§ Order for going into Committee (on Recommitment) read.
LORD TEYNHAMimplored their Lordships not to proceed with this cruel Bill, especially as, in his opinion, the existing law was sufficient for all proper purposes. Their Lordships should wait, and see how far public and private efforts could succeed in putting down needless Sunday trading, before they extended the stringency of the Act now in force. He held in his hand a petition from a person residing in Brick-lane, St. Luke's, which stated that this Bill contained many anomalous and inconsistent provisions, which if carried into effect would operate with great hardship and oppression upon thousands of small shopkeepers, and was likely to cause great dissatisfaction. He would also call their Lordships' attention to some evidence which had been taken upon this subject before the Committee of their Lordships' House on Sunday Trading in 1850. A gentleman who had been examined stated that he was associated with some gentlemen who earnestly desired to get rid of the abuse of Sunday trading, but they found that they could not enforce the law of Charles II. because their hearts gave way in consequence of the amount of misery consequent upon the levying of fines. He recommended that they should not apply for an Act, nor try to bring the cases within the existing law, but that they should set about discouraging Sunday trading in other ways. Another gentleman connected with the Society stated that Bartholomew fair had been put down not by an Act of Parliament but by the Lord Mayor and other civic authorities discouraging it. The witness stated that by a report which he presented to the Corporation, he induced the Lord Mayor not to go in state to open the 1193 fair, and not to let ground for booths, wild-beast shows, and other exhibitions, and that when he (witness) went there in 1850 there were scarcely more persons congregated than on ordinary days. Sir Richard Mayne, the Commissioner of Police, who was also examined before their Lordships' Committee said that Sunday trading in the Metropolis was decreasing, and in some of the poorest districts, and this lie attributed to the increasing morality of the people. He also said that the working classes had associated themselves together for the purpose of inducing their employers to pay their wages on Friday, or at an earlier hour on Saturday, and that in some instances they had accomplished that object; and he thought it would Le better to postpone legislation until the success of these and similar efforts had been fully ascertained. The witness further added that there were many poor persons who did not know on Sunday morning what they would be able to get to eat on Sunday night, and that it would be manifestly hard upon them, in the event of their getting money for food, to prevent their purchasing it because it was Sunday. Looking to the great improvement which had taken place, it would be better, the same officer added, to leave the stricter observance of the day solely to the influence of public feeling, believing that compulsion was more likely to aggravate the evil. He (Lord Teynham), in conclusion, expressed his own conviction that if proper efforts were made a great deal of the unnecessary Sunday trading would cease, but that this result should be brought about by voluntary means, and not by the high hand of the law.
§ LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, that on a former occasion the principle of the Bill was fully discussed, and upon a division, at the instance of the noble Lord, was adopted by a majority. Under these circumstances, he felt he ought to do no more on the present occasion than move that the House should resolve itself into Committee.
§ House in Committee.
§ Clause 1 (Penalties for selling, offering, or exposing for Sale).
§ On the suggestion of Lord PORTMAN the clause was altered so as to render the offender liable to conviction "before a police magistrate or any two justices of the peace."
LORD TEYNHAMobjected to the clause on several grounds. The noble and learned Lord appeared to have but an imperfect 1194 knowledge of his own Bill. The clause permitted the sale of fish, meat, fruit, and poultry on Sundays under certain restrictions; but it did not permit the sale of vegetables at all. Now, if the Bill omitted from its list of exceptions any article which was material for supplying the necessities of the people on Sunday the want of such article must be endured by them until Parliament met again. There were hundreds of thousands of horses and cows kept in an unnatural state in London, and those animals wanted great attention; but to sell any article of food necessary for these animals on a Sunday would be criminal under this Bill. Another objection was that the Bill was confined to the Metropolitan districts, the City of London, and the liberties thereof; whilst they had evidence that this objectionable trading was carried on in Liverpool, Birmingham, and other places. He believed that it was a sound principle of legislation that, as far as possible, they should legislate for the whole country, and not pass a law for this or that town, when the facts were exactly the same in other places. This objection was more particularly forcible when the matter in hand was connected with the law of God; for then it was essential that the people should not be told that it was wrong to buy vegetables in London on Sunday, but that it was not wrong to do the same thing in Liverpool or Birmingham. There was one further objection to the clause; and that was the fine was to be any sum not exceeding 20s., nor less than 5s. He would remind their Lordships that in the Report to the other House of Parliament it appeared that out of four cases adjudicated on at Southampton it, was necessary in two of them to levy distress warrants to enforce 5s. penalties. The clause would bear upon the poorest of the poor in London, and in nine cases out of ten of fines it would be necessary to issue distress warrants to seize the humble goods of these people. On these grounds he would, with all his heart, say "not content" to this clause.
