HC Deb 07 June 1837 vol 38 cc1225-42
Sir Andrew Agnew

moved the second reading of the Lord's-day Observance Bill.

Mr. Plumptre

was understood to say that there existed in that House a great, perhaps, a morbid sensibility as regarded discussions upon religious subjects, a feeling in which he did not participate, and the existence of which in the minds of others should not deter him from expressing frankly and fearlessly the views which in his conscience he believed to be consonant with the doctrines of the Christian religion, and with the duties and responsibility which he conceived to have devolved upon the Members of that House. Whatever might be the sentiments prevalent within those walls, he did not for a moment hesitate to say, that there existed out of doors a very strong opinion that the Legislature of a nation enjoying so many and such distinguished temporal blessings lay under a deep responsibility to observe, and as far as temporal authority could go, to enforce, the injunctions of the sacred Scriptures; and he affirmed that one of the most important and binding duties which the Parliament of Great Britain had to perform was to enforce the observance of the Lord's-day. The hon. Member for Bath had on a former occasion made references to the sacred volume. Without then offering any commentary upon the manner in which hon. Members might at various times have made allusion to the holy Scriptures, he would take upon himself to say, that when the question was in its own nature essentially a religious question, and when the reference was made in a reverent and becoming mode it was a course perfectly unobjectionable, and, indeed, absolutely necessary, for the Bible was the authority upon which the supporters of the present measure principally relied. The hon. Member for Bath was by no means successful in his application of Scripture, for the extracts he read and the quotations he made, were anything but favourable to the positions for which he contended; he proposed o lay before the House a short passage, which, in his judgment, would go far to set the question at rest. [The hon. Member read a considerable portion of the 17th Chapter of Jeremiah, beginning at the 19th verse.] It had been said more than once in the discussions which took place upon similar Bills, that there existed no such obligation as the promoters of those measures thought upon the Christian communities of the world to pay such observance to the Sabbath as the Scriptures of God enjoined; why, they might as well say that the second table of the Decalogue was not binding upon Christians as to make any such assertion. Our Lord and Saviour most distinctly declared that he came not to destroy but to fulfill—he did not by implication abrogate any portion of the law. The obligations in reference to the observance of the Lord's-day remained precisely where they had been placed as regarded the observance of the Sabbath. An attempt to do away with one portion of the decalogue was as little warrantable as to say that the whole should be abrogated. In former discussions upon the present question the hon. Member for Bath had delivered his opinions with much appearance of authority; but he could assure the House that the authority of that hon. Member could be met by those of Archbishop Cranmer and Archbishop Whately. Under a full conviction, then, that they should all one day stand before the judgment seat of Christ to answer for the desecration of the Lord'sday—deeply impressed with a sense of the injustice which the present state of the law inflicted upon a large class of his fellow subjects—full of a persuasion that a proper and Christian observance of that holy day would be highly beneficial even in a temporal point of view, he should give the present motion his most cordial support; and he trusted that a majority of the Members of that House would do-the same. He did trust that they would not be deaf to the prayers of so many petitioners as had approached Parliament, praying that they and their fellow-countrymen might enjoy protection, countenance, and aid in keeping holy the Lord's-day. Feeling as he did most anxious for the Success of the Bill, he could not conclude without entreating hon. Members to hear what might be said regarding it with calm and patient attention.

