§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ MR. THOMAS HUGHES, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that he hoped to be able to remove any misunderstanding which might exist as to the nature and objects of the measure. He proposed first to call the attention of the House shortly to the law as it now stood in reference to this subject. The first statute relating to it was one made in the reign of Henry VI., which, as did the present Bill, dealt with the Lord's Day as a purely civil institution. It enacted that no fairs should be held on Sunday, except upon four Sundays in harvest time; but the sale of necessary victuals was excepted from the operation of the Act. The present Bill was one in principle with the statute of Henry VI. The next statute which he need refer to was passed in the first year of Charles I.; but the principle of this enactment was altogether objectionable, because it was directed entirely to enforcing the observance of Sunday as a religious and not as a civil institution. The object sought was to enforce religious worship of a certain kind; and to make men religious by penal enactments—a criticism to which the Bill now before the House was not in any way obnoxious. The statute enacted that persons should not assemble in crowds out of their own parish, on Sunday, to attend sports and pastimes, and that even if in their own parishes they should attend certain kinds of sports such as bull and bear baiting on Sunday they should be liable to penalties to be imposed by the ecclesiastical tribunals. The next statute was that passed in the 27th year of Charles II.—the Act which was at present in force, and which was open to the same objection as that framed in the reign of his Father. Its provisions were absolute and stringent. It forbad all trading of whatever kind on Sunday; with these exceptions, that cooked provisions might be sold in inns, and milk might be sold before nine in the morning and after four in the afternoon. By a subsequent law it was provided that mackerel might be sold on the Lord's Day; and by 7 Will. IV. c. 37, arrangements were make in reference to the baking trade, and it was enacted that no sale of bread should 577 be allowed after half past one on Sunday. Since this statute there had been no alteration in reference to Sunday legislation, with the exception of two statutes passed in the 12th and 14th of the Queen, one of which enacted that certain warrants might be issued on Sunday, and the other repealed the exception in the statute of Henry VI. as to the four Sundays in harvest time; so that the holding of fairs on any Sunday was now illegal. The consequence was that Sunday trading now came entirely under the provisions of the Act of Charles II., and was nominally, therefore, absolutely illegal. He would now refer the House to one or two authorities upon this subject, which they were likely to respect. Adam Smith said that the Sunday was an institution of inestimable value, apart from all claim to its Divine authority; and Lord Macaulay, in many passages throughout his works, insisted very strongly on the same principle. He submitted to the House that the subject was one which was now perfectly ripe for legislation. In 1832 and 1847 Committees of the House of Commons sat in reference to the question, and in 1850 there was a Committee of the Lords. The result was three great "blue books," in all of which the great increase of Sunday trading of late years was fully recognised. The Report of the Committee of 1847 stated that Sunday trading was carried on to a great extent, and that in many parts it had been on the increase for several years past. The Committee further stated that they had no hesitation in expressing their conviction of the injurious effect of Sunday trading; that there were 5,000 tradesmen and 15,000 assistants in London who were thereby deprived of their day of rest. They found also that the majority of traders earnestly desired to discontinue Sunday trading—and this feeling was much more general now than it was then. The Committee, in conclusion, felt called upon to recommend the introduction of measures to more effectually prevent public marketing and open exposure of goods for sale on Sunday. A minority of the Committee agreed to a separate Report, in which they said that they thought they would be justified in recommending a Bill founded upon these general principles — that no goods should be exposed for sale in any shop; that no goods should be allowed to be sold except those which were absolutely necessary for the public convenience, or such as were of a perishable nature; that no shop 578 should be allowed to be open after certain hours; and that penalties should be cumulative after the third offence. These principles were, in fact, almost those of the present Bill. He would now state some facts illustrative of the present state of things in Lambeth. In February 1857, on a certain Sunday, persons who were interested in the matter went into certain districts in that borough, and visited 1,684 shops. Of these, 1,034 were open for the sale of goods, and only 650 were closed. The state of things was now very much worse than it was ten years ago, and in certain parts of Lambeth the grievance had become absolutely intolerable. It was computed that not less than 10,000 persons were engaged in selling in Lambeth every Sunday morning; and he spoke without hesitation when he said that to nine-tenths at least of the persons who were engaged in this traffic the passing of this measure would be welcomed. There was overwhelming evidence to show that the persons employed in selling goods on Sunday in the metropolitan districts were not