§ Mr. Peter, having presented petitions from Lutterworth and Pimlico for the better Observance of the Sabbath, moved the Order of the Day for the Second Reading of the Bill for the better Observance of the Sabbath.
§ The Order read.
§ Mr. Petersaid, though it might be regretted that the subject had not fallen into abler hands—into hands more competent and accustomed to labours of that kind—he felt assured, that,—with the wishes of the people so strongly expressed as they had been on the question—with so many petitions lying on the Table from all parts of the kingdom, and from all classes of the community—the House would concur with him in thinking, that the time had arrived for considering the subject, for revising the existing Laws in relation to the Sabbath, and for modifying and amending their several provisions in such manner as might seem most consistent with the true interests, and most conformable to the just feelings and habits of society. In whatever way they approached the subject—whether they regarded the Sabbath as of divine, or of human institution—whether they considered it as a day set apart for religious and moral improvement, or for mere purposes of bodily rest and worldly relaxation—in whatever view they contemplated the subject—the House, he was confident, would concur with him,—it would concur with a much higher authority than his—(he meant that of the learned commentator on the Laws of England)—that the observance of one day out of seven was of essential service to a State—that it tended to humanize the manners of the lower classes, which might otherwise degenerate into sordid ferocity and selfishness of spirit.—that it enabled the industrious tradesman and labourer 385 to return to his weekly occupations with renewed health and cheerfulness—and that it imprinted upon the minds of the people that religious feeling, that sense of duty towards God and man, which was so necessary to make them good citizens, but which would be in danger of being worn out and defaced by unremitted labour, without any interval of leisure and repose, without any stated period for recalling them to the worship of their maker. But he was not considering the question in a religious point of view; he was not arguing it on scriptural grounds; he was not discussing the difference between the Jewish Sabbath and the Christian Sunday, or how far the regulations which were applicable to the former, might have been abrogated or superseded in regard to the latter. Into these topics he would not enter,—not because he felt doubts as to the true grounds and extent of religious obligation for the observance of the Sabbath—not because he deemed less reverently of that sacred day than others, who might be more prominent in enforcing their own opinions,—but because—knowing, as he did, the vast diversity, the great contrariety of opinion which prevailed, even amongst the wisest and best of mankind, on the subject,—he was loth to open a field of theological debate and idle controversy—of controversy to be deprecated on all occasions, and never more than on an occasion like the present. In former ages the most erroneous notions prevailed upon the subject, and religion had been rendered odious by Laws having for their professed object to enforce duties, the very essence of which consisted in their being the free-will offerings and pure homage of the heart, and for the neglect of which we were accountable not to man but to our Maker. Of this nature were some of the Statutes, passed in the reign of Elizabeth and confirmed by subsequent Parliaments, which compelled under pains and penalties for disobedience, all persons above the age of sixteen to resort to their parish churches or usual chapels of worship—Statutes, which though repealed as far as they affected Dissenters, might be still enforced against members of the Church of England. He should be told perhaps, that such Laws were a dead letter—that they were never executed. If so, then of what utility were they on the Statute-book? But these Laws were not a dead letter. They were sometimes enforced, or attempted to be 386 enforced, in the most invidious and oppressive manner. He knew many instances of their being So. He knew an instance of a clergyman attempting to enforce them against several of his most respectable parishioners with whom he had quarrelled on the subject of tithes, he knew another—a still more recent case, (and one, he had no doubt with in the knowledge of many members of that House,) where a Minister, a man of the most licentious habits, had actually prosecuted some of his neighbours for refusing to attend at the parish church—at that Church from which he himself had driven them away by the daring impiety of his demeanour, and the unblushing profligacy of his life. And ought Laws, which upheld such tyranny, which sanctioned such injustice, to remain? Such Laws were wholly inoperative for all purposes of good—they were weapons of persecution and annoyance in the hands of the evil, and could be attended—if generally enforced—with no other result than that of making men either hypocrites or martyrs. Such Laws ought no longer to disgrace the Statute-book, and one great object of the proposed Bill was to repeal and get rid of them altogether. With respect to the other Laws which were in force on the subject, and which lay scattered through the Statute-book from the reign of Edward 3rd down to that of his present Majesty—these Laws also, in the first place, he proposed to repeal—in order, however, to amend their discordant provisions, and to modify and consolidate the whole into one Act. The measure, therefore, which he (Mr. Peter) proposed, could hardly be called a new one. It contained little more than re-enactments, (modified indeed and rendered more practicable and better adapted to the present state of society, but still little more than re-enactments) of previous Laws, it prohibited labour and trading, with certain exceptions as to servants engaged in the necessary service of their employers—venders of medicine—sellers of milk and fruit—and bakers at certain hours and in certain cases. With respect to houses of entertainment, mere drinking houses, such as gin and beer shops—would be shut up. There was to be no drinking on the premises during any part of the day; though retailers of beer would be allowed to supply family at then own houses. Inns, however—public houses—cooks' shops, and 387 other places of refreshment—supplying victuals as well as liquor—would be left open for the reception and entertainment of travellers and lodgers at all times, and were only closed, as far