SECOND READING. (Hansard, 3 May 1866)

§ LORD CHELMSFORD
, in proceeding to move that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the petitions he had just presented were signed by not less than 10,000 persons, all of whom were specially 336 affected by the question, and who desired that Sunday trading should be prohibited by law, so that they might be enabled themselves to abstain from a violation of the Sabbath, to which they were at present driven in self-defence. For many years past, various attempts had been made to pass a measure for this object. In 1832, and again in 1847, a Committee of the House of Commons sat upon the subject, and in 1850 their Lordships also appointed a Committee to inquire into the whole subject. All of these Committees received a considerable amount of evidence, proving the extent to which Sunday trading was carried on, the utter inefflcacy of the law, and the necessity for fresh legislation. Various Bills, framed in accordance with the recommendations of these Committees, had been introduced to Parliament; but they had unfortunately all been unsuccessful. In 1850 a noble Earl on the cross-benches (Lord Harrowby) introduced a measure which was favourably reported on by a Select Committee and passed their Lordships' House; but it was so late in the Session before it reached the House of Commons that it fell through. The framer of that measure had assisted him to draw up the Bill he had introduced to their Lordships' notice, and he expected the noble Earl would cordially support him in his endeavours to get the Bill passed. In that year 1855 a noble Lord (Lord Ebury), who was then in the House of Commons, introduced a measure, which was read by that House the second time; but the people at that period grew much agitated upon the subject of Sunday observance—not, he believed, in consequence of the provisions of that Bill, but because the public-houses had been ordered to close at ten o'clock on Saturday by an Act of Parliament passed in the previous year—and so threatening was the appearance of the large numbers of the people gathered in the Parks at the time that at the request of the Government of the day his noble Friend was induced to withdraw the measure. In 1860 he himself introduced a similar Bill, and their Lordships' passed it; but it failed to pass the Commons. Considering that all these efforts had been made and failed, it might be very fairly asked why another attempt was made, and how he could hope to be successful now. But there were at the present time certain considerations which led him to hope that the present moment was peculiarly favourable for the attainment of his object. In the first 337 place, he believed there was a growing opinion abroad that the tradesmen who complained of the existing system were subjected to an intolerable grievance, and were entitled to the protection of the Legislature—and, in the next place, the work-people generally were released from labour earlier on Saturdays, and were paid their wages earlier in the day, than formerly—arrangements which obviated the necessity of making purchases on Sunday. He believed that much prejudice existed against legislating upon the subject; but that arose chiefly from the efforts made in former times by good and religious men, who caused a cry to be raised that it was useless to attempt to make people godly by Act of Parliament. This idea, perhaps, arose in the first instance from the provisions of the Act of Charles II., wherein it was ordered that— All and every person or persons shall on every Lord's Day apply themselves to the observance of the same, by exercising themselves therein in the duties of piety and true religion, public and private. Of course, the injunction failed to have any effect; and he desired that it should be expressly understood that his Bill should be looked upon as a measure of protection and not of coercion. He wished to leave it to the dictates of a man's own conscience as to how he should spend the Sunday; but he also desired to insure that he should not be bound to continue his work on that day, and thus lose the blessing—the inestimable blessing-—of a day of rest, and the opportunity of employing that day in a becoming manner. In the Reports of the Committees to which he had referred, abundance of evidence would be found as to the extent to which Sunday trading was carried on. The facts disclosed might almost be described as startling. Trading of every description went on, and it was computed that 10,000 shops in the metropolis were open every Sunday. Many of the public thoroughfares were thus crowded by noisy multitudes, and the decent and respectable portion of the community were annoyed on their way to church by the scenes exhibited—they were subjected to much inconvenience and sometimes to insult; and worse than this, the tradesmen who desired, for the sake of themselves, their families, and their servants, to enjoy the Sabbath as a day of thankful repose, were prevented, almost by necessity, and