less than 80,000 in number, and some estimates placed the number as high as 100,000. In order to show how utterly futile it was to attempt anything in the present state of the law, he would state what had been done in Lambeth to abate the nuisance that at present existed. Some years ago 200 tradesmen applied to the parish officers to have the Act of Charles II. put in force, and the parish officers were quite ready to do this to the best of their ability. These tradesmen accordingly went on Sundays with the parish officers to various places, and gave notice to the persons trading that they were acting contrary to law, and would be proceeded against. This was done for three successive Sundays; and after that no less than 800 summonses were issued against those who had received notice. As many as 700 of them said that they were quite ready to close on Sunday if others did the same, and they expressed their desire that all shops should be closed. The parish officers proceeded against the remainder who were contumacious; and what was the consequence? In many cases the parties refused to attend in answer to the summons; and, the justices, on looking into the law, found that the only thing that they could do was in the first instance to issue warrants against the goods which had been exposed for sale. But the warrants when issued were found 579 to be in most cases utterly useless, for the goods were almost all of a perishable nature, and had been consumed in the course of the previous day. Fines were then imposed; but the only fine that it was possible to impose under the statute was one of 5s. for a whole day's trading; and a good many of the offenders said, "Will you take three months or six months fines in advance, and let us have done with it?" He put it to the House whether this state of things should be allowed to continue. If it were right that there should be absolute freedom in reference to Sunday trading, then of course the existing statute should be swept away; but if the House thought that this would be a bad state of things, then let them consider what regulations should be laid down, and enforce them by proper fines which could be easily enforceable. As it was the law was held in contempt by three shopmen out of four in Lambeth. He asked the House to listen to the opinion of Earl Russell, as expressed in a debate in the House of Lords last year. In speaking of the increase of Sunday trading his Lordship said—
There is some reason to fear that this will go on until the question of buying and selling on Sunday is looked upon as a matter beyond legislative interposition, and it will be supposed that the law allows both buying and selling on Sunday just as on any other day, and the nation may lose Sunday as a civil institution."—[3 Hansard, clxxxiii. 1042.]He (Mr. Hughes) entirely concurred in this opinion, and he believed that if the present state of things were allowed to go on a few years longer it would be impossible to interfere, and the country would have suffered a great and grievous loss. The opposition to this Bill came from two quarters. In the first place, it came chiefly from those who said, "You have no right to legalize any trade whatever on Sunday, and we will not have any such system because it is against the law of God." He could not understand how Gentlemen holding these opinions could look with the slightest favour upon the present state of things, or how they could refuse to try to check Sunday trading, because they were unable to enforce the fourth commandment in its fulness. Would they say that because the House could not enforce the whole Decalogue verbatim et literatim by means of legislation that they should therefore abstain from all legislation on any subject within the scope of the Commandments? Would they then be consistent, and say that because there were many Ways of taking your neighbour's property 580 which the House could not interfere with, that therefore they should abolish the law against petty larceny; and because all ways of speaking evil of your neighbour could not be forbidden by law, that therefore the law of libel should be done away with? He believed that it would not be possible, by legislative interference, altogether to put down Sunday trading by law; and further, that it would work great injustice to attempt to do so, because the homes of a great portion of the people in large cities were in such a condition that it was impossible to keep perishable articles in them for twenty-four hours. Then it was said that if the tradespeople were in earnest they could do for themselves that which they professed to desire, and therefore no legislation was necessary on the subject. They had endeavoured to do it for themselves, and had broken down. A great many shops had been shut by mutual agreement; but in consequence of a certain number holding out, and excessive competition, it was impossible to succeed in that way. Then there was the stock objection raised—that this was an attempt to make people religious by Act of Parliament. But he must say that it was nothing of the kind. He had no belief in the possibility, or in the desirability of attempting to make people religious by Act of Parliament. His own opinion was that the day of rest should be used as a day of worship, that, in fact, without worship there could be no true rest, and he hoped by this Bill to give people an opportunity of so using the day. But there he stopped. He agreed that every man should use his Sunday in the way which he thought most beneficial to himself; but if a man misused the day be proposed to insure to him by lying on his back all day, or by drinking beer, that was his own affair; he