"squatters" had settled themselves upon | pauper in Scotland had greater facilities for property in the parish of Glenelg without compelling relief than in England, for if it paying any rent. It was intimated to was refused to him he might appeal to the them that if they would remove they Board of Supervision, who, if the parochial should be provided with a free passage authorities still persisted in their refusal, to Canada, and that no demand would gave him the power of bringing his case bebe made upon them for their arrears of fore a legal tribunal without any expense, rent, amounting to about 1,500l. A num- whereas in England no such power was ber of families, amounting to about 400 given, and Sir John M'Neill in his Report persons, accepted this very liberal pro- had stated that from May, 1853, to May, posal, and their passage, clothing, bedding, 1854, not a single pauper residing in &c., were provided at a cost of 1,7007. Glenelg had complained that the relief Four or five families were unable to go, granted was inadequate. He had also and these were not ejected. Some, how-stated that the rapid increase of pauperever, refused to embark, and continued to ism, from one in seventy of the population occupy the houses which they had been to one in fifteen of the whole parish, and summoned to vacate. Against these legal to one in ten in Knoydart, while the proproceedings were resorted to, and their portion in Ireland was reduced to one in houses were pulled down, but they were ninety-one, would alone have been strong allowed to retain their cattle, crops, and presumptive evidence that both in its other property, and no demand was made amount and in its form the relief affordupon any of them for rent, except in one ed to the poor was too attractive to the instance. These were the parties whose labourer. The amount of poor relief in case the hon. Member for St. Andrew's that parish, according to Sir John M'Neill's had brought before the House as a griev- Report was 11 per cent on the actual ance. The charge of harshness and cruelty rental, and 7s. 43d. per head upon its on the part of Mr. Ewing Campbell, the present population. It must be rememinspector, towards the poor of the parish of bered, too, that many of those who had to Glenelg was completely met by the testi- pay the rate were, as respected their conmony of the Rev. Mr. Macrae, the minis-dition in life, raised but little above the ter of the parish, of Mr. Macleod, and other witnesses who were examined by Sir John M'Neill. The Rev. Mr. Macrae was asked what was his opinion of the manner in which Mr. Campbell performed his duties, and his answer was, that he considered he had performed them faithfully, diligently, and humanely, and he believed that the parochial board had on more than one occasion expressed their high approbation of his conduct. He had no reason to believe that Mr. Campbell had at any time wilfully misrepresented the circumstances of a pauper to the parochial board. Mr. Macleod said he considered Mr. Campbell to have performed his duty in a humane manner towards the poor, and he believed that the people thought so too. The whole evidence went to show that the inspector did his duty not only to the poor and to the ratepayers, but also to the parochial board. It was his opinion that his hon. Friend had taken up this question without that examination which it deserved. He could wish that his hon. Friend would not press his measure to a division until every Member had had an opportunity of reading the last annual Report of the Board of Supervision for the relief of the poor in Scotland. The persons receiving relief. All these circumstances led to the conclusion that the poor were not either harshly or unjustly treated, as had been alleged; and, feeling that reflections had been made upon a gentleman of high honour and integrity, whose character had been unjustly assailed he thought it his duty to take the present opportunity of making these remarks in that gentleman's vindication. MR. DUNLOP said, he was satisfied that Sir John M'Neill was correct in stating that great difficulty existed from the peculiar circumstances of the country, but, with respect to the statement that the rate of relief given to the poor, varying from 1s. to 1s. 6d. a week, offered great inducements to the labouring class to embrace a life of pauperism; the truth was, that the able-bodied men were not entitled to that relief, and in the case of the parish of Glenelg it related to poor people whose ages varied from fifty to one hundred years, the average being seventysix. The Report of the sheriff showed, however, the necessity of some further inspection, and the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate referred to the power in the Act of Parliament to cause an inspection from time to time. But that inspec tion only lasted forty days, and the remedy required was, as had been pointed out, a constant superintendence, like that which existed in England. What was wanted in the Highlands was, that the people should feel confident that they enjoyed the rights which the law gave them. In former days they had been ruled by the lairds, without much regard for the law, and a feeling had grown up that they could get no redress for any wrong. He was very anxious that justice should be done to the poor and infirm, for if scenes like those reported to have taken place were allowed to go on, a strong feeling of indignation would be raised in England, which would lead public opinion to insist upon some change, and this change might be carried further than the people of Scotland desired. MR. E. ELLICE said, that after the assurance which had been given by the Government with reference to the subject with which his Bill proposed to deal, he had no difficulty in at once consenting to withdraw it. Motion, by leave, withdrawn ;-Bill withdrawn. SUNDAY