, and any one using carriages or servants and not
going to church on a Sunday was at this moment liable to be put in the stocks.
Why did they not repeal that Act and place the whole subject on an intelligible
footing? He certainly thought the Sabbath was needlessly desecrated in the
metropolis. He saw no necessity for the Sunday afternoon trading which now took
place, and, upon religious grounds, he should be glad to see trading put a stop
to, except in some perishable articles, such as milk, after half-past ten or
eleven on Sunday morning; but his objection to this measure was, that it would
prevent numbers of the poorer classes, who did not receive their wages until
late on Saturday night, from providing themselves with the necessaries of life
on Sunday morning. No man's trade ought to be allowed to interfere with another
man's devotions, but he saw no reason why the poor should not be allowed to
supply themselves with necessaries up to half-past ten on the Sunday morning. He
should vote for his
1926
hon. Friend's Amendment; but if the House went on with the Bill he should try
and persuade them to extend its provisions to the whole
country.
MR. DRUMMONDsaid, he disliked the
insinuation contained in the title of the Bill, that its object was to prevent
unnecessary trading on the Sunday. In point of fact, unnecessary trading on the
Sunday could only be trading by the rich. But there was a positive necessity for
many of the poor to trade on the Sunday. In addition to the reasons stated by
the hon. Member who had just sat down, let the House remember that there were no
less than 150,000 families in London who inhabited only single rooms. Those
people could not buy anything that was liable to become corrupt in the course of
the Saturday night. If they were to bring in a honest Bill to shut up the clubs
on Sundays he would not oppose it, but he would not support this Bill, which
appeared to him unjust in every way.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he had received
numerous communications from that part of the country with which he had the
honour to be connected, all strenuously opposed to the further progress of this
Bill. The whole tenour of their representations was, that they would gladly
support any Bill which would prevent unnecessary trading on the Sunday, but they
considered that the exceptions in this Bill militated against the principle of
the measure. Concurring in this view, he felt it his duty to oppose the further
progress of the Bill.
MR. WILKINSONsaid, many of his
constituents were in favour of the Bill, and many were against it. But he had a
conscientious objection to the Bill, which he thought was a mistaken piece of
legislation. He was as much opposed to Sunday trading as any one, and he
believed that it was continued rather in deference to the people, who were
accustomed to Sunday trading, than in accordance with the wishes of the
shopkeepers who keep their shops open. He considered this to be quite a
religious question, and if it was, then he agreed with his hon. Friend the
Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) that this measure did not go far enough.
The hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. K. Seymer) had spoken of a particular
district, but he apprehended that was a district inhabited principally by
Jews.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he had not

