§ Sir A. Agnewrose to move for leave to bring in the two Bills of which he had given notice. The first was one for restraining all open desecration of the Lord's Day, and for extending to all classes of his Majesty's subjects the opportunity of resting thereon, according to the commandment. The other was to enable local authorities, under certain restrictions, to remove Saturday and Monday fairs and markets to other days. The subject had been so much canvassed already, that he would not go into any details upon it. He would only ask for a fair hearing on the subject, which had had so many petitions sent to the House in its favour. All he would ask was that the House would allow the Bill to be brought in and go to a Committee.
§ Mr. Plumptreseconded the motion. A great many persons in this country were of opinion that some measure of the kind was necessary, and the House ought therefore to inquire whether it would not be right to adopt some legislative measure to provide against the desecration of the Sabbath. Much of the prosperity and happiness of the country depended on the maintenance and dissemination of religious feelings, and, as Christian Legislators, they were called upon to see that the Lord's Day was not desecrated, and that all classes should be allowed aft opportunity of rest, as directed by the Divine command.
§ Mr. Warburtonsaid, that from the few observations of the hon. Baronet, he could perceive that the present measure differed in no material point from those of former 542 Sessions, which went to establish one law for the rich, and another for the poor. He objected to the Bill, however, on more general grounds. He denied that of late years there was a less strict observance of the Sabbath than formerly; on the contrary, he maintained that the Sabbath was more strictly observed at present, not only by the wealthier, but poorer classes, than he remembered it to have been ten or twelve years ago. He therefore called upon the House to negative the motion of the hon. Baronet.
§ Mr. Hardyobserved, that the hon. Member for Bridport had blamed his hon. Friend for bringing forward the same measure that he had proposed to the House on former occasions. Now, he would have been very much Surprised had his hon. Friend acted otherwise, because on no previous occasion had he attempted to bring in a Bill which he did not think was such a one as that House ought to pass. His principles were now the same as then, and his conduct on the present occasion was in perfect conformity with those principles. Let the House enter upon the consideration of the provisions of the Bill, and if they should be then of Opinion that any of them went too far, or not far enough, it would be for hon. Members to modify them in any Way they might think proper. Every petition that had been presented, contained a prayer that the House would permit the Bill to go into Committee, in order that all its provisions might be duly canvassed. The hon. Member for Bridport need not flatter himself that this Bill would interfere with the poor, for it was they who had come forward and signed those petitions.
§ Mr. Trevorsaid, he should certainly feel it his duty to vote that the hon. Baronet's Bill be laid upon the table; at the same time he was bound to declare, that should that Bill, like former Bills on the Same subject, enact one law for the rich, and another for the poor, should it prevent the poor man, who was confined during the whole week, from the enjoyment of a little rational amusement on the Sabbath-day, while it did not preclude the wealthier man from that enjoyment, and in driving his carriage wherever he pleased, he should feel himself compelled in the further stages of the Bill, to give his decided opposition to the adoption of such a principle.
§ Mr. Wardshould support the proposition of the hon. Member for Bridport, being firmly convinced that it was utterly impossible for the House, to any good or 543 practical purpose, to take upon itself the task of Sunday Legislation. This had been admitted by the right hon. Member for Tamworth, on the occasion when the modified Bill of the hon. Member for Shaftesbury was proposed, and he therefore called upon the right hon. Baronet for his vote against the present proposition. There was a growing feeling throughout the country, which would bring about the declared objects of the hon. Baronet and his Friends in a much better, and more effectual way, than any coercive legislative interference possibly could.
Colonel Woodbegged to say, in reference to what had fallen from the hon. Member who had just sat down, that Acts for the better regulation of the Sabbath were to be found on the statute book at present. It was a subject, too, upon which he would remind the House, a vast number of persons had petitioned, who were of opinion that that House not only could legislate, but were bound to legislate upon it. He had himself presented six petitions praying the House to pass the Bill brought forward by the hon. Baronet.
Dr. Borvringobserved, that in those places where there was least legislation respecting the Sabbath, was the Sabbath most strictly observed, and instanced Holland and Switzerland as examples. With regard to the number of petitions that had been presented on this subject, perhaps the House would be surprised to find, that according to the last report, forty-one petitions only had been presented, and that the average number of signatures attached to each was only eighty-two.
§ Mr. G. F. Youngsaid, that the hon. Member had totally omitted the fact, that the great bulk of the petitions in favour of this measure, had been presented that evening. There was no subject whatever, with the exception he believed of the abolition of slavery, on which so large a portion of the people of this country had expressed their opinions, as upon this very subject. He repeated, none whatever. It was strange, therefore, that the opposition to this Bill should come from those, who, upon so many other occasions, were the first to impress upon the House the imperative nature of the duty which devolved upon them to pay respect to the petitions of the people.