§ LORD CHELMSFORDthought the noble Lord had hardly dealt fairly with him, for he seemed to attribute to him a desire to oppress the poor trader. He (Lord Chelmsford) had endeavoured to explain to their Lordships when he moved the second reading that it was a Bill, not of restraint and oppression, but a Bill of liberty, enabling persons who were compelled to trade on Sunday contrary to their inclinations to have the opportunity of observing that day 1195 properly, by compelling their neighbours to refrain from trading on that day—a course which was no more than they ought to adopt without any compulsion of law. It had not escaped his mind that it might be wrong not to except vegetables; but the answer made to him was that if he did give way in reference to that exception the grocers would require a similar exception in their favour. The noble Lord had not experienced the difficulty that there was in dealing with the various interests to be affected by the Bill. The noble Lord complained that this Bill applied only to the Metropolis. But he could state that in all the great towns, with the exception of Birmingham, there was no Sunday trading to any extent, as the Act of Charles II. was found quite sufficient in other places to suppress it. Sunday trading therefore being mainly confined to the Metropolis, which thus offered a had example to the provincial cities, that was a reason why legislation should, at first at all events, be confined to the district where the evil was most rife and a remedy most demanded. He hoped no heat or animosity would be engendered by a Bill which he had introduced with no other view than to relieve the thousands of tradesmen, who had petitioned in its favour, and which would enable them to employ their Sundays in a way consonant with their wishes. If it were the pleasure of the Committee he should not have the least objection to except vegetables from the operation of the Act; but he had been informed that if he did so it would give rise to other claims for exemption.
§ EARL GRANVILLEcould not understand why the Metropolis should be subjected to two different, and not always consistent laws on Sunday trading, while all the rest of the country was only under one law. He was also at a loss to understand how it happened that the Act of Charles II. was not sufficient to put down Sunday trading in London, while it was found quite sufficient in all the rest of England.
§ LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, a noble and learned Lord behind him had suggested a Clause to Repeal the Act of Charles II., so far as the Metropolis was concerned. With regard to Birmingham, he was happy to state, on the authority of a magistrate there, that the number of shops opened on Sunday in that town had been reduced from 400 or 500 shops to not more than forty. This was done under the provisions 1196 of Charles II.'s Act; but it was obvious that this Act could be more easily enforced in provincial towns than in large and populous towns like the Metropolis, where the traders defied the law.
LORD TEYNHAMobserved that, considering the number of people who in London derived a livelihood from selling and hawking on Sundays, there would, in certain poor localities, be not a house, and hardly a room, in which there would not be a distress warrant for the recovery of penalties inflicted by this Act.
§ THE EARL OF ST. GERMANSwas at a loss to know how the same reformation could not be wrought in London, as there appeared to have been wrought in Birmingham, and which appeared to be due either to a strict enforcement of Charles II.'s Act, or to the force of public opinion.
§ LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, that public opinion had, no doubt, operated in certain provincial towns to check Sunday trading; but in London no public opinion on the subject existed.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 2 (Penalties for delivering Meat, Fish, and Poultry).
§ THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, there was an inconsistency in this clause, when referred to the Clause of Exceptions. It appeared that a Christian could not buy meat after 9 o'clock on Sunday morning, while a Jew was allowed to buy it up to 10 o'clock. He wanted an explanation of the difference of this treatment between Jews and Christians.
§ LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, the explanation was very simple. The Jews used only that meat that was killed by persons of their own persuasion. As those persons could not kill the meat on their Sabbath, and as the Jews who bought it lived, many of them, in quite a different part of the town from those who sold it, representations had been made to him, by most respectable persons of the Jewish persuasion, that if the time for buying the meat was restricted to 9 o'clock in the morning, it would be simply impossible for them to buy it at all. They had suggested that the time should be extended to 11 o'clock; but he thought that was too late; and, as a compromise, he proposed 10 o'clock.
§ THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, it appeared, then, that more consideration was shown to the convenience of the rich Jew than to the poor Christian. The hour was extended to suit the Jew; but a working man who had but one room for all pur- 1197 poses, must either buy his meat on the Saturday night, and keep it all night in his one hot and crowded room, among the tools he worked with, and the rags he wore; or he must rise at an early hour on the Sunday morning, and buy it before 9 in the morning, or they must go without food for the day. Besides, it appeared that a gentleman was allowed to buy a newspaper up to 10 o'clock; why should a poor man be forced to buy his meat before 9? Surely a rich man could want his newspaper better than the poor man could want his dinner? He thought this was an unfortunate Bill; and the most unfortunate thing about it was, that it emanated from their Lordships' House.
THE EARL OF EGLINTONthought that the maintenance of a difference in the hours would have the appearance of being harsh, and would be found inconvenient if the Bill should pass. He believed it would be better to fix the hour for all things at 10 o'clock.
§ LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, if their Lordships wore in favour of uniformity, he would rather fix the limit at 9 than 10, which he thought would be too near the hours of Morning Service.
§ Amendment made; the word "ten" inserted instead of "nine."
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 3 (Provisions as to distinct and separate Offences).
LORD TEYNHAMsaid, he objected to the amount of the penalties that might be inflicted under this and the following clause; such an accumulation of fines would ruin thousands of persons selling on a Sunday.
§ LORD CHELMSFORDobserved, that the persons alluded to could prevent their ruin by abstaining from an infraction of the Act.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 4 (Provisions as to distinct and separate offences).
LORD WODEHOUSEasked what was the object of putting down the street cries of oranges, &c. which were still permitted to be sold.
§ LORD CHELMSFORDThe reason was, that there were a great many people in London who reverenced the Sabbath, and that in many parts of the town these cries were felt to be an intolerable nuisance.
LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, he hoped he might be included in the number of those who respected the Sabbath; but what he 1198 wanted to know was, when they allowed the sale of these articles, why they prevented the cries?
THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEsaid, perhaps, he might give the result of his fifteen years' experience as a clergyman in London on this subject. He could assure their Lordships that those cries were a great nuisance in the neighbourhood of churches; and he had often been obliged, during the administration of the Lord's Supper, to send out the officer to put a stop to the cries in his neighbourhood.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause inserted, providing that the term of imprisonment for the first offence, in case of the nonpayment of the fine, should not exceed one calendar month.
§ Clause 6 (certain cases to which this Act does not apply),
LORD WODEHOUSEsuggested that tobacco should be allowed to be sold on Sunday. A pipe of good tobacco was a wholesome refreshment to a poor man.
§ LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, that tobacco was just one of those articles which a man might easily procure on Saturday.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYfeared there would be great difficulty in dealing with certain branches of Sunday trading. If they permitted newspapers, for instance, how were they to deal with periodicals?
§ LORD CHELMSFORDdefended the exemption. It had been his desire to steer a middle course between those who thought that no Sunday trading should be allowed at all and those who objected to any interference with it.
§ LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, the original Bill had given the police authority to seize articles exposed for sale; but, in conformity with the suggestions of noble Lords who thought that that would be a dangerous power, he had now much modified the measure. If those who wished to enforce the observance of Sunday (whom he believed to be a majority of the retail traders of the Metropolis) requested the police to lay an information, it would be their duty to do so.
THE LORD CHANCELLORthought the clause as it stood would not prove objectionable. From the numerous petitions he had presented, he inferred that there were hundreds and hundreds of very respectable persons who were most anxious 1199 to keep the Lord's Day, but who found it impossible so long as rival tradesmen refused to close their shops.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
§ Clause 9 (Appropriation of Penalties),
§ LORD CRANWORTHproposed the addition of words to repeal the penalties of the statute of Charles II., as far as regards all offences prohibited by the present Bill.
§ After a few words from Lords WODE-HOUSE and BELPER,
§ LORD CRANWORTHwithdrew the Amendment, stating his intention to bring it up on the Report, which was fixed for Tuesday next.
LORD TEYNHAMgave notice that on the third reading he should take the sense of the House by moving an Amendment against the Bill.
§ Other Amendments made.
§ The Report to be received on Tuesday, the 22nd instant.