1927
taken any part in the discussion, because he had, on a previous occasion, stated
his concurrence with the principle of the Bill, and he would now only repeat
that he should support the Motion for going into Committee. The objection taken
to it by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) were objections which
ought to be considered in Committee, as they appeared to resolve themselves into
a question of whether nine or half-past ten o'clock was the time after which
trading should be prohibited. Some of the petitions presented by the hon. Member
for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) were not against the Bill itself, but against
the exceptions it contained. He thought it would be unwise to omit these
exceptions, because the Bill did not rest upon the religious obligation to
observe the Sabbath, but must be regarded rather as a police regulation to
secure the greater part of the Lord's day as a day of rest for the poor. It
ought not to be extended to the whole country, because many towns had police
regulations of their own with which it would interfere, and, in his opinion, it
had been very properly introduced by a noble Lord who represented a metropolitan
county, and who wished to relieve a large number of his constituents from the
obligation of sacrificing a day which ought to be a day of rest and recreation,
if not of religious observance, to the bulk of the
people.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he should support the
Amendment, because he preferred to be guided by the opinion of Sir Richard
Mayne, rather than by that of the extraordinary policeman to whom the hon.
Member for Dorsetshire had referred, and it was Sir Richard Mayne's opinion that
any attempt to deal with the subject by legislation would only aggravate the
evil. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the attempt some man was making to
obtain signatures to a petition, but was there not in London a regularly
organised system of petition mongering? Was there not a paid secretary and a
staff for every agitation that was raised, who went about pestering people for
signatures to petitions upon subjects they knew nothing about? There were from
30,000 to 50,000 poor people engaged till twelve o'clock every Saturday night in
the streets of London in the sale of small articles, and why were they not to be
allowed to purchase necessaries upon a Sunday morning? The rich were the
greatest violators of the law. Why, there
1928
lived not three hundred yards from the Queen's palace a rich fishmonger who
employed fifteen persons every Sunday, from early in the morning until sometimes
ten o'clock at night, in carrying fish to Peers, Bishops, Judges, Members of
that House, and persons of that class.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he must beg to
explain, in consequence of the reference made to him by the right hon. Baronet
the Home Secretary, that he had stated that the objection taken to the Bill by
the petitions he had presented was, that it would increase the present amount of
Sunday trading.
SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEYsaid, he objected to
the Bill, because he believed it to be unnecessary, and directed against a
particular class. If a similar measure were directed against another class he
should think there was some sincerity in the promoters of the Bill. For
instance, if the noble Lord who had charge of the Bill, and whose kindly feeling
and sincerity none could doubt, would only direct his attention to that class
more especially to which he belonged, and correct their errors, rather than
those of the working classes, he thought he would act more advisedly. When he
went into Hyde Park on the Sunday he found numbers of persons, even Members of
that House, advocates of that measure, riding in their carriages with their
servants attending them; and he could not go to the Zoological Gardens but he
saw the same thing. It appeared to him that that which was wrong in the working
classes must surely be wrong in the upper classes, and if he should see the
noble Lord legislating against these things, he thought it would be much better.
With this view he objected to the Bill as an unnecessary piece of legislation.
He believed, firmly and conscientiously, that were the upper classes to set the
working classer a better example, much more effect would be produced than any
such legislation as that which was now proposed.
LORD ROBERT GROSVENORsaid, that he had
introduced the Bill, not at the instigation of his own class, but in compliance
with the wishes of a number of the inhabitants of this metropolis, principally
of the trading and lower classes, whose petitions, signed by upwards of 50,000
persons, had been presented. Anticipating some such observations as those which
had just been made by the hon. Member for Leicester (Sir J. Walmsley) he had, in
order to see what was the example set by

1929
the higher classes in this matter, caused to be ascertained the number of
carriages and horses that were in Hyde Park on Saturday and Sunday last, and
also the number of omnibuses and cabs that passed a certain point in Piccadilly
on the same days. The results were these:—On Saturday there were in Hyde
Park 1,936 carriages with one horse, 2,199 carriages with more than one horse,
and 1,740 saddle horses; on Sunday there were 1,698 carriages with one horse,
854 with more than one horse, and 413 saddle horses. The two last numbers
represented the means of conveyance principally used by the higher classes. As
to omnibuses and cabs, the means of conveyance used by the middle and lower
classes, the results were—On Saturday, 1,228 omnibuses, and 3,047 cabs;
on Sunday, 1,040 omnibuses, and 2,600 cabs. In this respect, therefore, a very
good example appeared to be set by the higher classes, and thought it was a
sufficient answer to the observations of the hon. Member for
Leicester.
MR. HEYWORTHsaid, he thought the
statistics about omnibuses and cabs went to prove that the middle and upper
classes did not observe the Sabbath so well as the lower classes of the
population. It had not been shown that all clubs were closed on Sundays. He
considered the Bill very injurious, and should therefore support the
Amendment.
MR. BARROWsaid, the great evil was,
that labouring men went to the public-house on Saturday night instead of to the
market. If there was no market on Sunday morning, it would be of great advantage
to them, and he believed the payment of wages on Sunday morning was the
exception and not the rule.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, before putting the
question, he must inform the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Buncombe) that it
was not competent for him to move an instruction to the Committee, as the hon.
Member for Newport (Mr. Massey) had a previous Amendment on the paper, which
must first be taken. In case that Amendment should not be adopted, it would be
competent for the hon. Member for Finsbury to move his Amendment, though he
might move it on the bringing up of the Report, or on the third
reading.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the
Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 158; Noes 51: Majority 107.

List of the Ayes

Acland, Sir T. D.

Goodman, Sir G.

Adair, R. A. S.

Greaves, E.

Anderson, Sir J.

Grenfell, C. W.

Bailey, Sir J.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Bailey, C.

Guinness, R. S.

Baird, J.

Gurney, J. H.

Barnes, T.

Gwyn, H.

Barrington, Visct.