Mr. Roebuck

hoped the House would permit him to compliment the hon. Baronet on the approximation to something like fairness. The bill as it originally stood, applied to the poor, but not to the rich; but the case was now somewhat altered. He must, therefore, compliment the hon. Member for having included in the provisions of the bill the rich; for if the bill passed no man could travel on the Lord's-day; no man could use any cattle to travel further than the church door. So far they were about to conform to something like fairness. The hon. Baronet seemed startled at the proposition. [Sir A. Agnew, "Not at all."] Well, the hon. Baronet showed it was his intention to keep within doors all persons excepting those who were exceedingly stout and able to walk, for no man could use a carriage or a horse on the Sabbath-day. As another proof of his approximation to fairness all the clubs in London were to be shut up; and though he was told that at these clubs were to be seen rev. and right rev. Gentlemen, yet the hon. Baronet knew far better than they did what was their duty, and was determined to exclude right rev. Lords, and not allow them to frequent such profane places. But he had been requested by certain of his constituents (and among the names was that of the bishop of the diocese) to support that bill; and he would, therefore, ask why was not the bill introduced in the other House? Could not the Bishops legislate on the Sabbath? Why did not they bring in the bill and act like shepherds of the flock? "I will tell you why (continued the hon. Member). They wish to throw the odium of rejecting the measure on certain parties in this House. I have also observed that certain hon. Members voted on the first reading, and now steal away at the second reading. They wish it to be understood that they encouraged the hon. Baronet to bring in the Bill. They encourage him to bring in the Bill on the pretence of holiness, and they wish it to go forth to the public that they supported him. I have observed, also, that various parties have abstained from voting on these occasion, with a view that it may go forth to the public that the only parties who are not favourable to the measure are those on this side of the house. But what do these hon. Members themselves on Sunday? Not one of them pretends to adhere to such a law as that for which they voted, or against which they would not vote, and such a law I confess I never yet heard of. I never yet saw any production of the human mind embody so much absurdity, if we except the conduct of the monk of Africa, Simon Stylites, who sat for ten years on the top of a pillar to please God Almighty, and I only pray that the name of the hon. Baronet and of Simon Stylites may be enrolled on the same scroll and pass to posterity together. But why does the mover of the bill do things only by halves? Why does he not propose to go to the full extent? The law of Moses says —Obey the sabbath, or die. If the sabbath is to be observed according to the law of Moses, why not attach the capital penalty for disobedience? But I deny that that command applies to the Lord's-day, and neither the hon. Baronet nor any other person can bring any proof to that effect. I am prepared to show that the sabbath is not the Lord's day, and that there is no divine authority for observing the Lord's day in the way in which the hon. Baronet proposes it should be observed. It all rests on mere tradition. Let the hon. Member commence with St. Matthew, and go through the whole Testament, quoting whatever may have been said by Christ or his apostles, and I defy him to point out one passage or injunction which orders that day to be kept. Let him not go to the Decalogue—let him not quote from Jeremiah—let him not go to the Old but the New Testament—let him show me one command of Christ to keep the first day of the week holy, and then I am ready to admit that he has grounds for legislating. If he cannot produce any such authority, then he must confine himself to the Jewish law; and if he confines himself to that, why does he not carry it out religiously, and to the full extent? Why does he not propose to enact that I and every person who breaks the sabbath shall suffer death, instead of merely confining himself to the paltry penalty of three pounds sterling? Why does he not propose to put me to death at once and for ever? Why does not the hon. Member bring in a bill to that effect? Let him deal fairly with us, and not partially. I have heard of the Scriptures being mutilated; I have heard of charges brought against parties for garbling the divine word; and the hon. Baronet makes himself more than perhaps any other individual liable to the charge. The hon. Member who seconded the motion quoted the Decalogue and Jeremiah. These he knows were addressed to Jews; but I am not a Jew, nor do I wish to be a Jew in any thing. I don't wish to have forced on me their peculiar laws. The Decalogue was given to a particular people, and that part of it was addressed to them for the purpose of making them a peculiar people. Moses put these laws in one book and said this shall be the Jewish law. But if the hon. Baronet denies this, if he denies that these laws were made for a peculiar people, why does he not go a great deal further? Why does he not include all those laws which were peculiar to the Jews? One of these commandments says, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image," not only that you shah not fan down and worship it, but that thou shalt not make any graven image. I wish to know whether the hon. Baronet will include the second commandment. Surrounding nations made laws forbidding murder and robbery, and enjoined their observance on the inhabitants; but though it is evident that several of the laws of Moses were made for a peculiar people, yet the hon. Member says he will follow the Decalogue. Does he know that by the law of Moses adultery was punished with death? If that law were to be observed—and why should it not as well as the other?