HC Deb 30 May 1850 vol 111 cc466-84
LORD ASHLEY

, after presenting a petition signed by 31,000 inhabitants of Manchester, praying for the total abolition of Sunday labour in the Post Office, said that if the question he had to submit to the House had no other claim to their consideration than the deep and extensive interest which had been manifested in it by the whole of their constituents in different parts of the kingdom, it would deserve their most respectful attention. No other object had ever excited a deeper attention, or had created a more intense sentiment in the public mind. This feeling had been evinced in public meetings, by memorials and deputations to the Government, and by petitions to Parliament. This feeling was not confined to any one class or profession, or to any one order or rank of society; it pervaded the very highest and the very lowest grades of the community; it was felt by labourers, artisans, tradesmen, merchants, bankers, capitalists, and persons of all descriptions. This feeling also, he was happy to say, was not confined to any one form of theological or political opinion. It prevailed with equal force in the smallest agricultural districts as well as in the largest manufacturing towns and cities. It was a question which might be argued upon a very much higher ground. It might be argued upon its religious character—upon the justice of the case to the parties concerned, and upon its deep importance to the whole community. He hoped its discussion would be conducted in a sober and friendly spirit, suited alike to the character of the assembly by whom the discussion was carried on, and the importance of the subject itself. For his part, he would studiously refrain from uttering anything which should in the least degree excite anger or provoke opposition. On the contrary, he must begin by expressing his thanks to Her Majesty's Government and to the Post Office authorities for what they had already done. They had conferred a great benefit on the parties interested, and no greater benefit had been conferred by them than the proof they had given that they could confer still more. All he hoped was, that the Government would now endeavour to accomplish their own good work, and perfectly establish their own reputation. He would now call the attention of the House more particularly to the deep feeling which had been declared by the public on this matter. The report of the petitions, up to the present day, was not completed; but the total number of petitions down to the 24th of May was 3,820, and that of signatures was 549,538. Many of these (from Scotland alone, 335) were signed by the chairman only; and there was a vast number of petitions yet to be reported. Several hundreds had not yet been presented. He had, therefore, a right to conclude that the signatures would actually amount to no less than 700,000. But, taking into account the number of persons who might be assumed to be represented by the signature of the chairman, he was warranted in estimating the number of petitioners in support of the Motion he was about to make at not loss than 1,000,000. Look at the details. Take Liverpool. It had sent a petition signed by 14,000 persons in favour of the Motion. As soon as the subject was mooted in that town, 200 merchants and bankers formed themselves into a Committee to forward the object of the Motion which he now had to submit to the House. The petition from Manchester had 31,000 signatures appended to it, including a considerable number of rich and extensive firms. From Aberdeen a petition had come signed by 16,702 persons; from Paisley the signatures were 6,563; from Edinburgh they were 24,298, and from Glasgow 21,750. The Glasgow petition was worthy of attention. The town-council consisted of fifty members, forty-one of whom signed the petition; of the banks nine out of the eleven in that city attached their signatures to it; twenty-two surgeons and physicians signed it, sixty-eight procurators, brokers, &c.; and 500 merchants and manufacturers. In the year 1839 the subject of the penny post was brought before the House. The Government yielded upon that subject to a body of petitions representing only 266,511 persons, and in thus yielding they gave up a revenue to the amount of a million of money, which for a considerable time placed the Government in great financial difficulties. What was it that the petitioners in this case asked for? They sought nothing for themselves, but simply requested that a boon might be extended to a certain number of their fellow men. That was all. A memorial was presented to the First Lord of the Treasury, signed by about 5,000 merchants, bankers, &c., of the city of London. The testimony of the city of London on this subject was of great importance, as it was the city which all the other towns and cities in the kingdom wished to take as a model. If any evil could possibly arise out of the plan which he now proposed, it must have been felt in the metropolis of the whole world; but the London bankers and merchants declared that they were strongly impressed with a belief that there existed no greater necessity to justify the transaction of the ordinary business of receiving and delivering letters on Sunday, in any of the post-offices of the united kingdom than in those of the metropolis; and they earnestly requested Her Majesty's Government to take into immediate consideration the expediency and propriety of causing the same to be discontinued, by ordering the post-offices in the country to be altogether closed on that day. Their belief was grounded on the fact that the metropolis, containing a population of 2,200,000 souls, had never experienced any necessity for opening the metropolitan post-office on Sundays, and also on the fact that the great acceleration which had recently taken place in the postal communications throughout the empire must necessarily diminish, to a very great extent, any inconvenience which it might