Hadfield, G.

Barrow, W. H.

Hall, Sir B.

Bateson, T.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Baxter, W. E.

Hastie, A.

Bell, J.

Hastie, Arch.

Berkeley, C. L. G.

Heathcote, Sir G. J.

Bethell, Sir R.

Heathcote, G. H.

Biddulph, R. M.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Bignold, Sir S.

Hervey, Lord A.

Blandford, Mar. of

Hindley, C.

Bouverie, rt. hon. E. P.

Horsman, rt. hon. E.

Bramley-Moore, J.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Brotherton, J.

Hudson, G.

Buck, G. S.

Hughes, W. B.

Butler, C. S.

Ingham, R.

Butt, G. M.

Irton, S.

Cardwell, rt. hon. E.

Jermyn, Earl

Carnac, Sir J. R.

Kendall, N.

Cayley, E.S.

Kershaw, J.

Cecil, Lord R.

King, hon. P. J. L.

Challis, Mr. Ald.

Langton, H. G.

Child, S.

Laslett, W.

Cholmondeley, Lord H.

Lee, W.

Clifford, H. M.

Leslie, C. P.

Coles, H. B.

Liddell, hon. H. G.

Colvile, C. R.

Lisburne, Earl of

Coote, Sir C. H.

Lockhart, W.

Corry, rt. hon. H. L.

Luce, T.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Mc Taggart, Sir J.

Craufurd, E. H. J.

Malins, R.

Crook, J.

Mandeville, Visct.

Crossley, F.

Manners, Lord J.

Davie, Sir H. R. F.

Miles, W.

Davies, D. A. S.

Milligan, R.

Davies, J. L.

Michell, W.

Dent, J. D.

Moncreiff, J.

Drumlanrig, Visct.

Morris, D.

Duncan, G.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Dunlop, A. M.

Naas, Lord

East, Sir J. B.

Neeld, John

Ebrington, Visct.

North, F.

Egerton, W. T.

Northcote, Sir S. H.

Egerton, E. C.

Oakes, J. H. P.

Ewart, W.

Packe, C. W.

Ewart, J. C.

Pakington, rt. hn. Sir J.

Farnham, E. B.

Palk, L.

Farrer, J.

Palmer, Robert

Ferguson, Sir R.

Peacock, G. M. W.

FitzRoy, rt. hon. II.

Pennant. hon. Col.

Floyer, J.

Percy, hon. J. W.

Foley, J. H. H.

Pritchard, J.

Follett, B. S.

Pugh, D.

Forester rt. hon. Col.

Repton, G. W. J.

Forster, C.

Ricardo, O.

Freestun, Col.

Robartes, T. J. A.

Freshfield, J. W.

Robertson, P. F.

Fuller, A. E.

Russell, Lord J.

Gardner, R.

Russell, F. C. H.

Gaskell, J. M.

Russell, F. W.

Gladstone, Capt.

Sawle, C. B. G.

Goddard, A. L.

Seymer, H. K.

1931

Shelley, Sir J. V.

Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.

Shirley, E. P.

Waterpark, Lord

Smith, A.

West, F. R.

Smollett, A.

Whitmore, H.

Spooner, R.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Stafford, A.

Woodd, B. T.

Strickland, Sir G.

Wyndham, Gen.

Stewart, Sir M. R. S.

Wynne, W. W. E.

Stuart, W.

Wyvill, M.

Tollemache, J.

Tudway, R. C.

TELLERS.

Verner, Sir W.

Grosvenor, Lord

Waddington, H. S.

Stanley, Lord

List of the NOES.

Bentinck, G. W. P.

Maguire, J. F.

Berkeley, H. H. F.

Miall, E.

Biggs, W.

Moody, C. A.

Bland, L. H.

Morgan, O.

Bright, J.

O'Brien, P.

Brockman, E. D.

Otway, A. J.

Coffin, W.

Pechell, Sir G. B.

Cogan, W. H. F.

Pilkington, J.

De Vere, S. E.

Powlett, Lord W.

Divett, E.

Price, W. P.

Drummond, H.

Ricardo, S.

FitzGerald, Sir J.

Scobell, Capt.

Forster, J.

Shafto R. D.

Fox, W. J.

Smyth, J. G.

Gallwey, Visct.