—a great number of noble lords would come within its operation, and great number of other persons too, as suggested by the hon. Member for Finsbury. The hon. Member for Kent spoke of the day of judgment? Why does he speak of the day of judgment? What does he know of the day of judgment? How can the limited faculties of a man or the narrow conception of the human mind know anything of that clay? How can his petty, crawling spirit know what will happen then? But the feelings excited by such pretensions become too strong; words cannot be found to give utterance to them; and the only feeling I will express is, that of astonishment when persons dare to talk of that great day. The hon. Member will probably not take advice from me, but I give it with all humbleness, not with affected, but substantial humility: and I say, let him and others take good care of their own conduct, and not spend their time in prying into the conduct of others. He would cast a stigma on all those who oppose this measure, but I have voted against it already, and I will vote against it again, or against any measure the principle of which is to legislate on religious matters. I defy the hon. Gentleman or any hon. Member opposite to point out any authority for the strict observance of the Lord's-day. In the Revelation of St. John it was called the Lord's-day, and it was said the saints prayed and ate bread together on that day; but that was done in consequence of the peculiar circumstances in which the primitive Christians were placed. These have ceased; and why, then, are we to imitate these primitive Christians in one act unless we imitate them in all? We ride to church! Did the apostles go to church in that way? The apostles lived in common, and if the hon. Baronet is prepared to follow their example, I shall apply to him for a share of his property. But there is another command of which the hon. Baronet takes no notice. It was said, "If thou art struck on the one cheek, turn up the other also;" but if I were to act in that manner to the hon. Baronet I am inclined to think that instead of obeying the divine precept he would take me before Sir Richard Birnie, at Bow-street. Now, let it be remembered that we are strictly commanded to follow these precepts. We have positive commands on the one hand, but on the other we have none. If the hon. Baronet would show anything like consistency, and introduce into the bill a clause by which all men's property should be made common property, then I will agree to the bill. I have heard much about the observance of the sabbath, but I have heard nothing about Christian duty — nothing about honest dealing— nothing about lowly truth and brotherly kindness. I have only been told, in fact, that asceticism is Christianity. Now, in my opinion Christianity comprehends something more; Christianity does not teach me to observe Sunday in the way proposed by the bill, but it teaches me not to peep and pry into the conduct of other men; it tells me to live humby — to pray to God on that day as well as on other days; it commands me to observe truth, mercy, and justice—it tells me to pray on all days, and instructs me that the good conduct which I have practised during the whole of the week should be continued to the seventh day, and then there should be a holy rest; and that I call keeping the Lord's-day. But that species of religion which the hon. Baronet would inculate makes the narrow observance of the sabbath as the principal matter with the Divinity, and thereby degrades and disgraces religion. It has been owing to such principles that religion has always been made a craft. The persons professing and acting on such principles depart from the great and important end of religion, and establish the craft of priesthood, so prevalent in all ages. On the present occasion I am convinced the course pursued will do little credit to any party mixed up with it. The hon. Member said, if the law is not to be obeyed, repeal the act of Charles H. but that is in reality repealed, for no one obeys it. I should like to know who present were at Tattersall's on Sunday, or at the clubs, or in Hyde-park, or at Crock-ford's; for all who support this bill and attend these places are self-convicted. I look upon this as a peddling scheme, and think it a mere waste of time that we should have for an hour and a half been discussing the question whether we are to shut out from places where they can have the fresh air such citizens of London as choose to go there." The hon. Baronet (continued the hon. Member,) had in one respect acted fairly, and he would now show in what he acted unfairly. While he would allow no person to go and take the fresh air, he still compelled servants to brush shoes and clothes—to make beds and light fires when the thermometer was low, and prepare a hot dinner; but the poor student, who laboured hard for six days in studies which the hon. Baronet despised, was not to be allowed to leave his humble lodgings; and if he did leave them, there was to be no place open for food or refreshment—whatever might be in the mansions of the rich—no cakes and ale" for him. The bill enacted that no person could obtain refreshment, or dinner, unless at places where he usually dined; and all that was to be forced on the community, because the hon. Baronet was pious. The hon. Baronet, however, could go out to dine, but the poor man was to have no dinner. It was altogether a mean catching-popularity scheme, got up by men who assumed high pretensions, and said to others, "Keep at a distance—for I am holier than thou" He hoped the House would brand the attempt to coerce a large class of the poor community and embody the worst species of asceticism and superstition—to force the consciences of the people, and throw a stumbling-block in the way of religion.