as regarded other persons, during the hours of divine service. With regard to travelling,—drovers with cattle, waggoners, and others, licensed to carry goods for hire, were prohibited from pursuing their journeys between the hours of nine and six; whilst coaches, omnibuses, and other carriages for the conveyance of passengers, were not to commence their journeys during the hours of morning and evening service. There were other clauses, rendering null the service of process, prohibiting gaming, dog-lighting, hunting, shooting, &c. &c.; which were also re-enactments of previous Laws. The principal and indeed almost only novelties of the Bill were two clauses—the one, changing the days of vestries and of other public meetings from Sundays to Mondays; the other, enabling persons who, by grant, prescription, or otherwise, were entitled to hold fairs and markets, to postpone them, when falling on Mondays, to some subsequent day of the week. The penalties for violations of the Act (the amount of which might be settled in committee) were to be recoverable before two Magistrates, against whose decision an appeal lay to the Quarter Sessions. Such were the principal clauses of the proposed Bill, which, as he had before stated, were little more than re-enactments of previously existing laws. That the Bill was imperfect—that it went too far for some, and not far enough for others—that it had excited the opposition of the more violent on each side—he was fully aware. But whatever might be its real or supposed defects, it possessed one redeeming quality. It disencumbered the Statute-book of seventeen Acts it substituted one Law in the place of eighteen. He might also say of it, that was not a Bill of invidious distinctions and petty partialities. It made no difference of rank or person—no difference between rich and poor—between the hotel of the one and the pot-house of the other. Again, it was not a Bill of fast and gloom, interfering with innocent exercise and diversions, keeping the poor labourer immured within his smoky cabin, and excluding the sickly tradesman and artizan "from the common air and use of his own limbs." God forbid that it should do so, for he believed, that if there was one mode 388 more calculated than another to drive a population into vicious indulgences, it was the prohibition of harmless ones, it was the exclusion of them from every relaxation and pastime of a cheerful and innocent nature. Lastly, he would say, that it was not a Bill of coercion and intolerance, but of protection. It sought not to compel, but merely allowed and enabled people to be religious, if so inclined, by relieving them from situations in which their worldly interests were frequently at war with their religious principles, and where they might be tempted to sacrifice their duties to the fear of loss, or to the hope of gain. He would detain the House no longer. The Bill before them had its defects, but believing that those defects might be remedied in a Committee, and knowing that the wishes of all moderate men were in favour of the measure, he should move that it be read a second time.
§ Mr. Slaneyseconded the Motion. The Bill was not altogether a perfect one, but its imperfections might be remedied in Committee, and relieving the Statute-book of seventeen or eighteen inoperative Statutes and framing out of them one like the present, was an act which did the hon. Member no small credit. As he had said, there were one or two details to which he should object in the committee more particularly with reference to the novelties introduced into it, several of which, by their over-strictness, were more calculated to throw an air of ridicule over the observance of the Sabbath, and to make the law inoperative than otherwise. The Bill steered a fair course between extreme severity and extreme laxity of legislation upon a subject, regarding which the feelings of the people had been distinctly manifested by their petitions to this House; and it was from the extreme anxiety which he felt to avoid too great strictness in legislation upon this question, that he ventured to support this measure. In addition to these considerations, he would merely observe, that some legislative enactment was necessary as to the observance of the Sabbath for the sake of the humbler classes. If the Bill went to trench upon the rational and necessary recreations of the middling and labouring classes on the Sabbath, it would be a great evil, and would encroach upon one of the greatest blessings which that portion of the community now enjoyed. But they must take care that the higher classes 389 were induced to prevent those in their service from breaking through the repose and quiet of the Sabbath. Much must be left to the example of the upper classes; but, if, for instance, men of rank gave dinner parties on the Sundays and kept their domestics employed during the day, the moral influence of such an example could only tend to render the lower classes worse off than they were. He said, that all those who took an interest in the welfare of these classes, and wished to improve their condition, must be anxious to carry into effect a measure which had that object in view. He must confess he could not agree with those who were for screwing up the Sabbath regulations to the tightest point, taking away that relaxation which the middling classes had been always used to, and to which they were entitled. It was on this latter account that he could not assent to one or two of the details of the proposed measure; but as his hon. friend was not pledged to them, he gave to the principle of the Bill his hearty concurrence. He saw, for instance, no objection to giving greater facilities to the opening of houses where refreshments might be obtained for persons who go out to walk in the country for relaxation during the evening, or after the morning service. It was unnecessary to make the Sabbath a day of gloom. All these however, were matters to be considered in Committee; but in his opinion it would be for the temporal benefit of the humbler classes, at the same time that it would more induce them to improve their minds, and to make them cheerful and contented, that the Sabbath Day should be kept holy. It was the duty of the Legislature to protect this class from the power of the avaricious employer on the one hand, and on the other to guard them against the results which might ensue from too severe a system of legislation. He supported the Bill, although he had great doubts whether the House could give it that attentive consideration which would justify them in passing it this Session.
