§ Mr. Dunlop moved the third reading of the Glasgow and Ayr Railway Bill.
§ Dr. Bowringconsidered the House bound, in justice and consistency, to reject a clause which had been introduced into this Bill, prohibiting traveling on the Lord's-day.
§ Mr. Dunlophad letters from all quarters of the country in the vicinity of the railway approving of the clause, and it was not fair for hon. Gentlemen to oppose it, simply in order to carry forward a speculative opinion of their own. He had been twitted by the hon. Member for Bath with using pounds-shillings-and-pence arguments on a former occasion, but he had done so, because he considered such arguments would have more weight with that hon. Member, and those with whom he acted, than any others he could have used. But travelling on Sunday was hostile to the feelings of the people of Scotland, and was there any justice or any wisdom in violating the prejudices of a whole people? This rail-road was an undertaking in opposition to all the coaches and other carriages passing in the same direction, and by the old law those carriages were prevented from travelling on Sunday. If, then, the clause was omitted, a great injustice would be done to those persons to whom those carriages belonged; and he therefore hoped, that as the clause had received the approbation of the people of Scotland, and as its omission would be an act of injustice to many, the House would not reject it.
Lord John Stuartsaid, the clause had only been carried in the Committee by a majority of one. He had then opposed it, as he considered its insertion an act of gross injustice, and peculiarly injurious to the poor, and he trusted the House would now reject it altogether.
§ Sir Andrew Agnewhad received petitions from the constituents of almost every Member in the House in favour of the principle on which the clause was founded. These petitions expressed a strong feeling on the subject, and the rejection of the clause would alarm the prejudices of the people of Scotland, who were most strongly opposed to travelling on the Lord's-day.
§ Mr. Wakleyasked, did the hon. Member for Wigtonshire believe that he could, by an Act of Parliament, make the people more moral? The idea was an insult to the religion which they professed; and the clause could only be considered as levelled against the working classes, who were to be prevented from travelling by means of this great improvement on the former mode of conveyance. The hon. Baronet could not prevent the people from using their feet, and there would be no use in preventing them from travelling by a railroad. Beasts might be tortured in carriages on 900 the Sabbath, but this quiet mode of conveyance was to be denied.
§ Mr. Finchsaid, that if the arguments of the hon. Member for Finsbury were good for anything, they went to establish that there was no necessity for statutes of any kind for the prevention of crime. The hon. Gentleman had said, that the clause was directed against the poor, but its object was to give them one day's rest in seven; and he could assure the House that nothing would more irritate the feelings of the people of Scotland than the omission of the clause.
§ Mr. Roebucksaid, that there had been so many appeals on the subject, that it was highly necessary that they should be understood. First, an hon. Member had got up and insinuated that which he knew it would be unparliamentary to state openly. The insinuation of the hon. Member for Ayrshire with respect to his (Mr. Roebuck's) religion, was totally uncalled for. What was the meaning of that insinuation? A man of high feeling, of Christian charity, of common honesty, would not make an insinuation when he dared not make a direct assertion.
§ The Speakerthought the hon. Member must feel that he was using language not quite Parliamentary.