otherwise be supposed would arise from closing the provincial post-offices on Sunday; and, believing that the effectual preservation of a seventh day of rest from their ordinary labour was a principle of vital importance to the physical and social well-being of the poorer classes of society, whilst the due observance of the Sunday was a duty of solemn obligation upon all classes of the community, they agreed to take such measures as were best calculated to press the subject on the attention of the Government and the Legislature. So far as the Government had hitherto acted, he and those whose petitions he was supporting, were in entire accordance; but the Government now said that they had done enough, whereas he and the petitioners said that a great deal more could and ought to be done. The Government wished to stand still, while he and the petitioners maintained that the Government ought to go forward. The demand he and the petitioners made was simply this, that every town and city of the united kingdom should be put on the same footing as the metropolis in respect of post-office work. They simply required that the metropolis should be the model to be imitated in all postal matters in every town and city in the kingdom. They asked that a rule should be established to prohibit the collection and delivery of letters and the transmission of mails on the Lord's day. When he said the transmission of the mail, he meant the mail bags; he did not propose to interfere with the passengers. The whole question involved in this debate was a very simple one; he merely asked that each town and city in the united kingdom should be placed under the same conditions in respect to postal matters as the metropolis. The petitioners did not require any exemption from taxation, or ask for any political privilege. They sought not the slightest benefit for themselves. All they asked for was, theoretically, the adoption of a principle which they held to be sacred, but practically that Parliament should extend relief to a body of overtoiled men, and place them on the same footing and in the same condition as that of all other subjects in Her Majesty's dominions. This was the long and short of their demand, and he could not understand in what manner it could reasonably be resisted. It had indeed been said that the plan was impracticable; but that was the invariable answer which had been given to every proposition he had ever submitted to the House, but which nevertheless had since been carried into effect. But if Government gave him this reply, what, he would ask, had their own functionaries said upon the subject? The resolution he was about to propose might be divided into two distinct parts: first, it required the cessation of the collection and delivery of letters in all the post-offices of the united kingdom on the Lord's day. What was Mr. Rowland Hill's testimony upon that point? In his minute of the 5th of January, he said— As regards collection and delivery, London is already in the state proposed, and though the delivery of Sunday in provincial towns is probably the heaviest in the week, still there could be no insuperable obstacle to placing any other town, where the inhabitants in general so desired it, in a similar position. In the same minute he observed— The former—that is, suspension of collection and delivery—might be adopted without detriment in detail, according to the wish of each particular place. The surveyors of the Post Office, summoned to London to give their opinion and counsel on the subject, said— With respect to the total suspension of all delivery on Sunday, it is obvious that the measure would be a great boon to the servants of the Post Office, and, if the public mind is prepared to acquiesce in such a proposition, we do not perceive that it is liable to any objection on the part of the Post Office. He was justified, therefore, in saying that there was no objection on the part of the Post Office in respect to the first part of his resolution. If they would examine all those who had the greatest experience of their postal system—bankers, traders, commercial men of all grades, they would say that no evil whatever, but, on the contrary, a vast amount of good, had arisen out of that amount of restriction on the Sunday delivery which existed in the metropolis. He recollected a few years ago, when a notion prevailed that a Sunday delivery was about to take place in London, that a stronger feeling was manifested and greater efforts were made to resist the plan than any he ever knew to have been displayed in the whole course of his public life on any subject that ever agitated the public mind. To pass now to the second part of the subject of the Motion—the non-transmission of the mail-bags; in reference to this, the report of the surveyors was:— The operation of such a measure would be most unequal, being comparatively harmless with respect to all towns situated within 200 to 250 miles of London, but acting with increased severity upon the interests of all towns situated beyond that limit. So that within a radius of 250 miles, the transmission of the mails on Sunday might be stopped without any injury resulting—["No!"]