§ MR. T. DUNCOMBEbegged leave to call the attention of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to Return No. 192, for which he moved at the close of the last Session, relative to convictions and penalties inflicted on the Poor, under the Act 29 Chas. II., by magistrates of the county of Southampton for selling fruits or sweets under the value of one penny. The first case was that of John Broom, who for having sold two penny worth of sweets, was fined 15s. 6d. or two months in the stocks. [Laughter]. He begged pardon, he meant to say for two hours in the stocks—[A laugh]—and that was quite as absurd in such a case as a sentence of two months. The second case was that of Joseph Ward who was fined 15s. 6d., or two hours in the stocks, for selling one farthing's worth of apples and two farthing candles. The third case was that of Edwin Dyer, who was fined, 13s. 6d. or two hours in the stocks, for having sold some chestnuts, some rock, and a cocoanut. The last case was that of William Tyer, who was fined 13s. 6d., or two hours in the stocks, for having sold a certain sweet (not worth Id.) called bull's-eye. Appended to the return was a copy of a memorial, signed by respectable inhabitants in the neighbourhood of Gosport, against the enforcement of these penalties. The Secretary of State for the Home Department must be aware that apples, oranges, newspapers, and many other things were sold in the streets of London from morning till night on Sunday. The confectioners' and the tobacconists' shops were open for the convenience of the rich on Sunday. He wished, therefore, to know, whether, the Government would bring in a Bill to repeal this old obsolete Act of 29CharlesII., or so to amend it that the law should be administered equally to the rich and the poor throughout the country.
§ MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT—Whenever a poor man was subjected to a pecuniary penalty, it necessarily appeared to be a hardship, but he could not say that in the four eases which had been referred to by the hon. Gentleman there was anything improper in the conduct 191 either of the police who had brought the matter under the cognizance of the magistrates, nor did he observe that these, in their decision, had gone in any respect beyond the ordinary administration of justice. Sufficient notice of the question had not been given to enable him to communicate with the magistrates before whom this transaction took place, and he was therefore unable to give an opinion with reference to the discretion which they might have exercised. He presumed, however, that their decision was not pronounced with the object of punishing any particular poor man, but with a view to the observance of the law, which, though spoken of as obsolete, was yet the law of the land; and it was the duty of all persons in the position of magistrates to see that it was enforced. With regard to the Question that had been put to him, his opinion was that so long as the Act ofCharles II. remained on the Statute-book it ought to be uniformly and evenly observed. At the same time, he did not mean to say that he thought it was obligatory that anybody selling anything on the Lord's day should immediately be dragged up before a justice—a certain amount of discretion he understood to be left to those having the administration of the law. The hon. Gentleman having put a question to him, he might in return ask him another. As he was clearly in favour of the repeal of this law, would he undertake to try the question in the House? Let the hon. Gentleman test the sense of the House and the country on the subject, and he would promise to give to his proposition, if made, his best consideration. He would only say that whatever the law was, it ought, in his opinion, to be uniformly acted on throughout the country.