§ Mr. Villierssaid, that as the hon. Member for Tynemouth had proposed to test the philosophy of the Ministerial side of the House by their conduct upon this motion, he would judge the sincerity of the opposite 544 side of the House by the same test; and first he would ask the hon. Member for Tynemouth whether he would, after his advocacy of this measure, be ready to make the sacrifice himself that would give it effect; and supposing he was connected with any interest—say, the shipping interest, for instance—whether he would be ready to enforce upon those who were engaged in that interest, to abstain from employment on the Sabbath-day, and prohibit any vessel from leaving any port on the Sunday; or if they had quitted the port n any day of the week, he would compel them to cast anchor on the Sunday? And if he would not, what he meant by prescribing to others, what he would not do himself? He wished also to put a question to the hon. Member for Bradford, who had expressed an anxiety for the fate of this measure, on account of its provisions, and, therefore, he supposed he was acquainted with them, which question was, whether there was any provision for compelling iron-masters to put out their furnaces on the Sabbath-day, and, if not, whether he considered the Bill perfect without it? He had heard that the hon. Member for Bradford was connected with that interest, he therefore concluded that that subject had engaged his attention. If the Bill contained no such provision, would the hon. Member introduce one?
§ Mr. Hardyreplied, that after many trials, he had succeeded in having all the iron furnaces with which he had any connexion, put out nine hours on every Sunday, in order to allow the men to go to church.
Colonel Thompsonsaid, he tried to put nobody down by clamour, and he treated nobody with contempt; but he was in the other situation alluded to by the hon. Member for Tynemouth; he had been urged by constituents, with some of whom he had a long, and he might call it, an hereditary connexion, to take the side of the hon. Baronet, the mover of the Bill. But he had been constrained to reply to them, that he had been born among the supporters of religious liberty, and among them he meant to die; and that by the same right by which our fathers protested against the doctrines and practice of an ancient Church, so he would protest, and if he stood alone in the House, he did not stand alone out of doors, that the Judaical observance of the Sabbath was not only not directed in the Scripture, to which all parties professed to look to for authority, but was absolutely 545 prohibited. Why did not hon. Members trouble us about meats and drinks, and keeping the new moon and holidays; for all these were prohibited in precisely the same passage with Sabbath days?—Why did they allow the open sale of such food as pork and sausages? Why did they not propose, that on the assembling of a new Parliament, the Sergeant-Surgeon should attend upon the Speaker, and every hon. Gentleman be circumcised as he came to the table to be sworn? Why did hon. Gentlemen impose one burthen on their neighbours, and evade the other in their own proper persons? And why could they not content themselves with the full enjoyment of their own religious opinions, in which nobody would be more ready to protect them than himself, without loading their neighbours with burthens too heavy to be borne? He was the more earnest to make this declaration, because there were many hon. Members of great weight in the House, who had displayed a disposition to protect the just rights of the people on this subject from political motives, and who possibly might not have given attention to the fact, that the question of authority was really as he had stated.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 199; Noes 53: Majority 146.
List of the AYES. | |
Alsager, Captain | Chandos, Marquess of |
Ashley, Viscount | Charlton, E. L. |
Baillie, H. D. | Chichester, J. P. B. |
Baines, E | Chichester, A. |
Balfour, T. | Chisholm, A. W. |
Barclay, D. | Clerk, Sir G. |