—at least, it would be "comparatively harmless." Now a radius of 250 miles would comprise the whole of England to the east and south coasts, to the west as far as Plymouth and Bangor, and to the north as far as the borders of Durham and Westmoreland. It so happened that nearly all the English towns of importance, except Newcastle and Carlisle, were within a range of 250 miles, and the mail from London even at present reached Carlisle at 7.55 on Monday morning, and Newcastle at 9; so that the inconvenience would practically amount to nothing. Scotland and Ireland would no doubt be affected by the proposed regulation; Scotland to this extent, that the Monday morning delivery would be postponed to the afternoon, and in some parts of Ireland it would be postponed to the Tuesday morning. But there was this very remarkable fact, testifying the feeling of great masses of the people upon this subject, that notwithstanding it was known that this result would take place, Ireland had petitioned very largely indeed for the carrying the whole of the resolution; and Scotland—including the great commercial town of Glasgow—had sent petitions for the total measure, with 253,157 signatures up to the I4th of May only. But there was no doubt that the second part of the Motion was open to much more debate than the first; indeed, to the first it seemed altogether impossible that any effective opposition could be made, for the proposed regulation would do no more than place the provincial towns and cities upon the footing of London, and make Sunday the blank day in the provinces instead of Monday. Now, although he, and those whom he represented, retained their opinion as to the feasibility of carrying the whole resolution into effect, and the benefit that would result from it, yet as upon the second part there was a great difference of opinion, not only among those who had not yet made up their minds altogether, but even among those who had signed many of these petitions, he was prepared to amend the resolution in this respect, and instead of proposing, in the terms of his notice, an address asking for measures to be taken to stop the collection and delivery of letters, and also the transmission of mails on the Lord's day, he would move— That an Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that measures might be taken for the extension of the system of rest on the Sabbath in the London Post Office to the provinces, and that the collection and delivery of letters should entirely cease on that day in all parts of the kingdom—[the word 'collection' was a technical term, and did not mean the dropping of letters into the box, but the sorting and the arrangement]—and also that Her Majesty would call inquiry to be made as to how far, without injury to the public service, the transmission of mails on the Lord's day should entirely cease. The resolution so modified should surely meet the acceptance of the House, considering the vast body of petitioners who prayed for the first part of the resolution; and that in regard to the other the House was only asked to address the Crown to cause inquiry whether so great a boon, so ardently desired, might not be conferred without injury to the public service. Let the House consider the great importance and value of such an arrangement. The benefit to be derived would not be limited to the few thousands who were confined within the wall of the Post Office, or engaged in the carrying of mails, but would extend to all the receivers of letters—the bankers, merchants, and, above all, the clerks and official persons in the countinghouses and houses of business, who were compelled, by necessity, as it were, against their own desire, to engage in a great deal of business on the Lord's day. Surely some certain period of returning repose should be secured for our overwrought people. Every Gentleman present might be appealed to, to testify in his own person to the satisfaction which he felt on the return of the Sunday, if only from the consciousness which he had that he should not be compelled to hear the everlasting-rap of the postman at the door, and to answer letters time after time during the day. Appeals might be made to the House upon many grounds to induce them to consent to the measure proposed to them: first and foremost, upon the ground of the Scriptural character of the institution, and the religious obligation of the day. Without entering into any theological argument, this might at least be said, that all who received either Testament, or both—the Jew, the Roman Catholic, the Church of England, all the reformed churches of the Continent, the Wesleyans, the Protestant Dissenters—all recognised the divine institution of the Sabbath, and carried into practice, as well as confessed, the obligation of the observance of one day in seven for the purpose of worship and repose. This obligation was universal. There was no distinction of persons, or callings, or stations, or pursuits, of times or circumstances—it was binding upon all. The only exception was that constituted by works of piety, charity, or necessity. The wonderful adaptation of this institution to the social, physical, and religious wants of man was, if there were no other, an argument for the divine character of the institution. That it was particularly suited to the case of those whose necessities called them to daily toil, had been well proved in those remarkable recent productions, the prize essays by working men on the temporal advantages of the Sabbath, in which the men stated their own experience and recorded their own feelings, and showed how their aspirations and their wants were met by the recurring day of worship and repose. The House might almost be appealed to on the ground of justice; they were imposing upon their public servants in this department a duty which they did not impose upon any other, nor upon themselves, for they took good care to secure, not only the Sunday, but the Saturday, for themselves. These persons, although in receipt of public salaries, had rights inalienable, privileges that could not be taken away, or even suspended, except upon the ground of public overwhelming necessity. Now, if necessity was the plea for continuing this Sabbath labour, the truth of the argument should be proved by instantly opening the London Post Office; if necessity was not the plea, as it could not be, then the provinces and London should be put upon an equality. This was also a sanitary question—a question of health, concerning all engaged in this labour; and Gentlemen might well direct their attention to the consequences of overtoil, the vast amount of widowhood and orphanage resulting from the premature death of those who were taxed beyond their power. The