§ Mr. RoebuckI bow to your decision, Sir. The language was too strong for this House; but it was called for by an insinuation that ought not to have been made in it. Those, continued the hon. Member, who opposed this clause in a Railroad Act, were said, by insinuation, not to have a proper reverence for the Christian religion—that was the meaning of the insinuation. Now, he asserted distinctly and broadly, that the Christian religion had nothing whatever to do with the Sabbath. The Sabbath Day was the Saturday kept by the Jewish religionist; and the Sunday, which had no reference to the 4th Commandment, was not contemplated at all by the 4th Commandment. The Sunday was an ordinance that had grown up by mere custom. He held in his hand, and he was determined to push this question to the utmost, a tract written by Archbishop Whateley, who quoted Archbishop Cranmer. He hoped that was authority enough for Gentlemen opposite. Now, what said Archbishop Cranmer:—"Know ye not, good children, that the Jews in the Old Testament were commanded to keep the Sabbath Day, and they observed every seventh day, called the Sabbath, or Saturday; but we Christian 901 men in the New Testament are not bound by such commandments of Moses's law-concerning differences of times, days, and weeks, but have liberty and freedom to use other days for our Sabbath days, thereon to hear the word of God and keep holy rest; and therefore the Christian liberty may be kept and maintained. We now keep no more the Sabbath on Saturday, as the Jews do, but we observe the Sunday, and certain other days, as the magistrates do judge convenient, whom in this thing we must obey." What was the meaning of that assertion? Why, that the 4th Commandment, like the other portion of the Jewish law, was abrogated by the Christian creed, and was no law for us. Archbishop Whateley, no ordinary authority, distinctly laid down that rule, and said that, on the Sunday—which was a mere day of commemoration, and not ordained, not commanded in any way by the Christian religion—we keep our holy rest. Now, he would go somewhat farther. He wanted to know by what rule and by what Christian guide those men were led who insinuated those individuals were not Christians who opposed the introduction of such a clause into a Bill of this kind. He held in his hand the code of the Christian faith, and he would quote that reverend book, and he would from it take his rule and his Christian charity. He was about to read, with all due deference, a portion of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. In the 14th chapter of that epistle, St. Paul spoke thus—" Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputation. For one believeth that he may eat all things, and those who were weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not, judge him that eateth, for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgeth another man's servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up, for God is able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day regardeth it unto the Lord, and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not to the Lord, he eateth not, and giveth not God thanks." Another verse was this:—"But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother, 902 for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ; for it is written, as I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue confess to God. So, then, every one of us shall give account of himself to God. Let us not, therefore, judge one another any more; but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling-block or an occasion to fall in his brother's way." Again, "Let us, therefore, follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify one another. For meat destroy not the word of God; all things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man which eateth for offence. It is good neither to eat flesh nor to drink wine, nor anything wherewith thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is mace weak." He would read one verse more, and then have done "Let us, therefore, not judge one another any more, but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling-block, or an occasion to fall, in his brother's way." That was his rule. He would say that, no particular day having been specified, it was not the duty of the Legislature to interfere and enjoin the observance of any given day, and thereby "put a stumbling-block in their brother's way." In his opinion it savoured more of Christian charity; and, above all, of Christian humility, for every man to take care of his own conduct, to square his rule for himself, but not in any arrogance of special command to compel another to do that which he would be unwilling to do himself. Who, he would ask, had set the hon. Members on the other side up as judges of this question? He saw nothing to distinguish them from other men—at least nothing of excellence. But the hon. Member for Ayrshire had said the people of Scotland liked the clause, and he would ask if the law commanded them to travel on the Sunday? Was there anything in the Act of Parliament to insist upon their going upon the railway on that day? Were they not able to show their peculiar faith by staying at home? Why did they not begin nearer at home if such enactments were to be carried? Why not stop the Greenwich railway or the Greenwich steamers? They dared not. It was well known that to do so was absolutely beyond the power of Parliament. He respected the people of Scotland, but he did not admire their manner of keeping the Sabbath. He would again assert, that any ascetic observance of the Sabbath was unwise, and that forcing the conscience of any man was not only unwise, 903 but unjust. The people of Scotland would not be injured by the rejection of the clause—it still left them their now uncontrolled will in the worship of God according to their consciences, and they should, therefore, abstain from uncharitably forcing the consciences of others.
§ Mr. Laboucherehoped the House would not suffer itself to be drawn into a theological discussion, as if there was one place more unfit than another for such a discussion, that place was a popular assembly. Although there had hitherto been nothing said by hon. Gentlemen on either side calculated to give personal offence, he, nevertheless, thought it was desirable that the matter should not proceed further. If he should see any Bill brought in, having for its object the prevention of compulsory labour on the Sabbath by those who conscientiously objected to work on that day, he was prepared to say he would not offer any opposition to it; but, as he considered that the tendency of the clause under the consideration of the House would be to alienate the respect of the people of Scotland from their English neighbours, he felt himself bound to vote against its insertion in the Bill.
§ Sir Robert Inglissaid, that although many persons professing the Christian religion differed in opinion with regard to the divine obligation of keeping holy one day in seven, yet he believed the most lax theologians were agreed in allowing those to observe it who chose to do so. The arguments made use of by the hon. and learned Member for Bath ought to induce him to bring forward some measure, not only for the repeal of the Act of Charles 2nd, but all other laws which had been enacted upon the subject.