§ Mr. Warburtonsaid, that he should feel less induced than at present to oppose the Motion, if it repealed or counteracted the numerous and contradictory Acts already in existence. But the repeal was not confined to restrictive Acts, it revoked also some Acts of indulgence. For instance, there was, in one Act of Parliament, a proviso by which 390 hackney-coaches were permitted to ply for hire on Sundays. Now, that Act was to be repealed without any exception in favour of hackney-coaches.
§ Mr. Peterexplained that the hon. member for Bridport was in error. It was meant to leave the law precisely as it stood on that point.
§ Mr. Warburtonbelieved that the effect of the Bill in its present state, whatever might be the hon. Member's wishes, would be such as he had stated; and this was only one of the many enactments to which he must give the most uncompromising opposition. Again, by the present laws, the sale of mackerel on Sundays was allowed. But the Bill would put that down. Did the hon. member for Bodmin mean to compel the fishermen to observe the Jewish Sabbath, and to work upon the Christian Sabbath, for the Monday market. It would be of little use for them to fish upon the Saturday if they were not allowed to sell what they caught upon the Sunday, unless they did it for mere amusement and threw the fish upon the dunghill. The hon. member for Bodmin did not seem to be aware that there must be very numerous exceptions to any general measure of this kind. There were a great many of the most indispensable employments which could not be laid aside on the Sabbath. The shepherd must attend to his flocks just as much on Sunday as on any other day of the week; and the navigation of a ship upon the seas could not be suspended to enable the crew to obey the hon. Member's Bill. If the Legislature attempted to interfere too far and too minutely, the law would become a dead letter and a matter of derision, rather than of respect and obedience. If the Bill were to pass in its present state, nothing could be worse calculated to ensure the Observance of the Sabbath, in the way in which the hon. Member himself (Mr. Peter) desired it to be observed. There was one clause which forbade the navigation of barges on the Sabbath. But was not the hon. Member aware, that on many rivers, and some of them communicating with the river Thames, there were shallows over which barges could pass only on the Sunday, when the mills were not at work, and the water being consequently let down from the mill-dams afforded sufficient depth for the barges? The hon. Member (Mr. Peter) had said, that his Bill did not interfere with the recreations 391 of the people; but here was a clause which prevented watermen from plying for hire on the Sabbath; and the hon. Gentleman must know that a great part of the people of this metropolis had no other amusement on the Sabbath. A great number of working-men were in the habit of taking their families on the river on Sundays, and to all that class the operations of the Bill would be very oppressive; and to the watermen themselves it would not be beneficial, as they could not have the employment of that class on any other day.
§ Mr. Peterexplained that the clause referred to was mistaken by the hon. member for Bridport; barges and wherries were to be prohibited only from carrying "goods" for hire on the Sabbath.
§ Mr. Warburtoncertainly saw somewhere in the Bill a clause which would have the effect of which he complained, and it gave besides an encouragement to informers to cause it to be enforced. However, he thought that the Bill ought to be allowed to pass this stage. He was not disposed to deal with it as the Bill of the hon. Baronet (Sir Andrew Agnew) near him had been dealt with. But even this Bill would require very great alteration before he could consent to its becoming the law; and he was by no means certain, that it was possible to make the necessary changes in the present Session.