certainly from regard to their worldly in- 338 terests, from doing so, and compelled to join the throng of Sunday traders. The number of persons computed to be thus engaged was not less than 100,000. It might be said, if these tradesmen were so desirous to have Sunday as a day of rest, why did they not agree among themselves and close their shops? But the experiment had been tried over and over again, and it had invariably failed, because it was found that unless there was a unanimous agreement in a neighbourhood that every shop should be closed it was in the power of a very small minority to defeat the object of the majority, and to compel the latter in self-defence to keep their shops open. It was almost impossible for a man who was striving to obtain a livelihood and support his family to protect himself against the competition of trade and the dread of loss caused by closing his shop on Sunday. He wished to call their Lordships' attention to a letter written by a butcher in the New Cut, Lambeth, which put this part of the question in a very strong light. The writer said— My Lord,—I trust your Lordship will pardon the liberty I take in addressing you for the purpose of soliciting the favour of your Lordship's kind aid and support to the Bill now before Parliament in reference to Sunday trading. Permit me, my Lord, to state that I have carried on the business of a butcher in this locality for the last ten years, and have a wife and nine children entirely dependent on me for support. As nearly all the shops are open on Sunday, I am compelled to do the same. Were I to close while others are open, in all probability my business (in a neighbourhood like this) would be reduced one-half, and my family might be ruined. I find, however, that the system subjects me and my dependents to much unnecessary toil and degradation, and entirely prevents my giving that attention to the duties and responsibilities which I am sure your Lordship will feel devolve upon one having the care of so large a family. We are generally in business eighteen hours on Saturday, and from seven o'clock up to dinner time on Sunday, and I hardly need assure your Lordship that the whole of the afternoon and evening of Sunday is scarcely sufficient to recruit our exhausted energies. Many attempts have been made by the tradesmen themselves to close their shops by voluntary arrangement, but a very small minority have invariably defeated the object, and it is clear that nothing short of a legal enactment will cure the evil. There cannot, my Lord, be a shadow of doubt that not only the tradesmen and their assistants, but the labouring classes, would be greatly benefited by confining Sunday trading as much as possible to articles that are perishable, or those absolutely needed by the public on that day. Again apologizing for the liberty I have taken in thus addressing you, I beg most respectfully and urgently to intreat your Lordship's serious consideration of the subject 339 and your Lordship's powerful support to the Bill now before your Lordships' House. Another person who was engaged in the news trade, wrote the following letter:— My Lord,—I should not have troubled your Lordship on the present occasion, but seeing an account in to-day's papers of a deputation on Sunday trading waiting upon the Secretary of State, and the last words, as reported, of Sir George Grey are, 'that there must be a deal of opposition on the other side seeing there are so many shops open on the Sunday,' as much as to say, that all those Sunday traders would be opposed to the Bill But as one of those traders (in the news trade) I humbly submit that three parts of those traders are quite ready to close their shops if they could do so without offending their customers all the week. Now if the Government passed a Bill prohibiting trading on that day, the public could not blame any individual tradesman. I once tried the closing of my shop on the Sunday myself, and did close for six Sundays, but I found I lost half my trade all the week and I should soon have been ruined had I not opened it again on that day. My customers told me that they should deal with those that would; for I am sorry to say that the working classes, though they have their hall-holiday on Saturday, and all Sunday to themselves, are the last to wish others to rest on the Lord's Day. I have attended a number of meetings of the news trades, who number about 4,000 in London alone, and at each of those meetings I have put the question, whether they wished Sunday trading to be done away with, and I have always found the meetings unanimous in wishing to do away with it. I have not the slightest doubt, if the Bill is brought before Parliament this time, it will be carried without opposition; but I trust it will be a Bill entirely doing away with trading in newspapers on Sunday, and every other article that can he procured on Saturday. Having shown the desire that existed for the introduction of some such measure, the only remaining questions were the