proposed limitation might, among its benefits, produce that of somewhat extending, if not life, the working powers of thousands. If relaxation was necessary for those who lived in a great measure of ease, how requisite it must he for those sons of toil who laboured from morning to night, and in many instances through the night into the morning! Would the House listen to a working man speaking his own feeling in one of these prize essays—Heaven's Antidote to the Curse of Labour? The writer was showing that we were not only to look to the cessation of bodily toil, but of wear and tear of mind—that change of occupation which gave refreshment and constituted repose, as so many working men found in passing from the severity of toil to active labour in Sunday-schools on the Sabbath. The writer said— It is not enough that a race of rational beings should be dealt with on the mercenary principles adopted with respect to our beasts of burden. Man's twofold nature—his nobler capabilities—his elevation as a moral agent—his soul, resplendent even in its ruins—challenge a loftier recognition of his claims than is due to the more drudges of creation. To calculate the daily ravages committed upon the loins, the muscles, and the limbs of labour, and to dole out the minimum amount of rest and nutriment that will suffice to repair these damages—to barely maintain the equilibrium of functional waste and supply at the smallest possible sacrifice of their services—is to embrute the labouring population; yea, to degrade beings originally fashioned in the image of God into mere animate machines to be used in the production of wealth, luxury, and patrician indulgences, in which they are never suffered to participate. Instead of which, they are doomed, through the elasticity of youth, the vigour of manhood, and the decrepitude of age, to spend all their intervals of relaxation from physical exertion in eating, in drinking, or in sleeping—and all of this only to gather fresh power for the strained sinews, and new moisture for the dripping brow! But man yearns for a higher order of repose than this; something more congenial with the diviner indwellings of his being. Not the mere oblivion of the senses; not the luxurious stretch of the tired limbs; not the subdued throbbings of the overwrought brain; not alone the casting out of mortal weariness and pain; not a rest altogether imposed by physical necessity, but a rest that may be wakefully, intelligently, and complacently enjoyed. Such a want is delightfully supplied by the institution of the Sabbath! We were all aware of the movement for the early closing of shops, and for the limitation of the hours of labour in factories: were these departments alone to be thus benefited? All the advantages of rapid locomotion and communication redoubled the toil of those whose case was now especially before the House; were they alone to be as a Pariah race, excluded from the enjoyments of the rest of the community? The matter was very simple. The simple demand was, that there should be transferred to the country the benefits and restrictions to which we so willingly submitted in this great commercial city. The working man just quoted said— The Sabbath, as a day of relaxation and refreshment, should be esteemed piously by the working classes in particular. The statesman, the merchant, the manufacturer, and even the tradesman, can often escape the duties or emancipate themselves from the thrall of business; and, vanishing from their respective engagements, may embark for foreign travel, and luxuriate awhile in some invigorating clime; or, wandering up and down our own fair isle in search of health, may halt at spots rich in historic interest, and in memorials of ancient fame, or may visit the wonderteeming cities and towns reared by modern enterprise; or else, if wearied with the excitement of such scenes, may turn aside, for a season, to the margin of the ocean, and there inhale health and gladness from its bracing breezes; refresh their bodies in its living waters: and soothe the irritation of their feelings with the music of its murmurings. But not so the poor workiug man. He cannot go beyond his tether. He can rarely cast off his collar. From morning's dawn to evening's close, and often into the deep shadows of the night—through scenes of sorrow and tribulation, and the incipient stages of disease—his necessities chain him to his post. Condemned, like Sisyphus of old, to cell the stone of labour up the steep acclivity of life, which, on having neared the summit, rebounds to its starting point again—he finds himself, after the disbursement of his scanty wages, again at the bottom of the mountain, yoked to his hopeless task, and compelled to begin anew the uphill struggle. But cheer thee, child of travail! The blessed Sabbath is thine own! It is the excellent gift of thy Maker—see, then, that no man rob thee of thy boon! It is the heirloom of thy family—see that it be not alienated from their possession! He (Lord Ashley) hoped he had abstained from touching anything that might give rise to theological controversy; but he could not repress the expression of his strong feeling of the immense goodness and wisdom of God in the institution of this period of returning rest, and of the immense injustice of those who would refuse the participation of it to their fellow-creatures. He felt great comfort in the consciousness that he was speaking the sentiments of more than a million of his fellow-countrymen upon this great subject. He rejoiced that here vox populi and vox Dei were in strict harmony. No new law Was asked for, no restriction upon the freedom of the enjoyment of others, nothing that could in the least interfere with any privileges, rights, liberties, immunities; but simply that the power be given to these sons of toll to enjoy, if so disposed, the opportunity of observing the law of their God, and of "remembering the Sabbath-day that they might keep it holy."