TRADING (METROPOLIS) BILL. Order for Second Reading read. MR. WILKINSON said, that although he should be glad to see the Sabbath kept as a day of religious observance, yet he doubted whether it was desirable that the enforcement of that observance should be made the object of legislative enactment. He would suggest that the Bill had better be referred to a Select Committee, when he would then be able to judge of its merits, and give his vote accordingly. Looking at the question in a religious point of view, he contended that the Bill was not consistent with the principle upon which it had been framed, inasmuch as it admitted of certain exceptions both of time and place, with respect to the legal prosecution of Sunday trading. It would be lawful, for instance, under the operation of the Bill, to sell certain articles after one o'clock upon the Sabbath, but not before, while cream and milk might be sold even before nine o'clock. Now, surely, if it were a desecration of the Sabbath to sell certain articles at one particular hour on Sunday, it was equally a desecration of it to sell them at any other hour of the same day. Several attempts had been made to carry into effect the system of legislation which the Bill before them had for its object, but the framers of former measures 1 had failed to obtain for them the sanction of the Legislature, in consequence of the difficulties by which the question was beset. For his own part, he could not help thinking that if they were to agree to the passing of the Bill, they would to a certain extent be legislating against the poorer and in favour of the more independent class of traders. VISCOUNT EBRINGTON said, he should support the measure, mainly on religious grounds, though he was quite prepared also to advocate it on the lower grounds of expediency and political economy. They had been told by Mr. Bianconi that horses which rested on Sundays did more work in six days than others did in seven, and he maintained that the repose of the Sabbath was necessary both for man and beast. The petitions in favour of the Bill were mainly signed by those who were suffering under the operation of the present state of things, which led to unfair competition between tradesmen, and to injurious treatment of workmen. He must deny that the shopkeepers would be injured by the Bill, as the goods which could not be purchased on Sunday would be purchased on another day in the week, and the shopkeepers would have the day to devote to religion or to recreation, and their receipts would not be diminished. Looking at the question in an economical point of view, he was prepared to contend that labourers would produce more in six days' labour, having the seventh for rest, than they would were they to work on all seven days, and their wages would be in proportion. He thought, therefore, that on religious grounds, on grounds of expediency as well as of political economy, it was necessary that some such measure as this should be passed, and though there certainly were some things with which they might in consistency be called on to deal, but which this measure did not touch, he thought on the whole the Bill was a good and would be a beneficial one. vinced that it was a proper object of legislation to obtain the solemn and decent observance of the Lord's day, and also to see that every man in the community possessed the enjoyment of that day of rest which had been mercifully given to him. That opinion of the Committee there could be no doubt was a sound one, and he was rejoiced that a measure had been brought forward which would give effect to that opinion; and he hoped it would receive the positive sanction of the House. He trusted it would result in relieving one class of tradesmen from the bondage which they endured from the competition of other tradesmen who kept open their shops on Sundays, and also for relieving the servants of tradesmen from labour on Sundays. He regretted that the Bill, which was likely to be so useful, passed over the sale of spirits and beer. The sale of fish, game, and other things was prohibited; but for reasons which were well known he supposed the noble Lord was not able to touch the sale of spirits and beer. When it was known that from six to ten on Sundays the public-houses were filled with persons carousing, and reducing themselves to the level of beasts, he could not conceive a subject more cognate to the present, nor more deserving the attention of Parliament. SIR GEORGE GREY said, he had understood the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Wilkinson) to be willing that the Bill should go before a Select Committee, and that he would take the sense of the House upon it when he saw the shape in which it came out of the Committee. Under these circumstances, it seemed hardly necessary to protract the discussion. The hon. Member for Lambeth had appealed to the Government, but the Government were quite ready to support the second reading of the Bill. He was not sure that the measure would accomplish all that was expected from it, but he should be very glad if it had the effect of enabling them to enforce the present law, for it should be remembered that this was no new principle. The existing law, however, contained defects, particularly as regarded the difficulty in enforcing penalties, which made it practically inoperative. He regarded the present measure, not as one to force upon the inhabitants of the metropolis the religious observance of the Sabbath, but it was one which would consult the general convenience of the inhabitants, while at the same time it would correct a great and crying evil. He believed the principle was in accordance with the wishes of the great majority of the tradesmen of the metropolis, and, under the circumstances, further discussion, he thought, had better be reserved for a future stage of the Bill. MR. T. DUNCOMBE