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W

Goderich, Visct.

Steel, J.

Headlam, T. E.

Sullivan, M.

Heard, J. I.

Thompson, G.

Heyworth, L.

Tyler, Sir G.

Higgings, G. G. O.

Walcott, Adm.

Horsfall, T. B.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Hutt, W.

Welby, Sir G. E.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Wilkinson, W. A.

Lowther, Capt.

Wyndham, H.

Mackie, J.

TELLERS.

M'Mahon, P.

Massey, W. N.

Maddock, Sir H.

Duncombe, T.

Main Question put, and agreed to.
House in Committee.
Clause 1, which provides penalties for selling, offering, or exposing goods
for sale.
MR. MASSEY MR. MASSEY moved to insert the words, "after the hour of ten
o'clock in the forenoon."
LORD ROBERT GROSVENORsaid, he could not
consent to the insertion of words which would destroy the whole principle of the
Bill. It was his belief that great numbers of the working classes would never
purchase what they wanted on a Saturday evening so long as they knew they could
do so on Sunday morning, and this was a Bill to put an end to Sunday
trading.
Amendment negatived.
MR. W. J. FOXsaid, he would propose to
add at the end of the clause—
"Provided always that no person of the Jewish race and religion shall in
any case whatever be liable to any of the penalties inflicted under this
Act."
1932
He thought particular indulgence ought to be shown towards a class who were
unwarrantably excluded from that House, notwithstanding that their entrance was
wished by great numbers of Christians who returned them as representatives. The
Jews were the truest and most conscientious Sabbatarians. No class was to be
compared with them in the observance of rites and ceremonies. They consequently
deserved to have their conscientiousness recognised, and to be freed from
penalties which would fall with greater propriety on those who for profits' sake
desecrated a day which they pretended to hold sacred. The Jews were the
observers of a law which was most distinct and most complete in its evidence. It
did not rest, like the Christian law, upon inference, tradition, and the
practice of Churches. It was a clear, distinct, positive enactment, and the Jews
acted up to it. On some accounts it was very convenient that there should be
some persons holding one day sacred, and others another. The operations of
society could not be suspended entirely on either day, and there were those of
whose services they could avail themselves in the one case and in the other. It
was a common benefit that there should be Jews as well as Christians in the
population, and an observance of Saturday as a sacred day as well as the
observance of Sunday. This clause, without his Amendment, imposed on the Jews
penalties for a conscientious adherence to their religion, and was in opposition
to all the tolerant legislation of late years and that reverence with which the
Jews and their religion ought to be treated. In order to secure something like
impartiality, and to prevent the Bill being open to the charge of intolerance,
he trusted the Committee would consent to the
Amendment.
MR. LLOYD DAVIESsaid, he objected to
the Amendment, on the ground that they were legislating for the better
observance of the Christian, and not of the Jewish Sabbath; in other words, that
they were legislating for the whole community, and not for any particular
class.
Amendment withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2, which provides that every sale shall be a separate offence,
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, that it was not in
the Bill which the House of Lords considered sufficiently stringent. If the
Committee wished to make the Bill more obnoxious, they could do so. He should
only call attention to the fact.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 3, which provides that the provisions of the Act should not apply to
the sale of any medicine, drug, or article for medicinal purposes.
MR. T. DUNCOMBE MR. T. DUNCOMBE moved to insert after the words "medicine,
drug, or other article for medicinal purposes," "nor to the exercising of any
work of necessity, or charity, or in cases of sickness or sudden emergency."
Those words stood in the Bill which the House of Lords sent down, and he could
not understand why they were omitted.
MR. G. BUTTsaid, the words proposed to
be introduced excepted something which did not fall within the
Act.
THE MARQUESS OF BLANDFORDthought this
clause altogether objectionable, as inviting inferentially the infringement of
existing Acts of Parliament, by excepting many things the sale of which on
Sundays was now prohibited. He recommended that the clause should be left out,
and another clause afterwards brought up, specifically legalising the sale of
those articles clearly necessary to be sold to the
public.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the hon. Member
for Finsbury (Mr. T. Buncombe) was quite right in saying the words he proposed
to insert were in the Lords' Bill, but he believed it happened in this
way— that Bill prohibited work, and therefore excepted works of charity,
but, when the part prohibiting work was struck out, the exception, by an
oversight, was allowed to remain.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he thought it
important that the words proposed should be inserted.
LORD ROBERT GROSVENORsaid, he made no
objection to the proposition, but thought it was undesirable to incumber the
Bill with unnecessary provisions.
MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERSsaid, he thought
the best way would be to read the clause thus—"That the provisions of the
Bill should not extend nor apply to the selling, offering, or exposing for sale
of any medicines, drugs, or any article for medicinal purposes, or in cases of
emergency or of charity."
MR. MILESsaid, he would suggest that
the addition of the words "charitable or" after the word "article" would meet
the difficulty.
LORD ROBERT GROSVENORsaid, if the
Committee would pass by the clause and allow him to confer with those who
1934
had drawn the Bill, if he found the Bill did not really carry out the wishes of
the hon. Member for Finsbury he would propose words to that effect upon the
Report.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he was so
completely at issue with those who drew the Bill that he would not trust
anything to them. He held some of those parties in the highest contempt. It
appeared that there had been some 1,400 l. subscribed in four
months—nice pickings for the gentlemen who had got up the greatly
exaggerated statements which had been put forth. As for consulting with them,
surely the House was competent to decide for itself. As the proposition of the
hon. and learned Member for Greenwich (Mr. M. Chambers) would meet his object,
he was willing to withdraw his Amendment, and substitute the addition of the
words proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Amendment withdrawn, and the words, "or in cases of emergency or of
charity" were added to the clause.
On the next provision, that the Act should not extend nor apply to "the
selling, hawking, crying, offering, or exposing for sale of any milk or cream
before the hour of nine o'clock in the morning, or after the hour of one in the
afternoon."
LORD ROBERT GROSVENORproposed to
strike out the words "hawking or crying."
SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, he wished to
know whether the Bill would interfere with an Act passed in 1836, whereby bakers
were authorised to bake and sell bread up to half-past one in the afternoon of
Sunday?
LORD ROBERT GROSVENORsaid, the Bill
would not interfere with the Act of 1836, although the provisions of that Act
were not exactly as the hon. and gallant Member had described
them.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, that, under the
Act of Charles II., milk and cream were allowed to be sold during the whole day,
as also was mackerel.
LORD ROBERT GROSVENORsaid, mackerel
could be sold till nine o'clock in the morning.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, if the sale of
fish was restricted to nine o'clock, all the fish left unsold at that hour, or
which might arrive later, would be stinking on Monday.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, he must make an
appeal to the Committee on behalf of the oyster interest; he hoped

