HC Deb 11 March 1835 vol 26 cc861-5
Mr. Poulter

said, he should detain the House as short a time as possible. A measure similar to that he now had the pleasure of introducing had been honoured by no less than twelve divisions, and hence a majority of that House had sanctioned a Bill of a like tendency on one occasion by a majority of five to one; and on another, by a majority of two to one, although ultimately lost, in consequence of a misconception that had been entertained with regard to it. He should be able to prove, however, when the proper time came, that the present Bill was only intended to restrain trade on the Sabbath, and correct some gross evasions of the law. He was sorry that the Bill had not fallen into the hands of other hon. Gentlemen more capable of doing justice to the subject; but, he believed, that upon examination, the House would agree with him, that in the present instance extremes had been avoided, and all parties might be furnished with good reasons for supporting it. There were among them who thought that legislation ought not to be extended to every part of our social and political lives, and that we could not have a specific legal remedy for every evil. But even they would find that there was no desire betrayed in the present measure to do anything but promote rational liberty. The moderation of its aim was sufficiently proved by the assistance that had been voluntarily afforded by Members of both Houses, who were previously hostile to its introduction, but, upon becoming acquainted with the moderation of its tone and the general mildness of his character, had foregone their hostility. The anxiety of the public on the subject was sufficiently displayed by the number of petitions that had been presented to this House, and from the number of societies now in existence which were instituted for the furtherance of the object he had now in view. No less than 1,065 petitions had been presented, containing in the whole 20,000 signatures. No fair and reasonable man would suppose that he had any other object in view than the good of the people, and not, as had been falsely asserted, their oppression. He would gladly, however, take the blame of every defect that might be discovered in his Bill; all he wished was the attention of the House to the subject, being convinced that it would have the effect of promoting the cause of morality and religion in the country. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to promote the better observance of the Lord's day.

Mr. Warburton

did not mean to oppose the bringing in of the Bill, particularly as the hon. Member, who moved for its introduction, had been allowed not alone to bring it in, but to advance it almost to the final stage in the last Session of Parliament. But he should reserve to himself a right of opposing it in any stage he thought proper, if he saw that it was of such a nature as trenched upon the enjoyments of the poorer portion of the community. The conduct of several hon. Members at various periods during the last Parliament, in respect to Sunday legislation reminded him forcibly of occurrences exactly similar in the Parliament of 1640. If hon. Members, took the trouble of examining the journals of the House, they would find that their hon. Predecessors of that period had brought in several Bills to the same effect as some of those introduced then. For instance, one Member of that time brought in a Bill "to prevent walking in the fields on the Sabbath," and another a Bill "to prevent people regaling themselves in porches (of houses) on the Lord's day." He was sorry to be obliged to say, that many clauses in the Sabbath Observance Bill of the last Session were analogous to these, and very much to the same general effect. He trusted that the Bill of the hon. Member for Shaftesbury contained no clauses of that nature; and he hoped that strict attention would be paid to it in every stage, to prevent their introduction by any other hon. Member. He was not one of those who believed men could be made religious by Act of Parliament, and, therefore, he was opposed to any legislatorial interference whatever on the subject.

Mr. Potter

complained that the hon. Member who moved for leave to introduce the measure before the House had departed from the usual wholesome custom of entering into an explanation of its nature and contents. In abstaining from all explanation the hon. Member pursued the same course as had been adopted by the hon. Member for Wigton (Sir A. Agnew) in his Bill of last year, and therefore left his measure open to the suspicion that they were identical in their objects. The consequence was, that the Bill of the hon. Baronet was a Bill of pains and penalties for the poor and of impunity for the rich. He (Mr. Potter) was one of those who thought that no laws should be ordained for the observance of the Sabbath; its observance should be enforced by example and moral influence, not by Act of Parliament. With respect to the Bill before the House, as the hon. Mover had given no intimation of its contents, he (Mr. P.) should assume that it was the same as the rejected measure of the last Session of Parliament, that it was a revival of the Act 29 of Charles 2nd. If so, it was of a very objectionable character. That Bill prohibited the sale on Sunday of many articles of necessity and innocent luxury. For instance, it prohibited the sale of fruit, which would be a great hardship on the poor man, because it would prevent his enjoying a harmless addition to his rest-day's recreation. It also forbade any person to enter an inn or a lodging-house on the Sabbath, which would also be not alone a hardship but a cruelty to travellers by necessity. If the Bill before the House contained any clauses of an analogous nature to these he (Mr. Potter) should oppose it in every stage of its progress.