Baring, F. T. | Codrington, C. W. |
Barron, H. W. | Cole, hon. A. H. |
Bateson, Sir R. | Cole, Viscount |
Beckett, rt. hon. Sir J. | Collier, John |
Bell, M. | Compton, H. C. |
Bethell, R. | Crompton, S. |
Bewes, T. | Darlington, Earl of |
Blackburne, I. | Dowdeswell, W. |
Blackstone, W. S. | Duffield, T. |
Bonham, R. Francis | Buncombe, hon. W. |
Borthwick, P. | Dunlop, J. |
Bowles, G. R. | Eaton, R. J. |
Bramston, T. W. | Egerton, Sir P. |
Brocklehurst, J. | Elley, Sir. J. |
Brotherton, J. | Elwes, J. P. |
Bruce, C. L. C. | Estcourt, T. |
Bruen, Colonel | Etwall, Ralph |
Bruen, F. | Farrand, R. |
Buller, Sir J. Y. | Fector, J. M |
Campbell, Sir H. | Fielden, W. |
Campbell, Sir J. | Fenton, J. |
Castlereagh, Viscount | Fergusson, rt.hn. R. C. |
Cavendish, hon. G. H. | Finch, George |
Cayley, E. S. | Fitzroy, Lord C. |
Fitzroy, hon. H. | Nicholl, J. |
Folkes, Sir W. | Palmer, G. |
Follett, Sir W. | Parker, M. |
Forbes, W. | Parry, Sir L. P. |
Forster, C. S. | Patten, J. W. |
Fremantle, Sir T. | Peel, rt. hon. Sir R. |
Geary, Sir W. | Perceval, Col. |
Gordon, Robert | Pigot, Robert |
Goulburn, rt. hon. H. | Plumptre, John P. |
Goulburn, Serjeant | Polhill, Frederick |
Green, T. | Ponsonby, hon. J. |
Grey, Sir G. | Poulter, J. S. |
Hale, Robert B. | Praed, W. M. |
Halse, J. | Price, S. G. |
Hawkes, T. | Pringle, A. |
Heathcote, G. J. | Pryme, G. |
Herbert, hon. S. | Pusey, P. |
Hindley, C. | Reid, Sir John Rae |
Hogg, J. W. | Rice, rt. hon. T. S. |
Hoskins, K. | Richards, John |
Hotham, Lord | Richards, R. |
Houldsworth, T. | Rickford, Wm. |
Houstoun, G. | Rolfe, Sir R. M. |
Howard, R. | Ross, Charles |
Hughes, W. H. | Rushbrooke, Col. |
Humphery, J. | Russell, C. |
Hurst, R. H. | Russell, Lord J. |
Jackson, Serjeant | Russell, Lord C. |
Jervis, John | Ryle, J. |
Ingham, R. | Sanderson, R. |
Inglis, Sir R. H. | Sandon, Viscount |
Johnstone, Sir J. | Scholefield, J. |
Johnstone, J. J. H. | Scourfield, W. H. |
Johnston, Andrew | Shaw, right hon. F. |
Jones, W. | Sheppard, T. |
Jones, T. | Shirley, E. J. |
Irton, Samuel | Sibthorp, Col. |
Kearsley, J. H. | Sinclair, Sir G. |
Kirk, P. | Somerset, Lord G. |
Knatchbull, right hon. | Stanley, E. J. |
Sir E. | Stanley, E. |
Law, hon. C. E. | Stanley, W. O. |
Lawson, A | Steuart, R. |
Lefevre, C. S. | Strangways, hon. J. |
Lefroy, right hon. T. | Sturt, H. C. |
Lennox, Lord G. | Talfourd, Sergeant |
Lennox, Lord Arthur | Thompson, Ald. |
Lewis, D. | Tooke, W. |
Lincoln, Earl of | Trevor, hon. A. |
Lister, E. C. | Twiss, H. |
Long, W. | Tyrrell, Sir J. |
Longfield, R. | Vere, Sir C. B. |
Lowther. J. H. | Verner, Colonel |
Lushington, C. | Verney, Sir H. |
Lygon, hon. General | Vernon, G. H. |
Mackenzie, T. | Vesey, hon. T. |
Maclean, D. | Vivian, J. E. |
Macleod, R. | Walker, R. |
Mactaggart, J. | Whitmore, T. |
Marsland, T. | Wilbraham, G. |
Martin, T. | Wilbraham, hon. B. |
Maunsell, T. P. | Wilks, J. |
Miles, W. | Williams, R. |
Mordaunt, Sir J. | Williams, Sir J. |
Morpeth, Viscount | Wilmot, Sir J. E. |
Mosley, Sir O. | Wilson, Henry |
Neeld, John | Winnington, H. J. |
Wood, Colonel T. | Young, Sir W. |
Wortley, hon. J. S. | TELLERS. |
Young, G. F. | Agnew, Sir A. |
Young, J. | Hardy, J. |
List of the NOES. | |
Aglionby, H. A. | Hutt, Wm. |
Angerstein, J. | Leveson, Lord |
Anson, hon. Colonel | Marshall, William |
Biddulph, Robert | Marsland, Henry |
Blake, M. J. | Milton, Viscount |
Bodkin, J. | Mullins, F. W. |
Bowring, Dr. | O'Connell, J. |
Bridgeman, H. | O'Connell, M. |
Buller, E. | Pallison, J. |
Bulwer, H. L. | Pechell, Captain |
Chalmers, P. | Philips, M. |
Codrington, Admiral | Ramsbottom, John |
Collins, W. | Rippon, Cuthbert |
Curteis, H. B. | Rundle, J. |
Divett, E. | Ruthven, E. |
Duncombe,T. | Seymour, Lord |
Dundas, hon. T. | Speirs, A. |
Ellice, right hon. E. | Stuart, Lord, T. |
Evans, G. | Strutt, E. |
Fielden, J. | Thompson, Col. |
Fergus, J. | Thornely, T. |
Fort, J. | Tulk, C. A. |
Grote, G. | Turner, W. |
Hawes, D. | Wakley, T. |
Hawkins, J. H. | Wason, R. |
Hay, Sir A. L. | TELLERS. |
Hector, C. J. | Warburton, H. |
Heron, Sir R. | Ward, H. G. |