would pity such a man, but not interfere with him by law. It was further objected that the clauses which gave the police power to enforce the law were left out of this Bill, and that therefore the provisions of the Bill could not be carried out. He could only say that he had taken the best evidence procurable upon the subject, and he had come to the conclusion that if in any district a number of persons were desirous to put the Bill in force there would be no difficulty in their doing so through the agency of the parish officers. He therefore thought that it would be better to leave out the police clauses, but if the House thought differently the matter could be arranged in Committee. He would now 581 say a few words as to the exceptions in the Bill. The House would see that by the Bill all goods were divided into three classes. There were certain articles, the sale of which was not permitted at all; there were certain perishable articles that might be sold up to nine o'clock in the morning. The hours could, of course, be considered in Committee, and fixed in accordance with the best judgment of hon. Members. Some thought the poor might like to lie in bed later than would allow of their making purchases before nine; but that objection did not come from the persons more immediately concerned; and there was a third class of cooked articles, the sale of which was permitted until ten o'clock, and again after church time. Considering that special legislation with respect to public-houses had been promised, his Bill did not affect them; it dealt only with ordinary tradesmen, and he believed the Home Secretary was in possession of evidence which clearly showed that the time had come for legislation both upon the part of the tradesmen and poor of the metropolis. If any hon. Member doubted whether the time had come he invited him to make a tour of the Sunday markets, which he was sure would convince him.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Thomas Hughes.)
§ MR. FRESHFIELDavowed himself to be entirely opposed to the principles and the provisions of the Bill, which was one in effect to repeal the Act of the 27th Charles II., which enacted that no tradesman, artificer, workman, or labourer should exercise his labour or ordinary calling upon the Lord's Day, except as regarded works of necessity or of charity. That Act had been passed when the country was not in an especially moral condition, and if it was found not sufficiently prohibitory, and if a Bill were introduced to enable it to be more easily and effectually enforced, he would support it. As it was, he thought it was a measure in an entirely wrong direction. The disposition evinced during the last few years was one rather to decrease than to increase Sunday labour; in proof of which he need only refer to the early closing of shops on the Saturday and the resolution adopted by trading establishments generally to pay their workmen's wages on Friday or early on Saturday morning. He was told that even Her Majesty had made arrangements by 582 which nothing was delivered at the Palace on Sunday. There might be grounds for special legislation in reference to the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but the whole law of the country ought not to be altered to meet a particular case. But he objected to this Bill further because he thought it was one which he might call a wolf in sheep's clothing. Its title was most equivocal. Characterized truly, he thought it might be called a Bill for the licensing of public trading on the Sunday. It began by reciting that the practice of Sunday trading prevailed extensively in many parts of England, and that the law was insufficient to prevent it. It would have been supposed from those words that it was intended to prevent Sunday trading. The whole tenor of the Bill was, on the contrary, to promote it. Its great force lay in the exceptions which authorized meat, fish, poultry, game, and vegetables to be freely sold up to nine o'clock in the morning. It further authorized the sale of pastry and fruit up to the hour of ten o'clock a.m., and after one o'clock p.m. on the Sunday. But the worst exception in his mind was the authority which it gave for the sale of periodical publications up to ten o'clock a.m. That was the most objectionable portion of the Bill. There could be no reason whatever for allowing what were called Sunday papers to be sold on the Sabbath, inasmuch as they could be all purchased on the Saturday night. He had received a great number of communications on the subject of this Bill, one of which was signed by upwards of 1,000 of his constituents at Dover, setting forth the strongest objections to this measure, one of which was that the Bill sanctioned the principle of doing evil that good might come—a principle than which there could be nothing more injurious or more adverse to the morals or well-being of society. The Bill had for its object to license that which was at present illegal. The nation, he believed, was desirous of keeping the Sunday holy; at all events, to take the lowest ground, it was desirous to preserve the observance of the Sabbath as a valuable civil institution. If the hon. Gentleman would devote his attention to rendering the existing law more efficient for its purposes, he (Mr. Freshfield) would be happy to go along with him; but he could not consent to a Bill to alter a law which he thought was desirable on social as well as on religious grounds, and of which he 583 trusted the House would not allow any infringement. Under all the circumstances of the case, and for the reasons he had given, he should move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Freshfield.)