Mr. Hardy

defended the Bill of the last Session of Parliament introduced by the hon. Member who moved the introduction of the present measure. That Bill was only intended to prevent unnecessary desecration of the Sabbath, not to interfere with the enjoyments of the working classes. In common with the hon. Member for Bridport he (Mr. Hardy) believed that men could not be made religious by Act of Parliament; but he believed also, that to make them so was not the object of the Bill, but to prevent scandal to morals and religion. A great deal of obloquy had been cast on that Bill, because it was alleged that it was levelled at the enjoyments of the poor, while it spared those of the rich; but such was not its intended effect. On the contrary, it was to protect the poor at the expense of the enjoyments of the rich that it was introduced to the Legislature. It was not to prevent young men in Birmingham, shut up in shops during the week, from riding in the green lanes on a Sunday; but it was to prevent the necessity of the hostlers at inns, where horses were hired, from waiting the return of these young men rather than be in attendance in church, or at home with their families. The Bill before the House was of the same nature, and was not merely a revival of the Act 29 of Charles 2nd.

Mr. George F. Young

was glad the hon. Member for Shaftesbury had the moral courage to bring forward the Bill before the House after the contumelious manner in which the similar measure introduced by him to the last Parliament had been treated. He deprecated the insinuations conveyed in the observations of the hon. Member for Bridport, when comparing the present and past Parliament to the one which sat at the lamentable and ever-to-be-regretted period to which he alluded, 1640. It was not fair to mix up motives in that manner, nor was it fair for the hon. Member who spoke subsequently to attack the Bill on the assumption that it was the same as that of the last Session. If it contained nothing which was calculated to impose shackles and restrictions upon the enjoyments of the poor man, he (Mr. Young) should give it his hearty support; if, on the contrary, he should hold himself free to oppose it.

Mr. Nicholl

said, he should oppose any clause in the Bill which would have the effect of restricting the rational enjoyments of the poorer classes of the community; but he admitted that a measure which would prevent the desecration of the Sabbath was necessary.

Mr. Rice Trevor

should not oppose the Bill if it did not trench upon the enjoyments of the poorer classes; otherwise he should oppose it as far as in him lay. He did not deny that a large portion of the community was in favour of some enactment for the better observance of the Sabbath, and that an anxious wish was expressed by all the religious part of the population of the country for the prevention of its desecration. He did not desire to interfere with the rational enjoyments of the working classes, as he had already said, but he thought some attention should be paid to the wishes of the religious portion of the community.

Mr. O'Connell

would not oppose the introduction of the present Bill if it were the same as that of last Session, as that measure contained no one clause which gave the rich a preference over the poor. He, however, thought that the House could not be too cautious of legislating on the subject of the Sabbath, or of interfering at all in what was, after all, a mere matter of conscience. Legislatorial interference was generally more detrimental to the best interests of religion than any little infringement of the sacred solemnity of the Sabbath could be.

Sir Andrew Agnew

denied, that anything which had been urged in the observations on this measure applied to the Bill introduced by him in the last Session of Parliament. He could assure the House that his Bill was more objected to by the rich than by the poor; and, moreover, that if he put it to the opinion of the country he would have a majority of the latter in its favour.

Sir John Campbell

hoped that the hon. Baronet and his supporters would be satisfied with the present measure. He believed the motives of the hon. Baronet in respect to the Bill of the last Session to be most pure, but he was bound to add, that nothing could be more mischievous than that Bill was calculated to prove had it been permitted a trial. It interfered with all classes of the community, high and low, rich and poor. It afforded enjoyment to none; and it was, moreover, inquisitorial in its nature, and capable of being made the instrument of great tyranny and oppression to all. With respect to the Bill before the House, he (Sir J. Campbell) saw nothing to object to in it. It only affirmed an Act of Parliament already in existence, and capable of being used without any such affirmation. It did not seek out private violations of the Sabbath, it only prevented public desecration. Therefore it should have his support.

Mr. Hawes

agreed fully with the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh. He would not make any observations on the subject, but he would simply ask the hon. Member for Shaftesbury a plain question respecting the object of his measure. Was the Bill intended to put down Sunday trading solely, or was it intended to revive the whole of the odious Act of 29th Charles 2nd?

Mr. Poulter

replied, that it referred exclusively to the suppression of Sunday trading.

Leave was given to bring in the Bill.