said, he wished to inquire whether he was to understand that the Bill was to go to a Select Committee? According to precedent, all Bills of this nature went to a Select Committee before they were brought before a Committee of the whole House; and if this Bill was to go to a Select Committee, it would he hardly worth while to discuss its provisions now. He would, therefore, ask, what did the Government intend to do with regard to sending it to a Select Committee? All the Bills on this subject that brought in by his hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Hindley), one which came down from the Lords, and one brought in by the hon. Member for Lambeth in 1851-were all sent to a Select Committee, and all fell to the ground. That had been the case with all the Bills of this kind which had been introduced. He did not distrust the intentions of the noble Lord (Lord R. Grosvenor), but he had undertaken to deal with a delicate and difficult subject. He (Mr. Duncombe) had not had a deputation of barbers, like the noble Lord, but he had had deputations from the working classes, and he knew that they had no desire to desecrate the Sabbath-they had no desire to make purchases on Sunday morning, but their necessities required it. He thought that on inquiry it would be found that there must be a great many changes in our social arrangements before you could legislate on this subject. In the first place, there was the question of paying wages on Saturday evening. It was said that some employers paid wages at an early hour; but it should be recollected that a great deal of the work done in the metropolis was piece-work, and a working man who took home his work on a Saturday evening, though he might find his wages ready, yet had to wait to get his next week's work given to him, and it was often past twelve o'clock before he got not only his wages, but his work; and how was he at that late hour to lay in his meals for the following day? Again a great many contracts were made with workmen by builders who took them into the country on Monday morning and brought them back late on the Saturday evening. How could having been largely connected with the working men in the metropolis receiving wages, and having had some experience of them, he could say that there was no class better able to judge of their own interest; and as regarded the value of a day of rest to them, he was convinced that if they were referred to it would be found that they would claim their right to that advantage. The intelligence of that class was not to be measured by the wages they received, and they were entitled to retain a privilege which had been sanctioned by a higher legislative power than that House, and which had declared that there should be a day of rest and a cessation from the ordinary labours of life. these men manage to make their purchases on the Saturday night? He was told that working men went to the public-houses on Saturday and spent their wages in getting drunk, but it was no such thing, for they had not time to do so after they got their wages. Another change must be made before you could legislate on this subject with effect: you must improve the dwellings of the poorer classes. What was the use of a man in this town, who often lived with his family and five or six others in one room, bringing in meat or other articles on Saturday evening; they would be putrid before the night was half over. You must, therefore, in the first place, give those classes better dwellings. It was all very well for those who had lar- SIR JOHN SHELLEY said that the ders and cellars to say that those persons hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Dunshould make their purchases on Saturday combe's) account of the result of sending night. He was told that many tradesmen Bills of this kind to a Select Committee themselves were anxious that there should was not very encouraging, and after the be a law against trading on Sunday, and fate of these Bills he was unwilling to send that the very circumstance of their trad- this to a Committee upstairs-especially ing themselves did violence to their con- as the clauses of the Bill were very few, sciences. But no one was compelled to do and such as he considered the House could so, and the conscientious man should suffer make practicable. When his noble friend for conscience sake. What was it that introduced the Bill he (Sir J. Shelley) compelled them? Why, they said that if said that he was favourable to the principle they did not, their neighbours would profit of the Bill, but he could not pledge himby it; and they were not the sort of con- self to all the details of a Bill which he scientious men that were worthy the atten- had not seen. There were some points in tion of the House of Commons. But he the Bill which he thought objectionable; might be asked, what ought to be done? still he thought it was not a Bill which He was told that the trading on Sunday was for the benefit of tradesmen only, but afternoon was disgraceful, and ought to be one for the promotion of the comfort of put down; but that was a mere question of the working classes, and he was glad police. They had had many Bills on this therefore that it had been introduced. question-such, for instance, as Sir An- There was a growing feeling that there drew Agnew's Bill; but the only successful should be greater opportunities for relaxalawgiver on this subject was Charles II., tion afforded to the working classes. but those laws were not sufficiently strin- never believed that you could make people gent for the present time. He would have religious by Act of Parliament; but the one law for the whole country, for why rest of Sunday was the greatest he himself should a measure be confined to the me- knew, and he wished to see it enjoyed by tropolis? Why should Birmingham and the working man. He hoped the