Motion made, and Question put— That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, representing the great desire which exists in all parts of the United Kingdom, for an extension of that rest on the Lord's Day which is afforded in the London Post Office to the Post Offices of the provincial towns, and praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to direct, that the collection and delivery of letters shall, in future, entirely cease on Sunday in all parts of the kingdom:—And, also, that Her Majesty will cause an inquiry to be made as to how far, without injury to the public service, the transmission of the Mails on the Lord's Day might be diminished, or entirely suspended.

MR. COWAN

seconded the Motion.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

could assure his noble Friend and the House, that in opposing the Motion he was fully sensible of the deep feeling entertained by many persons upon this subject, and should be exceedingly sorry to be supposed, from any word that he should say, to differ at all from the view the noble Lord had expressed of the value of the Sabbathday. But this Motion went but a very small way towards carrying that view into effect. If the object were that no labour should be performed on the Sabbath, a very different Motion would be required; because, even as to persons employed in the public service, the noble Lord was in error when he supposed that the parties employed in the Post Office were the only persons upon whom Sunday labour was imposed. What did he say to the case of the police, the exciseman, the coast-guard, the customhouse officer, all of whom were called upon to perform duties on the Sunday? He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had mentioned persons connected with his own department; but there were many other classes of servants, private and public, from whom the noble Lord could not venture to propose to take away the burden of Sunday labour. That it should be reduced to a minimum, both in public and private establishments, no one felt more strongly than himself; and he hoped to show that upon this subject the Government had not been negligent, but had, within the last two years, carried that principle to an extent never contemplated previously, and far exceeding what had been done in the last half-century. He had to thank the noble Lord for acknowledging so frankly what the Government had done; because for the last six months the Government had been subjected to the grossest misstatements of fact as to what they had been doing for the past two years. For those two years the noble Lord at the head of the Post Office department, and gentlemen connected with the administration of that office, had been unremitting in their endeavours to reduce the amount of Sunday labour; and it was a proof how strangely things were sometimes taken up in this country, that the very measure which effected the largest reduction was treated as one of the opposite direction, and tending very largely to increase Sunday labour! He could not help suspecting some portion of the feeling manifested had taken its rise in the misstatements which were circulated in the country upon this question; he did not at all mean to say that an honest feeling did not exist upon the subject, but the most extraordinary misstatements had been circulated, and conduct was imputed to the Government the very reverse of that which they were pursuing. He would state generally the effect of the measures the Government had pursued. The effect had been to relieve from any Sunday labour, preventing attendance on divine worship, no less than 8,000 persons in the united kingdom. The measures which excited so much feeling was the temporary employment of about 25 clerks in London on the Sunday for a very few months; 27 clerks had been employed in the London Post Office on Sunday for years without exciting observation, and it was proposed to cm-ploy temporarily 25 more; and that was a portion of a general measure—and it was unjust to consider what took place in one particular town, and exclude what took place in the rest of the country—that was part of a general measure, by which in England upwards of 6,000 persons were relieved. It had since been extended to Scotland and Ireland, and 2,000 more were relieved. But what had been the effect with respect to London, where the outcry arose? Why, not only had the additional employment of 25 persons (to bring the new system into operation) been discontinued, but the 27 persons heretofore employed had by subsequent arrangements been reduced to four. In London the 27 persons employed had been reduced to a clerk and three messengers; and in the country generally the persons connected with the Post Office had been relieved to the number of 8,000; and with the exception of those