§ MR. POWELLsaid, he considered this as one of those questions with which it was very difficult and embarrassing to deal. There were conflicting opinions as to the advisability of legislating upon this subject. For example, the Earl of Shaftesbury, speaking on behalf of the poorer class last year, expressed himself decidedly adverse to a proposal similar to that contained in the present Bill. On the other hand, in 1860, when a measure of the kind was introduced in the other House, the Earl of Derby supported the principle, remarking that it was a Bill not to compel a religious observance of the Sabbath, but to deliver a large number of tradesmen in this country from a species of slavery. The mischief, then, being admitted, the difficulty arose as to the proper remedy. The spirit and letter of the Act of Charles II. appeared comprehensive enough; but that law broke down in consequence of the inefficiency of the remedy proposed against its violation; it therefore stood on the statute book rather as a Royal Proclamation against vice and immorality, such as was read at assize courts and courts of quarter sessions, than as a law that could be practically carried out under all circumstances. He did not think there was much force in the objection that the exceptions in the proposed Bill were so numerous as to justify the assertion that it was a Bill to sanction Sunday trading, and he entertained the hope that by a slight alteration of the language of the preamble of the Bill, it would become obvious that the Bill was not intended to license but rather to restrict Sunday trading. As to the questions of detail, these could be satisfactorily solved when the Bill went into Committee. It appeared, however, to him, that nine o'clock a.m. was not a sufficiently late hour for the sale of perishable articles, and he was afraid it would be necessary to extend the time for the sale of certain articles of necessity. Reference had been made to the sale of periodicals on the Sunday; but he would remind the House of the sale of 584 Prayer Books, Bibles, tracts, and other works of devotion in the Sunday schools generally, so that any provision to prohibit the former might be made injuriously to apply to the latter also. He knew an estimable clergyman who complained that the religious services of his church were greatly interfered with by a kind of fair which was held every Sunday morning in the neighbourhood. The church referred to was in a parish of the borough represented by the hon. Member who moved the second reading. He doubted whether it would be possible to limit the Bill to the metropolis, for he believed the exceptions would be taken in the country districts as licensing a particular trade. There was undoubtedly abundant evidence of a remedy being required against such evils. He trusted that such improvements might be adopted in the measure when it went into Committee as to afford him the utmost satisfaction in supporting the third reading.
§ SIR BROOK BRIDGESsaid, as his name stood on the back of the Bill he was anxious to give his reason for supporting it. All were aware of the enormous evil existing in the desecration of the Sabbath by the hawking of goods through the metropolis on Sundays, and he was ready to give his support to a Bill which proposed to remedy that evil. This measure proposed to carry out two great principles—first, it directly declared against Sunday trading; secondly, it asserted that there were certain articles, and a certain period of time in respect to their sale, excepted from the operation of the Bill. The recognition of the first principle formed the reason for his supporting the second reading. As to the exceptions, he confessed they appeared to him to be too wide, and to run somewhat counter to the principle that works of piety, necessity, and charity only were to be sanctioned on the Sabbath. He thought, however, that no Bill could be acceptable that did not consider the difference between the rich and the poor. The rich had all the appliances to enable them to provide for their wants without encroaching upon the sacredness of the Sabbath. The poor, on the contrary, confined sometimes to the use of a single room, could not possibly provide themselves with the necessary food they required until Sunday morning. He thought, then, that it would be consistent with their notions of the proper observance of the Sabbath, that the poor man should be left at liberty to purchase his Sunday dinner on the Sabbath 585 morning; and it appeared to him that nine o'clock a.m. was not too late an hour to give him the opportunity of doing so. As to the sale of pastry, fruit, or beverages, his opinion, he honestly said, was that the sale of those goods should be limited to the Sunday morning, and should not be allowed to resume after one o'clock p.m. The ordinary business of the cook-shop ought to be limited to the same hour. In respect to the sale of periodical publications, there appeared to him to be no reason in the world for allowing it on the Sunday at all. With the modifications which he suggested, and which he hoped would be made in Committee, he thought that the Bill would become a most useful measure.