Colonel Thompsonwould recant everything he had ever said upon the question, if hon. Gentlemen opposite would produce a shadow of authority or precedent from the book in which they professed to refer as a rule. He happened to be able to enumerate all the instances in which the subject was at all mentioned; or if he was wrong, he was open to correction. It was commemorated that Paul preached on the first day of the week, and that the disciples broke bread. Was there the slightest evidence of a wish to hinder any man from doing the like? It was stated that on the first day of the week the early Christians made a collection for charitable purposes. Was there any thing in the omission of the clause, to interfere with the power of doing 904 this? And it was further stated, in an abstruse and mystical book, that an apostle was "in the Spirit on the Lord's-day." Was there the slightest tendency to interfere with the right of private judgment on this point either? These were positively the only ways in which the subject was ever mentioned, and upon such grounds did hon. Gentlemen opposite claim to shut our railroads. There was no use in saying the clause was only to extend to Ayrshire; if there was any doubt of what was intended yesterday, there was none to-day. Among the papers of the House was the Bill which it was proposed to extend to England. The preamble ran, Forasmuch as nothing is more acceptable to God than the true and sincere worship and service of Him according to His holy will, and "that the holy keeping of the Lord's-day is a principal part of the true service of God." Suppose a Catholic Member had brought in a Bill stating "that the practice of auricular confession is a principal part of the true service of God," would not hon. Gentlemen have seen that this was a begging of the question? Members on his side of the House, by the same right by which their fathers resisted the one proposition, resisted the other. They stood here to maintain that it was a mere wilful imposition of man's invention, without a shadow of authority from the book professed to be appealed to; which was a great deal more than could be said of auricular confession. There was another reason against the course adopted by the other side. It was setting up a false and fictitious standard of morality, and entailing on the country all those evils which were the consequences. We were continually told, that all men who came to be hanged, confessed to having begun with Sabbath-breaking. He had no doubt that in Mohammedan countries, all men who, by their crimes, were brought to the punishment of impalement, confessed to having began with breaking the fast of Ramazan. Burthens were laid on men too heavy to be borne, and thus an artificial crime was created in men's minds, and their consciences, accustomed once to break through the artificial bound, proceeded rapidly to break through others. Was this the way to legislate for public morality? He hoped the House would show its sense of such proceedings, by resisting the attempt to establish an arbitrary and fictitious imposition.
§ Lord John Russellthought the House was going beyond its usual line in 905 atempting to prohibit travelling on a particular railroad on the Sabbath, while it was allowed on all the turnpike roads in England and Scotland. He did not think the House was prepared to go the length this clause contemplated; but if it was, the question ought certainly not to be brought forward in a way which affected a particular railway. The fairer way would be to make it a separate and distinct question. For these reasons he should vote against the retention of the clause.
§ The Attorney-Generalsaid, the clause amounted to an absolute prohibition of travelling at any hour on Sunday in Scotland; and although he disapproved of many of the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, he felt the clause to be most unnecessary.