who attended to the receipt and delivery of the mails, in the few cases when they happened to arrive during church time, and who would not be relieved even by the proposal of the noble Lord, no person was debarred from the opportunity of attending public worship on Sunday. He would appeal to the House whether such attacks as had been made upon the Post Office department were justified; he had certainly felt very strongly the exceeding injustice of the attacks made upon the department by persons who never took the trouble to ascertain what the facts were. He hoped the House would take what the Government had done as a pledge and earnest that they were willing to the greatest possible degree they believed practicable to carry further this reduction of Sunday labour; and he was perfectly ready, with reference to the latter part of this resolution, to undertake that inquiry should be made how far it was possible still further to reduce the conveyance of the mails on Sunday. But the proposal of the noble Lord was, first, that there should be no collection of letters on the Sunday in the country; that was, that the Post Office messengers should not be sent round to collect the letters, but that people should be at liberty to put them in on the Sunday—though, if there was to be no despatch on the Sunday, that would not be of much advantage to them. Now, so far as the Post Office was concerned, it was perfectly easy to close the office; it was a question for the public to determine whether they wished to have their letters on Sunday or not; and where any district had expressed its wish that there should be no collection and no delivery of letters, that wish of the inhabitants was conformed to. The second question was one of greater difficulty, because it involved a very considerable delay in the transmission of letters to many parts of the country. It was, after all, not so much a question for the Government as for the country to decide. If the country was prepared to forego the receipt and delivery of its letters on Sunday, and to submit to the inconvenience which the delay of the transmission of mails on Sunday would impose upon it, there was no difficulty, so far as the Post Office was concerned. But he believed that the country would find that this imposed exceedingly great difficulty and hardship upon it; and he confessed that he thought he was faithfully representing the great majority of the people when he said that such a course ought not to be adopted. Within the last two years the noble Lord the Member for Bath presented a petition from that city, urging that the Post Office should be closed on the Sunday. It was closed after ten o'clock, with the general approbation of the inhabitants; but no sooner was the arrangement adopted than a counter petition was presented, showing the hardship that the measure asked for would inflict upon them; they stated that the persons living there had connexions in every part of the globe, and that early intelligence from them and communication to them was an object of great solicitude. Was not that so with all persons of all classes, from the highest to the lowest? In the case of the highest, indeed, many means of obviating the difficulty might be resorted to. It was easy to send a message by electric telegraph, or to send a messenger—for the noble Lord did not propose to stop the trains. But that was not in the power of the great majority—it was not in the power of the poorer or the working classes; and believing that to them, no less than to the wealthy, early intelligence from friends and relations was an object of great interest and anxious solicitude, He was unwilling to debar them from the advantage which the Post Office gave them. The question had been raised in the United States, in many parts of which stricter notions prevailed upon the observance of the Sabbath than in England; but upon consideration they came to the same conclusion as he hoped that House would come to. They were desirous of a diminution of Sunday labour, but they felt that it could not be utterly discontinued; that the comfort and happiness of a large portion of the people were essentially promoted by the regular transmission of the mails. This was not a question of revenue; the revenue would not be affected materially by the decision; he utterly disclaimed that consideration; but he believed the comfort and happiness of a great portion of the people were promoted by a very small degree of Sunday labour in the transmission of the mails, and he believed the evil was much less than the advantage. Wherever Sunday labour could be diminished, the Government were perfectly ready to diminish it; but they did not think it would conduce to the real happiness of the great body of the people that it should be utterly and entirely discontinued.