§ MR. EVANSsaid, he should vote for the second reading of the Bill, which, with some modifications, would tend, he believed, to put an end to a state of things in the metropolis that all must deplore. In one of the metropolitan boroughs two-thirds of the shops were opened on the Lord's Day. He would suggest to the hon. Gentleman who moved the second reading the propriety of considering carefully a provision respecting the duties of the police in relation to his measure.
§ MR. HORSFALLregretted that his hon. Friend (Sir Brook Bridges) should have lent the weight of his name to the Bill. He had no doubt the hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill had truly represented the state of feeling in the place he represented (Lambeth); but in the borough which he (Mr. Horsfall) represented (Liverpool), he had no hesitation in saying that nine-tenths of the population were opposed to the measure, because they considered it to be in direct opposition to its title—namely, a Bill to amend the law for the sale of goods on the Sunday. The Bill did not amend the law, but it made that legal which was now illegal. If the Bill had been confined to legislating upon works of piety, charity, and necessity, he would support it. There were laws in existence to meet every case alluded to by the hon. Member. The fact was this: what they required was a Bill to enable the constituted authorities to enforce the law as it stood at present. He therefore would support the Amendment that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, that the contents of the Bill hardly justified the reproaches which had been showered 586 upon it. The measure was not conceived in any spirit of dictation or self-righteousness; it was a simple response to the demands of thousands and tens of thousands of tradesmen in the metropolis, respectable fathers of families, who sought to be protected from the obligation, which competition at present imposed upon them, of keeping open their shops upon Sunday, and be thus enabled to enjoy his rest on the Sabbath and to look after the morals and welfare of his children and dependents. This was no attempt to enforce the religious observance of the Sabbath—it was simply a Bill to enable tradesmen to have that day for themselves, and to enable them to exercise their rights as free men without injury to their fortunes or industry. In spite of all their efforts to discourage Sunday trading in their respective neighbourhoods, these men found the evil growing in magnitude, and declared that there was no remedy except in legislation. It might be said, why did they not act upon their own convictions, and set the example of refusing to work? The answer was very simple. If one or two shops in a neighbourhood carried on business upon a Sunday, the rest were compelled to do the same, or else to risk the loss of their custom. Agreements had frequently been entered into by the trades-people of a district for self-protection, and as frequently broken through. Besides, even if they all held to their engagements, there was nothing to prevent a stranger from setting up in the district, which he would all the more readily do if he thought he saw an opening. It was easy for gentlemen possessed of all the comforts and luxuries of this life to criticize the conduct of unfortunate tradesmen who were compelled by circumstances to pursue their ordinary calling on the Sunday as well as the other days of the week. It was said that this Bill licensed Sunday trading. To establish that proposition it must be shown that it took away some protection or prohibition imposed by the existing law.
§ MR. FRESHFIELDobserved, that the exception contemplated by the Bill would in fact legalize the sale of those articles on Sunday.
LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, that if there were any words in the Bill capable of misapprehension they could be removed in Committee. The Bill was one of protection not of coercion and was founded on the recommendations of Committees of that House which sat in 1832 and 1847. The 587 House would not be legislating altogether in the dark upon this question, for they had before them the example of the great movement which had taken place in America. Ten years ago theatres and public concerts were permitted to be open on Sundays, and on Sundays there were always an enormous number of committals. At last the good sense of our cousins across the Atlantic revolted at these spectacles; in the face of opposition raised there as here by vested interests, and in spite of the sneers levelled at the notion of "making people religious by Act of Parliament," they persisted, Sunday trading was put down, and the result had been that, whereas formerly the Sunday committals averaged 25 per cent higher than on ordinary days, now the proportions were exactly the reverse. He was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Horsfall) oppose this Bill. The hon. Gentleman said that if it gave legality to works of piety, charity, and necessity he would support it. What did that observation mean except that the existing law was wholly insufficient for the purpose? The present Bill aimed not at accomplishing everything at once, but at moving in the right direction. There were some earnest advocates of Sunday observance, unfortunately, who pushed a good principle too far and thought that no movement was worth aiding, or taking part in, unless it went to the full extent of their own views. Last year in an extraordinary document issued by a working men's association in reference to the proposal of the present Lord Chancellor to limit the hours during which public-houses might be open on Sunday, it was said—"This paltry portion of the Sabbath his Lordship seems only to consider sacred." The effect of rejecting this moderate measure would be to shut the door against all further attempts at legislation. He implored the House not to disappoint the thousands of decent tradesmen to whom this measure of protection would be an invaluable boon.