noble Lord Liverpool, and other large towns, be ex- (Lord R. Grosvenor) would not send the empt? There should be one law, which Bill to a Select Committee There was a should declare that there should be no prejudice out of doors against Bills of this Sunday trading after half-past ten in the kind, but all the former Bills on the submorning of any sort or kind, and it should ject were impracticable from their very be applicable to rich and poor. That nature. He thought, however, that this would be legislation with regard to the Sabbath worthy of the attention of the House, but such little things as the sale of milk, eggs, and fruits, which they were going to discuss, were unworthy of that assembly; but they should enact one general law for all classes of the community. MR. JAMES MACGREGOR said, that He would be a practicable measure. He could only say that if any one doubted the state of trading in the metropolis on Sunday let him go to Clare Market, a part of his constituency, and he would find that it was carried on all day; and much to their credit he had that evening presented a petition in favour of the Bill signed by all the butchers in that locality with one or two exceptions. He therefore hoped the House would give their assent to the second reading. MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERS said, that this had always been found to be a very difficult subject for legislation, but the reason why other measures had failed was because they had gone too far. His hon. Friend the member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) was mistaken in supposing that this Bill was unfavourable to the working classes; and as to the necessity of making other changes before such a measure was passed, he thought such a Bill would rather force masters to pay wages earlier, as it would be urged on them to do so to enable their workmen to go to market on the Saturday, whereas now they did not mind detaining them late on the Saturday, because they could go to market from eight till one o'clock on Sunday. As to the lower class of tradesmen, they had presented many petitions in favour of the Bill; and he had laid some stress on one petition, which came from the New Cut, in Lambeth, because it had been said on a former occasion that the tradesmen in that locality could not do their business if such a Bill passed. He would support a measure which would enable all persons better to observe the Sabbath. posed of the class of men just described by his hon. Friend (Mr. Hadfield), who were practically acquainted with the inconveniences suffered by working men, and how they should be remedied. The principle of the Bill was somewhat different to that which it had been described to be by some gentlemen, who seemed to think it was based on the religious ground of the observance of the Lord's-day. But, in fact, it only went to the question of trading, and had nothing to do with that species of work, and especially of household service, to which the commandment applied. It was curious that the Bill came to the House recommended by its supporters on the ground that it was not in conformity with public opinion. It was said that a number of tradesmen were obliged to open their shops on Sunday, or their customers would abandon them; but if the public feeling were in favour of the principle, it would be more likely that such conscientious persons would obtain customers. the Bill were founded merely on the wants or the consciences of society, it ought to be rendered more comprehensive, and applied to the whole country as well as to the metropolis, and not only to butchers and bakers, but to many things much more important. After the recommendation of the Committee on public-houses last year, he should have thought that no Bill should have been brought in on this subject which did not extend to the question of the en If MR. J. G. PHILLIMORE said, that no answer had been given to the objection of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T.joyments of the people, as well as restricDuncombe), that this was merely a local Bill; and he was of opinion that nothing could be more injurious than legislating for particular places. He thought that the 9th clause, which gave large powers to the police for enforcing the law, would lead to great oppression if it passed as it stood. MR. HADFIELD said, he hoped, if the Bill went to a Select Committee, that gentlemen would be put on it who were practically acquainted with the management of large concerns, and the mode of paying wages earlier on Saturdays and on Fridays, for their experience and philanthropic feelings towards the working classes would be found of great value. The real question was the regulation of the pay ment of wages, so as to enable working people to arrange their affairs in such a manner as to leave time for rest and recreation. MR. W. J. FOX said, he hoped that if the Bill was referred to a Select Committee, that Committee should be com tions on the existing state of things on Sundays; but it appeared that the recommendations of the Committee with regard to restrictions were to be carried out, but the other recommendations were not attended to. He should not, however, oppose the Bill at this stage. MR. KIRK said, that the keeping of the Sabbath holy was morally binding on every man; and how could that principle be carried out when the Sunday was desecrated in so extraordinary a manner in the metropolis? Every Sunday, on his way to a place of worship, he passed through a locality near to that House called Strutton Ground, where there was more trading than on a week day, and he was sure that such a Bill was required to put an end to such trading, both in the metropolis and all over the kingdom. He would support the Bill in every stage, and any measure against all trading on Sunday, whether in goods, clothes, or spirituous liquors. |