Viscount Sandon

thought, that a Member of that House might pursue a course of policy which had been adopted to a greater or less extent by all nations, and attempt to renew observances which through the lapse of time had fallen somewhat into disuse, without subjecting himself to the charge of arrogance, bigotry, and superstition, or being taunted with acting upon unfair political motives. The hon. Member who had just sat down had assumed that he was the only true expounder of the doctrines of Christianity, and perhaps the Christian lecture which he read them upon humility would furnish the best test of his fitness for the office he had undertaken. Those who favoured the Bill had the law of the country with them in favour of paying due respect to the seventh or the Sabbath day—and when they endeavoured to extend a principle already admitted the hon. Member for Bath, as if speaking ex cathedra, read them his proud lecture on humility. It was sufficient with regard to the observance of the Lord's Day, that they have the sense of Christendom with them— they had the Church of England with them, and the only question which the House had to consider was one of degree. This, surely, was an open ground for the discussion. The hon. Member argued that all days were equal, and that the seventh day should not be set apart for rest. He said the observance of it was merely traditional. On what ground would indulgence be afforded to servants on the seventh day if, as urged, there was no law human nor divine in its favour Looking at the matter in a mere temporal light, what would be the condition of the people if such a conclusion were come to. They would labour for a longer time without any proportionate increase of income. Passing by the spiritual view of the matter, and looking at it as a means of acquiring that intellectual improvement of which hon. Gentlemen opposite were such warm advocates, was it nothing that the people should have one day of rest, in which they might enjoy an opportunity of improving their intellectual faculties. But there was yet a higher view. Looking on man as a responsible being, was it nothing that he should have one day of freedom from his worldly pursuits to devote to a consideration of the duties which he owed to his Creator? Man had double duties, some of them related to his species and others to his Maker; and those who duly fulfilled the latter duties were sure to become better men and more valuable citizens. Those who supported the second reading of the Bill were said to support the whole of its details, but this was not a necessary consequence, and not withstanding that he might subject himself to the charge of arrogance, ignorance, superstition, and all the other harsh charges which the hon. Member for Bath had crowded into his peculiar lecture on humility—he would support the principle of the Bill without pledging himself to the details. He would admit, that there were parts of the Bill which it would be desirable to have amended. The measure before them was one upon which a great number of petitions had been presented, and it was but right to allow the Bill to go into Committee.

Mr. Ward

thought the noble Lord had misconceived the hon. Member for Bath, who did not object that there should be one day in the week when rich and poor should be released from business. Of the many who objected to the Bill there were none who were opposed to a day of rest. What they objected to was, that it attempted to legislate for the Christian Sabbath on Jewish principles. An hon. Member might if he pleased endeavour to apply certain regulations to the observance of the Sabbath; but then he had no right to make his standard the standard of the whole community. Hon. Members might, if they pleased, lay down strict rules of observance for their own families and dependants, but they had no right to force them upon others. What the opponents of the Bill complained of was that the promoters applied their own standard of observance to all persons and to all classes. It was impossible to legislate satisfactorily upon such a question. The noble Lord said it was a question of degree, and that he did not go the whole length of the Bill. Why not allow others also their choice of the extent to which they might be inclined to go? The only extent to which they could go with the concurrence of the entire community was to the putting down of any nuisance which would interfere to disturb religious worship. No one should arrogate the right to direct another as to what should be his rule of conduct in religious observances. Now the commandment had been appealed to, and yet the only exception made in the Bill was that which the commandment enforced. The commandment said, "Your man servant and your maid servant should do no work." With what face, then, could such an exception be made in the Bill. How could any man dare to exempt that which by revelation was expressly enforced? Such a Bill was utterly impracticable. It might bear a little on the rich, but it would press upon the poor with extreme severity. It would merely curtail the pleasures of the rich, but it would totally deprive the poor man of his enjoyment, and imprison him on the Sunday in the smoky streets and narrow alleys of London. The rich man would enjoy himself for the whole week—the poor man had but one day, and being shut in from the cheerful open air would most probably resort to some ale-house, where he was in the habit of having his dinner dressed. In the 14th Clause of the Bill there was a prohibition against vessels commencing a voyage on the Lord's Day. Would the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool, that great commercial mart, support such a clause? Another clause held out a bonus to informers by extending, the time for giving information to three months. Indeed, the general objections to the Bill were so strong that he felt himself bound to vote with the hon. Member for Bath. Public opinion would remedy any defects in the present observance of the Sabbath, It had already shown its tendency in this way, and nothing would so much check it as these attempts at crude and hasty legislation.