necessity for legislation, and whether the existing law was sufficient to prevent the evil. The Act of 29 Charles II. c. 7, imposed a penalty of 5s. upon every person who should Publicly cry, show forth, exhibit, or expose to sale any wares, merchandise, fruits, herbs, goods, or chattels whatsoever on the Lord's Day. By a somewhat extraordinary decision of the Courts, it was held that the only proof of exposing goods for sale was the actual sale of such articles. But the penalty of 5s., which might have been a considerable sum in the days of Charles II., was at present insufficient to insure the observance of the law; and as one penalty covered the trading on the whole of any given Sunday, a man who followed a lucrative business would cheerfully pay 5s. to be allowed to continue it, and many of the Sunday traders even professed their 340 readiness to pay six months' penalties in advance. He proposed by the present Bill to render the law more efficacious by increasing the penalty for the first offence to any sum between 5s. and 20s.; and after a conviction for the first offence, he proposed to exact cumulative penalties for every separate offence on each Sunday. He also proposed that the Bill should extend to the whole of England, and that the police should be required to enforce the law. These were the main provisions of his Bill. He anticipated two classes of objections. In the first place, there were persons who would not admit the necessity for allowing any kind of trading on Sundays, and who contended that the Lord's Day ought to be preserved strictly and exclusively for religious purposes. They would regard his Bill as giving a legislative sanction to Sunday trading. The Bill of 1860 was in some degree defeated by the action of the persons connected with the Association for the Religious Observance of the Lord's Day. They sent 13,000 circulars to the clergy and Dissenting ministers throughout England, and they stirred up an opposition to the Bill by a not very faithful representation of its character. But he would ask the members of this Association whether they could hope to enforce by law the strict and rigid observance of the Lord's Day. If not, why should they object to this Bill, which was at least a step in the right direction? He knew perfectly well by experience that there was not the slightest chance of his getting the Bill passed unless the exceptions which he should propose were embodied in the Bill; but he had reason to believe that if their Lordships passed the Bill in its integrity it would ultimately receive the sanction of the other House and become law. The other class of objectors to whom he alluded were those who thought that there ought to be no restrictions at all on the liberty of persons to employ the Sunday as they liked. To those persons his Bill would oppose no new restrictions whatever. Their objection ought to be, not that this Bill imposed restrictions, but that it would make the law effective to prevent that Sunday trading which they were desirous of carrying on. He had no intention whatever by the Bill to lay any restrictions upon the private observance of the Sunday; but what he would say to those persons was this—"If you publicly employ your Sun- 341 day in such a manner as to produce annoyance to others, and to promote social and moral evil, then it is the duty of Par-liament to step in and restrict you." These were the grounds upon which thousands and thousands of persons had thronged their Lordships' House and entreated that the inestimable blessing of a day of rest should be secured to them. Even as a civil institution it was impossible to overrate the inestimable value of the Sunday. Incessant toil on every day of the week, including the Lord's Day, not only tended to enfeeble both mind and body, but also to demoralize. Upon this subject he wished to call attention to the eloquent words of Lord Macaulay, who said— Rely on it, that intense labour beginning too early in life, continued too long every day, stunting the growth of the body, stunting the growth of the mind, leaving no time for healthful exercise, leaving no time for intellectual culture, must impair all those high qualities which have made our country great. On the other hand, a day of rest occurring every week, two or three hours of leisure exercised in innocent amusement or useful study every day must improve the whole man—physical, more], and intellectual. Even in a political point of view, therefore, he would earnestly ask their Lordships to pass this Bill. But he could not help anticipating better results from the measure if it became law. Besides giving that inestimable boon of the day's rest from incessant toil, it would prevent the evil example of Sunday traffic in those districts where that traffic was carried on; it would introduce a healthier state of feeling, and, he trusted, in the result, would make Sunday what he desired it to be, a day of thankful rest, of religious exercise, and of innocent and cheerful relaxation from toil.