COLONEL THOMPSON

said, he had many years ago expressed his views on the subject of Sabbath observance, in a manner that would make it be considered an act of either hypocrisy or cowardice on his part were he to decline to state his sentiments now with equal plainness. The noble Lord began by stating that he would decline all theological argument, that he would make no theological statements; and then all he said was this—that all Scripture, all churches, all sects, were unanimous on the question of the Sabbath. He (Colonel Thompson), however, must declare that while Christianity and not Judaism was the religion of the great majority of this country, there must be a great multitude of men—silent, perhaps—not wishing to put forth their ideas with force or violence, or even energy—who believed that the observance of the Sabbath according to the Jewish law, was not only not ordered, but prohibited to Christians. The great Author of Christianity himself was exposed to imputations on this head; and the like would probably not fail to be thrown out against his humblest follower. The Author of Christianity himself opposed the prevailing notions on the subject of Sabbath observance; and another, second only to him, the Apostle Paul, styled par excellence the Apostle of the Gentiles, commanded those to whom he wrote to allow no man to judge them in that matter. Other things were included in that injunction, to which he would not allude by name, lest he should excite a smile, according to the practice which he was sorry to see too prevalent in the House. Christianity had liberated its professors from the most onerous rite of the Jewish law, but only on the same authority which had liberated them from the enforced observance of the Sabbath. No mention is ever made of the belief of any of the Apostles in the obligation of the Jewish Sabbath, except to disavow it. Mention is made of the "Lord's Day," a fitting appellation to give to the first day of the week in commemoration of the great event which on that day had occurred, and which it was proper should be kept continually before the eyes of Christians. But was there any record of that day being kept according to the requirements of Judaism? The only statement found, was that the disciples met on that day and made charitable contributions. If the practice of the early Christian Church was looked at, no trace could be found of the Sabbath, or any substitute, being observed in the manner prescribed by the law of Moses. On the contrary, the first day of the week was regarded as a day of enjoyment; and such was the practice still in countries professing the faith of Rome, which though not admitted by a majority in this country as a creed, was undeniably of value as an antiquarian record. In any such continental town, Sunday might be seen as the day of enjoyment; and not Sunday, but the representative of a more painful and equally solemn event, was chosen for the day of self-denial, as was testified by the Vendredi Belache on the door of every theatre. If the Confession of Augsburg was consulted, it would be seen that the obligation to observe Sunday, Pentecost, and other festivals, was protested against by the earliest collection of Protestant Reformers, as an imposition not obligatory upon Christians. If the House laid its commands on him, he would read them the whole either in excellent Latin or very antiquated English; but he would recommend to hon. Members to read it for themselves in the library of the British Museum, where they might take it from the very book which had perhaps been in the hands of those who went to the stake upon that quarrel. Luther made it a point to buy something every Sunday, that he might show his Christian liberty. Calvin conceived the reason why the Sabbath was so strictly enforced on the Jews was, that their numerous slaves had no other means of obtaining repose. He was disappointed that hon. Gentlemen opposite did not cheer that statement, because he meant to ask them in reply if the English labourer was in that servile state which prevented him from maintaining his own cause. The Church of England gave the commandments as she found them in the Book of Exodus; but he would ask any hon. Gentleman who could say his catechism, whether in that catechism the Church made any inference as to the obligatory character of the Sabbath? On the contrary, she entirely ignored it. He knew there was something on the subject in a Homily; but, he would ask, what was there which could not he found in the Homilies, or some insulated portion of the documents of the Church? Transubstantiation could be found there, as well as that other doctrine about which so much agitation prevailed at the present moment, and which he mentioned because it had been productive of persecution to an old college friend—the doctrine which a British classic (Sterne), himself a presbyter in the English Church, had held up as the object of the avowed jest of Protestants, under the description of baptism par le moyen d'une petite canule. Auricular confession could be found in the services of the Church. If he was an unwise bishop—and such things had been and might be again—he would not allow Christian burial to man or woman who had not made auricular confession to his satisfaction; for was it not stated in the rubric that every man on his sick bed was to be exhorted to confess his weighty sins—and who had not committed weighty sins?—nor allow it to any Member of that House who ate a chop in Bellamy's on a Friday—["Hear, hear!"]—for was it not written that all the Fridays in the year were fasts, and did not he therefore who had eaten and not confessed, die in hostility with the Church? The fact was, that the Church of England was a compromise, and a sensible and wise Church she was in adopting that course; and in interpreting her doctrines her own example must be followed—the main points taken, and the accidental cast aside. Paley, Arnold, Whately, and other eminent members of that Church had given it as their opinion that the observance of the Sabbath was not obligatory, and that it ought to be resisted by Christians. He would instance what had been his own share of suffering in consequence of the existing cruel rule. He had a relative, his wife's brother, who was reported to him on the Saturday afternoon as being dangerously ill. It proved to be one of the earliest cases of cholera; though no one then knew it. He hastened to see him in one of the suburban villages. It was too late that night to write to his sister, who was in Paris. On Sunday it was the will and pleasure of the noble Lord's brother sectaries, that no intelligence should be sent. At one o'clock on Monday morning his brother-in-law died, and he (Colonel Thompson) had the melancholy duty to write to his sister that her brother was dead, and that a savage sectarianism had prevented his danger from being communicated to her. Was it Christian that such suffering should be inflicted upon him and upon thousands more? But there was no necessity for the thing even on the adversary's own showing. Might not those who had this work to do on the Sunday, have their burden alleviated by working some on one day and some on the other, or might it not be done by men who had no religious objection? There was a numerous body in this country whom he hoped soon to see admitted to this House and to the privileges of citizens, who had no objection to working on the first day of the week, by the token that their religious rule prohibited them from working on the seventh; and they had no objection to other persons working for them on their Sabbath, for he happened to have been acquainted with a Jewish family who kept a Christian servant to stir the fire for them on Saturday'. One point more. He had no confidence in the reported acquiescence of the higher commercial classes. In a commercial town he had once the honour to represent, he found there was a disposition among the richer classes of merchants to delay the post; they were particular in requesting, that their post letters might be long in coming. That seemed to him a paradox, and he sought an explanation; and he discovered that the rich merchants had an idea that 20l, which was the cost of an express from London, was often well spent if they could keep the lower class of merchants from having the same early information. He hoped they were approaching the time when the observance of the Sunday, which he was far from wishing to abolish, would be turned to the advantage of that large class in this country who, having no political influence at this moment, were rising to knowledge and intelligence which would soon force the necessity of admitting them into the constitution. When were these men to learn, unless upon their day of rest? Would it not be wise to encourage the desire; and would the House begin by declaring that the first step should be to deprive them of the means of receiving a communication from or sending one to their friends upon that day?