Mr. Finch

said, that the seventh day had been set apart before the time of Moses, and the first day had been kept by the disciples of our Lord, and was consecrated by his second appearance, and the appearance of the Holy Spirit. It was the day on which the Apostolic Christians held their meetings—it was, emphatically speaking, the Lord's day— it was the property of the Lord, was consecrated to the Lord, and ought to be held in more sanctity. The early Christian Fathers, Ignatius, the companion of the Apostle John, Justin Martyr, and Irenæus, the disciple of Polycarp, who was the disciple of St. John, all insisted upon the Lord's day being kept holy, and made the distinction between that and the Jewish Sabbath. He would not then enter into the question of what were works of necessity and what were not, nor would he pretend to say whether on that point the Roman Catholics, the German Protestants, the English Protestants, or the Scottish Protestants were right. His own feelings leant more to the Protestants of Scotland. This, however, was debatable ground, and as the details of the Bill might be settled in Committee he should cordially support the second reading.

Mr. Wakley

was astonished that rich men should thus venture to try to shut poor men up in their habitations on the seventh day of the week. Although four hon. Members had supported the Bill, not one had the manliness to state what practices they wished to prevent. Did they desire to prevent the people from drinking ginger-beer, or from eating ginger-bread on Primrose-hill or on Kensington-common, on Sunday? It was evident that the supporters of the Bill had the organ of veneration developed in an extraordinary degree, but that they were sadly deficient in the organs of observation and causality. The organ of veneration was not generally so fully developed in this country as it was in the hon. Baronet. Let those who supported this measure and those who opposed it refer to the authority of Scripture, and let them ponder on the feeling which it inculcated. The hon. Member would read the 8th and other verses of the 5th chapter of the gospel of St. John. Those pas- sages, taught them to exercise a religious forbearance—to respect the feelings of others—and not to intrude with unseemly feelings on the innocent enjoyments and recreations of others. If this Bill were brought into operation, it must have the worst possible effect on an enlightened and happy people, and must convert our now happy population into a body of sectarians and mock saints.

Mr. Borthwick

would support the motion for the second reading of the Bill. He wished to see what the House could do, though he much doubted the possibility of framing a law which should be effectual in obtaining the end sought for. Many of the clauses must operate very unequally as in the case of the Zoological-gardens in the Regent's-park, which were opened on the sabbath to subscribers. Many of those who supported this Bill frequented those gardens on the sabbath, the day on which the poor were comparatively excluded— and this place of resort was a second Almack's. He believed it to be an absurdity to imagine that the people were to be compelled by any legislative enactment to observe the sabbath, but nevertheless he would support the original motion.

Mr. H. L. Bulwer

did full justice to the intentions of the hon. Baronet who brought forward this bill; but it was necessary to consider, not the intentions with which a bill was brought forward, but the practical results of it; and he contended that, whatever might be the intentions of the hon. Baronet, the result of his bill, or of any bill on the same subject, must be inequality and partiality; because the state of society which governed all laws would not allow the same interference with the enjoyments of the rich, who had establishments of their own, and those of the poor, who had no such establishments. As to the number of petitions, he was in no way surprised; because, at all times, numbers of men had been found anxious to thrust their consciences down the consciences of other people. Hundreds and thousands of persons had assisted at the massacre of St. Bartholomew, and had been applauded even by their own priests for doing so. They were pious men of their time, and had followed the dictates of their consciences. In fact, no persecution had ever taken place which might not be justified on the ground that it was agreeable to the consciences of other men. But legislation of this kind was not only unequal in practice and bad in principle, it was also of necessity absurd and ridiculous; for, unless the whole of society were altered, nothing but legislation of the most half-begotten and most imperfect kind could take place upon it. Take, for instance, the present Post-office regulations. The mail could not leave London or enter London on a Sunday; that was impious and illegal; but it could enter or leave any other town in England on the same day. Here, then, was it declared that the same thing being impious and illegal in London was not prohibited either by law or religion in the country. Was not this absurd? The hon. Member for Kent said the Jewish ordinances should be observed, because our Saviour came," not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it." Why, on this principle he should be circumcised, and all the male infants of his family the same. He should keep the Passover! The fact was, that many of the Jewish laws were given, not for their excellence, but solely for their peculiarity, for the purpose of maintaining a small people separate from other nations that surrounded them; and in many cases the mere fact that a custom had prevailed among the Jews almost established that it was unfit for mankind in general. But the noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool, threw over the old law of Moses, and appealed to the customs and notions of Christendom. Why, whereabouts in Christendom would such a law as this Sabbath Bill be presented to any Legislature? Would it not be scouted by every nation in every civilized part of Europe, as contrary to existing customs and present ideas? Was it even consistent with the former ideas of Christendom— those ideas which prevailed when Sabbath legislation was first introduced into this country? What said the famous ordinance encouraging sports — the ordinance of James 1st? Why, that doctrines such as those entertained by Gentlemen opposite were new-fangled doctrines, held and introduced by the Puritans, whose minds, hardened or darkened by the persecution they had met with, felt more sympathy with the Old Testament than with the New. Having alluded to past legislation on this subject, he just wished Gentlemen to remark on what had been the effects of legislation. James 1st and Charles 1st legislated to promote what would now be called the non-observance of the sabbath. They wished to put down puritanical observances and sanctimonious fashions— and what followed? Why the psalmsinging and scripture-quoting days of Cromwell. These were succeeded in their turn, such an effect did over sanctity produce, by the licentious days of Charles 2nd, when there was more profligacy and more irreligion than at any other period in the history of this country, and yet it was to these days—these famous days of Charles 2nd, the writers of which were now banished from the stage, and not allowed by many persons to infect their families — that Gentlemen turned for a precedent for making piety by Acts of Parliament. He was against making laws to effect that which manners could alone effect, believing that laws on such a subject, if they effected any thing, only produced in a more exaggerated form the very evils they were intended to remedy.