LORD TEYNHAM
said, he congratulated the noble and learned Lord (Lord Chelmsford) on having introduced a measure in some respects less objectionable than one which he had some years ago succeeded in passing through their Lordships' House. The powers of the Bill to which he referred were to extend no further than the metropolitan districts; so that, had the Bill become law, there would have been one law of the Sabbath for London and another for the country—a principle altogether objectionable. England from some received the title of a Christian nation, and that they should have one law of the Sab- 342 bath for the metropolis and another for the provinces would be contrary to reason and religion. He, therefore, congratulated the noble and learned Lord that the present measure was to apply to the whole of England. Whether there was to be one law of the Sabbath for England, another for Scotland, and another for Ireland, he knew not; but so far as the Bill applied to the whole of England he was in accord with the noble and learned Lord. It had been stated by the noble and learned Lord that one reason why the law as it now stood was inoperative was the smallness of the fine, amounting to only 5s. for each offence. But perhaps their Lordships would allow him to remind them that just about the period when the noble and learned Lord introduced his last Bill an attempt was made by the police of Southampton to put in force the law as it now stands. There were five old persons keeping stalls in that town who were taken up and fined 5s. for the offence of selling on the Lord's Day; and if his memory did not fail him, in two or three of these cases the 5s. fine could not be recovered without a distraint. It might be true, as the noble and learned Lord stated, that there were persons in trade who were perfectly willing to pay 5s., and pay it in advance for twelve months, to be allowed to carry on their trade in peace. But what might be innocuous to a man in a good line of business might be ruin to a small greengrocer or a poor woman sitting at the corner of the streets keeping a stall to sell apples and oranges. Besides, according to the Bill the fine of 5s. on the poor woman might, at the discretion of the magistrate, be raised to 20s., and might be inflicted for every separate offence; and thus in the name of the religion of a God of love and of a Saviour who came to proclaim liberty to the captive their Lordships were asked to ruin a poor creature for this offence! If there were nothing else objectionable in the Bill than the accumulated penalty, it ought to be sufficient to induce their Lordships not to entertain the measure. But then it was proposed that there should be a tacit allowance of the sale of certain articles. Was it possible that their Lordships could in any way consent to an exemption of that kind unless as regarded matters of necessity on that day? As he understood the Bill—and the noble and learned Lord would correct him if he were wrong—it would permit selling in a shop while it prevented selling in a stall or with a basket in the 343 streets. One of the clauses of the Bill provided that it should not extend to the ordinary business of a coffeehouse or a cookshop between 10 a.m. and after 1 p.m. In London there were peripatetic coffee dealers who sold in the streets to travellers and to the poor; and if he did not misunderstand the Bill, these dealers would be acted on injuriously, while the keepers of coffeehouses would be held harmless. One of the strongest objections that a very large proportion of our fellow-subjects would make to the Bill is that while it continues the permission to sell innocuous things, there is no further limitation, which many would have expected and hoped for, to the selling of noxious things such as wines and strong drinks. Objecting as he did to the principle and to the details of the Bill, he moved that it be read a second time this day six months.

THE ABCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY
My Lords, having been appealed to, I think it is right I should say a few words upon this important Bill, and on the general question. We owe a debt of gratitude to the noble and learned Lord who has introduced the Bill, because, although I might take some exceptions to it, nevertheless I do feel that, if it be carried out, Sunday trading will be materially diminished, though not perhaps entirely prevented, and a number of persons who feel it to be a great grievance that they are driven in self-defence to violate the Sabbath will be permitted the peaceable enjoyment of that day of thankfulness and rest; for though it would be better, no doubt, to brave all the consequences of an adherence to the Divine command, it would, I fear, be too much to expect such heroic virtue from the mass of mankind. I have received deputations from persons of great respectability and from butchers doing large businesses in my own neighbourhood, who have entreated me to support the Bill, because it will protect them and give them the defence they require. Certainly it may be said that persons of high Christian principle would brave all consequences and would resolve, in spite of any loss they might sustain, to refrain from selling on the Sabbath Day. Nevertheless, there is much to be said in favour of the principle of this Bill. There may be some particulars in respect of which I should desire to see the 344 Bill altered in Committee; but I am so satisfied that it would materially promote the observance of the Sabbath by affording protection to a great number of persons that I must give my support to the second reading of the Bill.