§ Mr. Bernalgave every credit to the hon. Member who brought in the Bill for his meritorious and praiseworthy intentions, but he doubted very much whether the evil would not be increased tenfold by the measure. It could not be expected that sufficient consideration could be given to the Bill, so as to correct its faulty clauses, at that late period of the Session. He thought, that the best mode of increasing moral and religious feelings was by good example. But the Bill did not at all promote that, for by it the poor man would be prevented from commencing a journey, however urgent, at certain hours in the morning, by a stage-coach, while there was nothing to prevent Gentlemen from following their own wishes or duties by the employment of post-horses and nothing to prevent them from travelling at any hour. Could it be borne, that a person wishing to visit a sick or dying friend, for instance, should be prevented from doing so on the Sabbath, until a certain hour, unless he could afford to hire post-horses? 392 He maintained, that this inequality of legislation could not be upheld; and that any such measure should be scouted. It might appear, perhaps, a little irregular to advert to the clauses of the Bill, and to discuss them, when the Motion was only for the second reading; but the principle of the Bill was an innovation upon the existing law, and it was only by referring to the clauses that he could more particularly state his objections to it. In the last clause the hon. Gentleman added many sweeping exceptions to the Act; but the delivery of beer or cider, dressed meat, &c., at persons' houses was limited to between the hours of five and nine in the evening; so that persons in this metropolis, particularly, will be prevented from getting refreshments on their return of a Sunday from a walk or a ride, unless they reached home during these hours. A similar regulation applied to hackney carriages, such provisions trenched upon the enjoyments of the middling and lower classes, while they left the higher classes unmolested. So far as this Act repealed various statutes, he concurred in it; but he was not prepared to give his assent to the measure, inasmuch as, in its present shape, it would materially affect his constituents. He alluded to the navigation of the Medway as connected with that of the river Thames; where the commerce in hops and flour was considerable, and where the detention of barges for a day would prove of most serious consequence. Again, fruit was conveyed by barges, and by losing a good wind or tide, and by conforming to the provisions of this Bill as to hours of sailing, &c., the whole produce of an orchard might be destroyed. On these grounds he should oppose the Bill, and he was sure as long as it contained as many anomalies as at present it would not obtain the sanction of that House.
§ Mr. Finchsaid, the Bill was a Statute of protection; it ensured to the poor man one-seventh of his time as was done by the common law of the land. It ought, however, to have been brought in earlier.
§ Lord Granville Somersetthought, that the objections to proceeding with this Bill, this Session, were unanswerable. The Bill might be made useful; but to be useful it must be materially altered. It ought to be withdrawn; and if introduced in another Session, he trusted that many of the clauses would be materially altered, particularly as regarded manufacturers.
§ Mr. Wilbrahamsaid, he had presented many petitions on this subject, urging well-founded complaints. Various operatives represented that they had no opportunity of observing the Sabbath; the like was the complaint with large bodies of manufacturers; and surely those classes ought to have some remedy for such a grievance. He doubted, however, whether it could be passed this Session.
§ Mr. Estcourtapproved of the principle of the Bill, but not of its details. He hoped his hon. friend would withdraw it for the present Session, and introduce it next Session in more than one Bill.
§ Mr. Petersaid, he had no objection to send the Bill to a Committee above stairs, and adjourn till the next Session, after those parts had been corrected which were deemed objectionable.
§ Sir Andrew Agnewreminded the House of the remarks of the hon. member for Cheshire, who alluded to the petitions which he had himself presented, from men actually working on canals in his county, and which showed that they were desirous of a day of rest. This entitled him to say, that much false sentiment had been uttered about the indulgence and pleasures of the lower orders. The fact was, that all the false sentiment which had been spoken about Sunday indulgence had only reference to the pleasures of the upper and middle classes, while the actual lower or working classes were left altogether out of the account: for instance, it might be very agreeable to gentlemen of the upper classes to travel in their own carriages to Richmond, and those of the middle classes might find it agreeable to go there by public coaches; but would the House keep in mind that there was another class—the working class—the ostlers, horse keepers, and all other operatives connected with travelling, who had petitioned that House for protection on the day of rest, and which was now no day of rest to them? He took this as an illustration, and he warned hon. Members who had laid on the Table so many petitions (signed chiefly by the humble classes), and who were about to return to their constituents, who had manifested so much anxiety on this subject, that such a Bill as that now before them would not meet the wishes of their constituents. Opposed to all this false sentiment, this morbid sensibility, he stood there as the advocate of the poor man, now in many trades condemned 394 to work for the pleasure or profit of his master. His objections were very different from those of the hon. members for Bridport and for Rochester. He strongly protested against the Repealing Clause, which took away many excellent Statutes without providing substitutes. He should, therefore, if the Bill went into Committee, divide the House against that clause. He likewise objected to the absence of au acknowledgment of the divine origin of the institution of the Sabbath—a defect which he should seek to amend in Committee, by moving a preamble, and dividing the House upon it. He should be very glad if the hon. member for Bodmin would restrict his Bill to the clauses for suppressing Sunday trading, to which extent be would support it; and he felt that in giving any opposition he was placing himself in a delicate position. As a further roof that the Bill was not calculated to afford protection to the working classes, he would instance the travelling clause, which prevented the travelling of waggons between nine o'clock in the morning and six o'clock in the evening—that was for nine hours, and for that length of time a waggon mast stop out of the twenty-four hours. That might suit the master, whose object was profit and gain. But if the waggon might travel onward, both morning and evening, on all but the forbidden hours, the desire of the poor waggoner was altogether defeated—he was denied a day of rest.
It being three o'clock the Speaker retired, and the debate was adjourned.