Lord Arthur Lennox

regretted the introduction of this bill, but, at the same time, having no doubt of the sincerity of the intentions of the hon. Baronet, he should vote for the second reading of this bill, though he did not concur in many of the clauses, which, indeed, on the contrary, he held to be most objectionable.

Mr. Hardy

supported the principle of the bill, which went to protect every man in the observance of the sabbath. The clauses of the bill which would not operate equally and fairly, he would abandon. The bill went to prevent any man who employed another from compelling him to work on the sabbath day.

Major Beauclerk

could he regard the bill as a measure calculated to make the people more virtuous or more happy he would support it; but believing it to have a contrary tendency, he had no alternative left but to meet it by a direct negative.

Mr. Potter

thought it would be a mere waste of time to go into committee upon the Bill. Four years ago, when a similar bill was allowed to go into committee, it came out in such a shape that the hon. Baronet (Sir A. Agnew) himself was obliged to vote against it. What hope could there be of a different result in the case of the present measure, supposing it were allowed to advance to another stage? He did not believe that measures of this description were calculated to promote a better observance of the sabbath.

Major Cumming Bruce

expressed a determination to support the second reading of the Bill, because he thought it the duty of a Christian Legislature to give the support of human laws to the proper observance of the sabbath.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

had supported the introduction of the bill, because he was not one of those who were wholly adverse to any legislation upon the subject. But upon a subsequent examination of its provisions, he was bound to say that there was not one of them to which he could give his consent, except perhaps that which related to Sunday trading. He should therefore oppose the second reading.

Mr. Goulburn

although there were many of the provisions of the bill in which he could not concur, should feel it his duty to support the second seading, with the view of so amending the measure in committee as to make it useful and practicable.

Mr. Fowell Buxton

stated that so far from the Sunday being well observed in many parts of the metropolis, he knew that in the district with which he was connected, namely, Spitalfields, the great proportion of shops were open on Sunday. All were agreed that the sabbath should be observed, and therefore should put a stop to Sunday trading, which was one of the main objects of the bill. According to the present state of things, a man who was anxious to keep the sabbath holy was often obliged to act against his conscience and violate it, because his neighbour kept open his shop. He did not approve of many parts of this bill, but should vote for the second reading.

Mr. Brotherton

contended that the due observance of the sabbath was for the good of man on a civil, moral, and religious principle; but he did not think that this measure was calculated to promote the object in view. He was satisfied that nothing was ever gained by working on the sabbath, and he slated this from thirty years' experience in manufactures. If it were impressed on the minds of the people that it was not their interest to work on Sunday, he was sure that they would not do so; but the example should be set them by the rich.

Captain Berkeley

regarded this measure as a bill of pains and penalties. He did not believe that the sabbath could be made to be better observed by acts of Parliament.