1935
there was to be no further restriction imposed upon the
trade.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he thought it would he
better to retain the words "hawking or crying."
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he wished to
know why nine o'clock was the limit for the sale of milk, and ten o'clock for
newspapers?
MR. WILKINSONsaid, he should move that
all the words after the word "cream" should be left
out."
Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 12, to leave out the words "before the
hour of nine in the morning, or after the hour of one in the afternoon."
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that milk now
came up by railway, and in some cases, might not reach London until after nine
o'clock.
MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERSsaid, the object of
the Bill was to relieve the poorer classes from excessive labour, and if milk
was to be allowed to be sold during the whole day, persons would be kept the
whole day to carry it out, and other persons would be sent out to fetch it. He
could not see that the emergencies were so important as to require alteration in
the hour.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he could not see
why milk and cream should not be sold after nine
o'clock.
Question put, "That the words 'before the hour of nine' stand part of the
clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 133; Noes 69: Majority 64.
MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he would now propose
to extend the hours of sale from nine o'clock until eleven
o'clock.
Amendment proposed in page 2, line 13, to leave out the word "nine," and
insert the word "eleven."
Question put, "That the word 'nine' stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 107; Noes 100: Majority 7.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the next exception
from the operation of the Bill was in these words— "Nor to the selling,
offering, or exposing for sale any newspaper or other periodical paper before
ten o'clock in the morning."
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he wished to know
whether it was intended to make it illegal for a person who was going by a
railway at half-past ten o'clock to purchase a newspaper, although if the train
started at ten o'clock ho might legally do so?
1936
Nothing could be more absurd than such a description of legislation; and he
should jive it his most strenuous opposition.
MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he would beg to point
out the great inconvenience which might result from the clause as now worded.
Supposing a second edition should be published after ten o'clock, announcing
some important news from the East, such, for instance, as the successes of the
allied squadron in the Sea of Azoff, were the public to be debarred from
receiving that intelligence until Monday morning?
MR. W. J. FOXsaid, the effect of the
clause would be to deprive a vast number of persons of the pleasure and
advantage of reading Sunday newspapers altogether, and the clause would in
effect amount to a total prohibition of the sale of newspapers on a
Sunday.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that Sunday was
almost the only leisure day which the working classes had for reading the
newspapers, and he should at the proper time move the omission of the words
"before ten o'clock in the morning."
MR. SPOONERsaid, he had all along
intended to propose the rejection of all that part of the clause which referred
to newspapers, and as there appeared to be a difficulty in doing so now he
should move his Amendment on bringing up the Report. A newspaper was not an
article of "necessity," and he considered that the public could well do without
it on the Sabbath.
LORD ROBERT GROSVENORsaid, that there
was not a single newspaper actually published on a Sunday. There were two issued
on that day, but they were second editions only.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he thought that
the argument of the noble Lord against the sale of newspapers, if worth
anything, would equally apply to the working of railways and to the employment
of steamboats on a Sunday. But it was clear to him that the observance of the
Sunday was not the primary object of this Bill. Its provisions would still leave
the clubs at the West end untouched. The Bill, in fact, was meant to affect only
those who were not fairly represented in that House.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he thought it very
undesirable to make the Bill too stringent in its operation. The House must take
care what they were doing, otherwise they would most certainly defeat
themselves.
MR. HUTCHINSsaid, if the suggestion of
the hon. Member for North Warwickshire