§ The House divided on the retention of the clause: Ayes 83; Noes 115: Majority 32.
| List of the AYES. | |
| Alsager, Captain | Houldsworth, T. |
| Arbuthnott, hon. H. | Houstoun, G. |
| Ashley, Viscount | Hughes, Hughes |
| Attwood, M. | Inglis, Sir R. H. |
| Balfour, T. | Jackson, Sergeant |
| Baring, H. Bingham | Johnstone, J. J. H. |
| Baring, W. B. | Jones, Wilson |
| Bateson, Sir R. | Lefroy, Anthony |
| Beckett, Sir J. | Lennox, Lord Arthur |
| Bonham, R. Francis | Lygon, hon. Gen. |
| Broadwood, H. | Mackenzie, T. |
| Bruce, C. L. C. | Maclean, Donald |
| Buxton, T. F. | Maule, hon. F. |
| Cartwright, W. R. | Maxwell, John |
| Chisholm, A. W. | Mordaunt, Sir J., Bt. |
| Clerk, Sir G. | Mosley, Sir O., Bart. |
| Clive, Viscount | Palmer, George |
| Compton, H. C. | Patten, John Wilson |
| Crewe, Sir G., Bart. | Perceval, Colonel |
| Estcourt, T. G. | Plumptre, J. P. |
| Fector, J. M. | Polhill, Captain F. |
| Feilden, W. | Pringle, A. |
| Finch, George | Richards, John |
| Fitzroy, H. | Richards, Richard |
| Foley, Edw. Thomas | Ross, Charles |
| Forster, Charles S. | Rushbrooke, Colonel |
| Glynne, Sir S. R. | Sandon, Viscount |
| Gordon, hon. W. | Shaw, right hon. F. |
| Goulburn, H. | Sheppard, T. |
| Goulburn, Sergeant | Sinclair, Sir George |
| Greene, T. | Somerset, Lord G. |
| Grey, Sir G. | Stanley, Edward |
| Grimston, Viscount | Stormont, Viscount |
| Halse, James | Sturt, Henry Charles |
| Hamilton, Lord C. | Verner, Colonel |
| Handley, Henry | Vesey, hon. T. |
| Hardinge, Sir H. | Vivian, J. E. |
| Hardy, J. | Welby, G. E. |
| Hastie, A. | Wilbraham, hon. B. |
| Hope, hon. James | Wilks, John |
| Wilson, Henry | TELLERS. |
| Wodehouse, E. | Agnew, Sir A. |
| Wyndham, Wadham | Dunlop, J. |
| List of the NOES. | |
| Aglionby, H. A. | Lowther, J. H. |
| Angerstein, John | Lynch, A. H. |
| Anson, Colonel | Mangles, J. |
| Bagshaw, John | Marsland, Henry |
| Baines, E, | Methuen, Paul |
| Ball, N. | Molesworth, Sir W. |
| Barclay, D. | Morrison, J. |
| Barnard, E. G. | Nagle, Sir R. |
| Barron, H. W. | O'Brien, W. S. |
| Belfast, Earl of | O'Connell, J. |
| Bentinck, Lord W. | O'Connell, M. J. |
| Berkeley, hon. C. C. | O'Connell, Morgan |
| Blake, M. J. | O'Conor, Don |
| Blunt, Sir C. | Oliphant, L. |
| Bowes, John | Ord, W. H. |
| Bridgman, H. | Parker, J. |
| Brotherton, J. | Pattison, J. |
| Browne, R. D. | Pechell, Captain |
| Brownrigg, S. | Pendarves, E. W. |
| Buller, Charles | Philips, M. |
| Buller, E. | Potter, R. |
| Bulwer, Edward L. | Roebuck, John A. |
| Butler, hon. Pierce | Rolfe, Sir R. |
| Callaghan, D. | Russell, Lord John |
| Campbell, Sir J. | Ruthven, E. |
| Chalmers, P. | Sanford, E. A. |
| Clay, W. | Seymour, Lord |
| Clive, Edward Bolton | Smith, R. V. |
| Codrington, Sir E. | Stuart, Lord J. |
| Colborne, N. W. R. | Strangways, hon. J. |
| Crawford, W. S. | Strutt, E. |
| Crawford, W. | Talbot, J. Hyacinth |
| Denison, John E. | Talfourd, Sergeant |
| Denistoun, A. | Thompson, Colonel |
| Divett, E. | Thornley, Thomas |
| Donkin, Sir R. | Trelawney, Sir W. |
| Duncombe, T. | Tulk, C. A. |
| Dundas, J. D. | Vigors, N. A. |
| Ellice, E. | Villiers, Charles P. |
| Elphinstone, H. | Vivian, J. H. |
| Evans, G. | Wall, C. B. |
| Ewart, W. | Warburton, H. |
| Fazakerly, J. N. | Ward, Henry George |
| Ferguson, Sir R. | Wason, R. |
| Fitzsimon, Christopher | Wemyss, Captain |
| Fort, John | Westenra, hon. H. R. |
| Grate, G. | Whalley, Sir S. |
| Gully, John | White, Samuel |
| Hawes, B. | Wilbraham, G. |
| Hawkins, J. H. | Williams, W. |
| Hay, Sir A. Leith | Williams, Sir J. |
| Hobhouse, Sir J. C. | Williamson, Sir H. |
| Howick, Viscount | Wortley, hon. J. |
| Hume, J. | Woulfe, Sergeant |
| Hutt, W. | Wrottesley, Sir J., Bt. |
| Jervis, John | Young, G. F. |
| Labouchere, H. | TELLERS. |
| Lennox, Lord G. | Wakley, T. |
| Leveson, Lord | Bowring, Dr. |
§ Clause rejected.
§ Bill read a third time.