The House divided: Ayes 110; Noes 66; —Majority 44.

Bill read a second time.

List of the AYES.
Alsager, Captain Johnston, Andrew
Arbuthnott, hon. H. Jones, Wilson
Ashley, hon. H. Jones, Theobald
Bailey, J. Kearsley, J. H.
Baines, E. Law, hon. Charles E.
Balfour, T. Lawson, Andrew
Bateson, Sir R. Lefevre, Charles, S.
Beckett, Sir, J. Lefroy, Anthony
Bell, Matthew Lefroy, Thomas
Bewes, T. Lennox, Lord, A.
Blackburne, John I. Lister, E. C.
Bonham, R. F. Long, W.
Borthwick, Peter Lowther, J. H.
Brocklehurst, J. Lygon, hon. Gen.
Buller, Sir. J. B. Yarde Mackenzie, T.
Martin, J.
Buxton, F. Maunsell, T. P.
Canning, Sir S. Miles, W.
Cavendish, hon. G. H. Mordaunt, Sir J., bt.
Chapman, Aaron Mosley, Sir O.
Chichester, A. Parker, M.
Cole, A. H. Parry, Sir L. P.
Collier, J. Pease, J.
Compton, H. C. Plumptre, John P.
Corbett, T. Rae, Sir William, bt.
Crewe, Sir G., bart. Reid, Sir J. R.
Dillwyn, L. W. Richards, John
Dugdale, W. S. Richards, R.
Duncombe, W. Rickford, William
Dunlop, J. Ross, Charles
Edwards, Colonel Rushout, G.
Egerton, Sir P. Sandon, Viscount
Estcourt, T. Scourfield, W. H.
Etwall, Ralph Shaw, F.
Finch, George Sheppard, T.
Fleming, John Shirley, E. J.
Forbes, William Smith, A.
Forster, C. S. Stanley, Edward
Fremantle, Sir T. W. Stormont, Viscount
Freshfield, James, W. Thompson, Alderman
Gaskell, James Milnes Tooke, W.
Geary, Sir W. R. P. Townley, R. G.
Gladstone, William E. Troubridge, Sir T.
Gordon, hon. W. Twiss, H.
Goulburn, H. Verner, Colonel
Goulburn, Sergeant Vesey, hon. T.
Halford, H. Welby, G. E.
Halse, James Wilks, John
Hamilton, Geo. Alex Wilson, H.
Handley, Henry Worsley, Lord
Hardy, J. Young, G. F.
Hinde, J. H. Young, J.
Houldsworth, T. Young, Sir W.
Houstoun, G.
Hughes, Hughes TELLERS.
Humphery, John Agnew, Sir A.
Ingham, R. Bruce, C.
List of the NOES.
Aglionby, H. A Berkeley, hon. F.
Attwood, T. Bish, T.
Beauclerk, Major Bodkin, J.
Bowes, John Marsland, Henry
Brady, D. C. Melgund, Viscount
Bramston, T. W. Musgrave, Sir R.
Bridgman, H. O'Connell, J.
Brodie, W. B. Ord, W. H.
Brotherton, J. Palmer, General
Bulwer, H. L. Pechell, Captain R.
Callaghan, D. Potter, R.
Chalmers, P. Rice, rt. hon. T. S.
Chaplin, Colonel Roebuck, J. A.
Codrington, Sir E. Rolfe, Sir R. M.
Collins, W. Rundle, J.
Dalmeny, Lord Ruthven, E.
Darlington, Earl of Scholefield, J.
Dick, Q. Stawart, John
Dowdeswell, William Strutt, E.
Duncombe, T. Tancred, H. W.
Elphinstone, H. Thompson, Colonel
Gaskell, Daniel Thornley, T.
Grattan, Henry, Trelawney, Sir W. L.
Grote, G. Turner, William
Gully, John Vigors, N. A.
Harland, Wm. Chas. Wakley, T.
Harvey, D. W. Wemyss, Captain
Hector, C. J. Whalley, Sir S.
Heneage, E. Williams, W.
Hope, Henry, T. Williams, Sir, J.
Howard, P. H. Williamson, Sir H.
Hutt, William
Lennard, T. B. TELLERS.
Lennox, Lord G. Ward, H. G.
Marshall, William Warburton, H.