§ MR. M'LARENsaid, be was opposed to this Bill irrespective of any prejudices of nationality; he thought the Bill vicious in principle and would be injurious in operation. His opinion was that by merely increasing the penalty imposed by the present law nearly all that was necessary might be done. A fine of 5s. was ridiculously small compared with the profits capable of being made by Sunday trading. No case had been made out for the exceptions, for there 588 was nobody who wanted either to kill animals, to catch fish, or to shoot game for his own eating on Sunday, and articles of food obtained the day before would keep as well in private houses or rooms as in the tradesmen's shop. He opposed the Bill, moreover, on the ground that public feeling was in favour of complete cessation from labour on the seventh day. The highest class of tradesmen totally abstained from Sunday trading, and those who engaged in it tacitly admitted that there was something disreputable in the practice. But if, in the shape of exceptions from the scope of an Act of Parliament, the pursuit of particular occupations on Sunday was legalized, the effect would be at once to render those occupations respectable, and would lead to their being largely followed.
§ MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, he agreed in the importance of putting an end to all unnecessary labour on the Lord's Day; but he could not help thinking that much of what had been addressed to the House on the second reading of the Bill should have been reserved for the Committee. The Bill was not intended to legalize anything which was at present illegal, and it did not interfere in the least with the present law. The Bill proposed to leave the law in its present state as to all exceptions; but it gave additional penalties and strength to that part of the law to which the exceptions did not apply. The Bill would not allow a licensed victualler to keep open his house during the hours of Divine service. He suggested, if any doubt existed on the point, that a proviso should be introduced in Committee limiting its operation to those articles which were necessary to be sold for the benefit of the poor only, and not articles of luxury for the rich. They should endeavour to relieve the poor from Sunday labour as much as possible.
§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsupported the Bill. The world without a Sunday would be like the sky without a sun, and the earth without a flower. They ought to do all they possibly could to relieve upwards of 80,000 persons alone in London and the suburbs from Sunday labour.
MR. GOLDSMIDhoped that as the law upon the point appeared to be somewhat lax the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Walpole) would state his views with regard to the measure.
§ MR. WALPOLEsaid, that in reference to the operation of this Bill he must say 589 he felt very little confidence in any legislation upon the subject of Sunday trading. At the same time, when the law was represented to be in such a state that it could not be enforced, and that traders who wished to have the benefit of the Sabbath, whether as a religious or civil institution, were deprived of that benefit by being forced to enter into a competition with other traders on Sunday, or else to have their business carried away from them, a strong case was made out for some action of the Legislature. In affording protection to traders so placed, the only course was to make more stringent provisions than those which were contained in the Act of Charles II. The Act of Charles II. was perfectly inefficacious in consequence of the difficulty of levying the penalties provided by it. He quite admitted that Sunday trading was carried on in this metropolis to an extent that was greatly detrimental to the fair trader; but there was this difficulty in dealing with the evil—that if the first section of the Bill was passed without exceptions, the effect would be to prohibit every kind of trading on Sunday, and that would be very detrimental to the poor, who would not have an opportunity of buying within a limited time on that day things which might be regarded as necessaries, and which they might not have been able to purchase on the other days of the week. If that were so, they might look on this Bill as containing two main principles—the first, that the prohibition of Sunday trading should be retained; the second, that there should be certain exceptions with the view of permitting poor people to purchase on Sunday, within certain hours, what they might not have been able to purchase on any other day. He had not asked the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown on the subject; but he entirely concurred with his right hon. Friend the Recorder for the City, that the provisions of the present Bill did not alter the statute of Charles II. That being so, it would become a matter of great importance when the Bill got into Committee to watch narrowly the nature of the exceptions proposed to be allowed. Some of those at present in the Bill could not, in his opinion, be retained. He did not think it had ever been intended by the majority of those who were in favour of the Bill that periodicals should be made an exception, He did not think if care were taken in drawing the various clauses that this Bill could be called one for the desecration of the Lord's day; on the contrary, 590 it might be termed one for its observance, He looked upon it as one which deserved the attention of the House, and which would create a material improvement of the law.
