[BILL 5.] COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 9 June 1869)

§ MR. RYLANDS

said, this announcement furnished additional evidence that the Bill had been brought forward without due consideration. He therefore appealed to the hon. Gentleman not to press the Bill forward in the present Session. The measure was neither satisfactory to those who held extreme views as to the propriety of a rigid observance of the Sabbath, nor to those who entertain an opposite opinion. It must also be remembered that there was already on the statute book an important Act of Parliament bearing upon this subject. The 29 Charles II., c. 7, "an Act for the better observance of the Lord's Day, commonly called Sunday," was still in operation. It was said the Act of Charles H. had failed because it inflicted too small a penalty; but if a small penalty could not be levied, was it likely that a large penalty would he could not suppose for a moment that the House would sanction the excessive penalties proposed in the Bill. As he had said on a former occasion that under 1491 this Dill a poor orange girl, for a second offence, would be liable to a minimum penalty of £20 for selling twenty oranges, and he did not think such a provision was calculated to induce the House to prefer the Bill of the hon. Member to the Act of Charles II. But the fact was that the Act of Charles II. was sufficiently severe in its penalties, as in addition to the fine of 5s. it rendered the hawkers of goods liable to forfeit the whole of their commodities. He again asked why was not this Act enforced? and until that was satisfactorily explained he contended that the hon. Member had shown no justification for the introduction of his measure. But the hon. Member proposed to leave the Act of Charles II. in full operation, whilst he added to it new and inconsistent enactments, the effect of which would be that if this Bill were passed magistrates would be embarrassed in the performance of their duties to decide under which law they were to act. They were now told that the Bill was simply to apply to the metropolis, but as originally drawn up it extended throughout the country, although the hon. Member carefully exempted his own constituents at Frome from its operation. The Committee would see by the 9th clause it was provided that it should not apply to any city, town, or hamlet, containing less than 10,000 persons, and Frome, by a fortunate accident, happens to have only 9,500. It would seem, therefore, that in the mind of the hon. Gentleman the character of an Act in relation to public morality and legal restrictions depended upon a mere question of numbers, and that while the selling of an orange upon a Sunday would be perfectly legitimate in a population of 9,999, it would become a serious crime and misdemeanour punishable with heavy penalties if committed in a population consisting of a single additional soul. The numerous Amendments of which notice had been put on the Paper showed that the Bill had not been very carefully prepared. Some were intended to improve its grammar, and others to exempt the constituencies of the movers from its operation. One hon. Member (Mr. Candlish) proposed to restrict the Bill to the metropolitan districts, while another (Mr. Taylor) proposed to exempt the metropolitan districts. The end seemed likely to be 1492 that the Bill would be improved in its grammatical construction, and at the same time improved out of existence by its operation being applied to no portion of the kingdom. Under these circumstances he thought he was justified in opposing the further progress of the Bill, and would move that the Chairman do now leave the Chair.