1937
(Mr. Spooner) were adopted, and the paragraph which excepted the sale of
newspapers before ten o'clock on a Sunday was left out, the effect would be to
prohibit the sale of newspapers on Sunday altogether.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he assumed that one
object which the promoters of this Bill had in view was to prevent the humbler
classes from resorting to publichouses on a Sunday. Now, it was a well-known
fact that the people went to publichouses chiefly for the purpose of reading the
newspapers. The way, then, to prevent their going to publichouses appeared to
him to be to afford every facility for the sale of
newspapers.
Question put, "That the word 'ten' stand part of the clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 169; Noes 53: Majority 116.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, that by the
division just come to it had been decided that the sale of newspapers should be
excepted from the operation of the Bill up to ten o'clock in the morning; he
would now beg to move that the words "in the morning be left out, and the words
in the afternoon" be substituted.
Amendment proposed, in the same line, to leave out the words "in the
morning," and insert the words "in the afternoon."
Question put, "That the words 'in the morning' stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 154; Noes 61: Majority 93.
MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he had a further
Amendment to propose, the effect of which would be to enlarge the time during
which newspapers might be sold. At a time like the present, when people were
going mad after news from the Crimea, he thought it would prove too great a
restriction to prohibit the sale of newspapers all day, after ten in the
morning. He would move, therefore, that it be permitted to sell newspapers also
"after two o'clock in the morning."
LORD ROBERT GROSVENORsaid, he must
deprecate any further opposition to the clause, after the unequivocal
demonstration that had just taken place.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he would recommend
the postponement of all further Amendments until the bringing up o the
Report.
Question put "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 62 Noes 140: Majority 78.
House resumed; Committee report progress.

OFFICE OF SPEAKER.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he would beg to move
that a Select Committee be appointed to consider and Report to the House whether
any and what improvement might be made in the providing for the execution of the
office of Speaker, in the event of the Speaker's unavoidable absence by reason
of illness or other cause.
LORD HOTHAMsaid, he wished, before
acceding to the Motion, to know what was the particular signification to be
attached to the words "other cause." He viewed with the greatest apprehension
any alteration that might have the effect of diminishing the importance of the
office now so satisfactorily filled.
MR. WALPOLE, in explanation, said, it
might refer to absence caused by the death of a near relative, as was the case
with Mr. Manners Sutton while occupying the Chair, who lost his father during
that time.
Motion agreed to.
Select Committee appointed—
"To consider and Report to the House whether any and what improvement may
be made in the providing for the. execution of the Office of Speaker, in the
event of the Speaker's unavoidable absence by reason of illness or of other
cause."
The House adjourned at one minute before Six o'clock.