§ MR. CANDLISHthought that the operation of the Bill ought to be confined to the metropolis, and that it would have a relaxing and detrimental effect in the provinces. As an almost universal rule, shops were kept shut on Sunday in country towns; and, except perhaps in two or three of the largest provincial towns, the Bill would increase the evil which it professed to cure.
§ MR. THOMAS HUGHESbegged to remind the hon. Member that the operation of the Bill was confined to towns having upwards of 10,000 inhabitants.
§ MR. CANDLISHdid not think that that was a sufficient limitation. He believed that if it were not confined to the metropolis it would be the means of introducing Sunday trading into many places where it did not now exist. He doubted very much whether, with such a Bill in operation, any magistrate would convict for an infringement of the statute of Charles II. He should, however, have no objection to the measure if it were to be confined to the metropolis.
§ MR. BOWENhad intended to vote for the second reading when he entered the House; but, having read the clauses of the Bill, he must oppose it.
MR. HEADLAMsaid, he quite concurred with his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) that the Bill did not affect the prohibitory provisions of the statute of Charles II.; but he was, notwithstanding, of opinion that, although the Bill did not legalize anything now prohibited, the inference in favour of the legality of dealing in things prohibited on Sundays would be so strong after the passing of this Act, that the Act of Charles II. would be wholly inoperative. There was comparatively little Sunday trading in towns in the North of England, with the exception of one or two very large ones. He was therefore in favour of limiting the operation of the measure as much as possible.
§ MR. GRAHAMsaid, there were only two grounds upon which they were entitled to legislate upon this subject. One on the ground of religion, and the other, social expediency. On religious grounds the Bill was altogether indefensible. Government had no right to deal with questions of religious belief or practices on religious grounds, for to do so was to interfere with 591 liberty of conscience. There was no evidence that this measure was required on the ground of social necessity, or that it was required at all anywhere but in the metropolis; and unless it was confined to the metropolis he should vote against the second reading.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that the noble Lord (Lord Claud Hamilton) and others who had spoken on this subject, supported the Bill on the grounds which did not recommend the measure to him. The argument of the noble Lord was that there were thousands in this metropolis who were afraid of obeying God's commandments, lest by so doing they might suffer in pocket. If people were disposed to treat the commandments of God in that way they had no right to ask Parliament to strengthen their hands. He supported the Bill on the ground that the purchase of certain articles on Sunday was a necessity with many of the poor. But what was necessary for the poor might not be necessary for the rich. He wished the Bill had been drawn in a different manner, because in its present form it led to the belief that there was a desire to legalize that which had hitherto been held to be illegal. That ought not to be done; and when the Bill was in Committee he hoped they would be able to define what it was actually necessary to exempt. The statute of Charles II. was founded on sound principles, and a very few words in this Bill would place it on a similar footing, and so remove from the minds of many persons the impression that they did intend to legalize the sale of many of those things which were prohibited by the statute of Charles II. He was in favour of legalizing the sale on Sunday of such articles as might be necessary for those who could not purchase them on any other day; but he did not see why the operation of the Bill should be confined to towns of a certain size. If a thing was wrong in a small place it was wrong in a large place also. He hoped the Bill would be put into better shape in Committee; if not, it would be competent to the House to reject it.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEconsidered the Bill incomplete, but he should not object to its second reading, with the view of making it complete in Committee. The object of the statute of Charles II. was to except only such things as were actually necessary to be sold on Sundays, and it was desirable that the House in 592 this Bill should recite that Act. The Bill had been the subject of great controversy in the country; but with the view that the operation of the Bill would be confined to the metropolis, and the excepted articles being clearly defined, he should not oppose the second reading of the Bill.
§ MR. THOMAS HUGHES, in reply, said, he should be ready in Committee to accede to various alterations that had been suggested in the course of the debate. His object had been to frame a measure that would meet the requirements of the country, and if there was anything wrong in it he should be ready to remedy it. He would also consent to the Bill being limited to the metropolis, if it should be thought inexpedient to extend it to the provinces.
§ Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
§ Main Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill read a second time, and committed for Tuesday 4th June.