MR. PLUMPTRE

said, it appeared to him that the hon. and gallant Member entertained the opinion that the observance of the Sabbath was not of perpetual obligation. From this opinion he begged to differ. The hon. and gallant Member seemed also to regard the exercise of the Christian religion on the Sabbath as a severe and bitter service, and that he wished to be exempted from it. He (Mr. Plumptre) did not sympathise in such feelings. He deemed the exercise of religion a high privilege as well as a high duty, and that they involved a high reward. As well might the command, "Thou shalt commit no murder," or "Thou shalt not steal," be regarded as not of perpetual obligation, as to say that the obligation to observe the Sabbath departed with the Jewish law. The right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that the proposition of the noble Lord did not go far enough; and he instanced the cases of policemen, excisemen, the coast guard, and custom-house officers, all of whom were required to labour on the Sunday. The distinction, however, in the cases was this: labour in the Post Office was not absolutely necessary—in the other cases it was.

MR. MUNTZ

was glad that the noble Lord had altered the latter part of his Motion as it stood on the paper; because, although he was anxious to prevent the delivery of letters on Sunday, he had no wish to stop the transmission of mails on that day. Much had been said about the hardship to which post-office officials were subjected under the present system; but the system was productive of great inconvenience to private individuals also. For his part, he was quite tired of reading and writing letters on Sunday. If all persons were placed on the same footing, no injury could arise to any one from the abolition of the Sunday delivery. Take his word for it, that, if the noble Lord's proposition were carried into effect throughout the kingdom, everybody would rejoice at it after a fortnight's experience. It was farcical to pretend that the delivery of letters on a Sunday was a matter of essential importance to every petty provincial town, when the merchants of this great metropolis went without their correspondence on that day without complaint. He did not rely so much on the religious part of the question as others did; but he thought every man was entitled to the Sunday as a day of rest, and to employ it as he liked. He cared not whether the observance of Sunday sprang from Judaism or not. However established, it was a benefaction to mankind. His own experience satisfied him that if the Legislature and the Government were not to maintain the observance of Sunday, it would soon be converted into a workday. Masters would soon force their workmen to labour on Sunday, as some masters now compelled their men to work longer than they ought to do on week-days. For the reasons he had stated, the noble Lord's Motion should receive his cordial support.

MR. FORSTER

denied that the petitions presented in favour of the noble Lord's proposition expressed the opinion of the more intelligent portion of the community. To show that such petitions were got up, he instanced a case when, a petition having been presented purporting to be from a borough of 15,000 inhabitants, and signed in some instances by persons whoso names he did not recognise, a counter petition was sent to him for presentation signed by the magistrates and all the principal traders and shopkeepers of the place. He hoped the independent Members of that House would have the courage, as he believed they had the inclination, to oppose the Motion.

The House divided:—Ayes 93; Noes 68: Majority 25,

List of the AYES.
Anderson, A. Drummond, H. H.
Arbuthnot, hon. H. Duff, G. S.
Bateson, T. Duff, J.
Bennet, P. Duncan, G.
Beresford, W. Duncuft, J.
Blandford, Marq. of Edwards, H.
Booth, Sir R. G. Evans, W.
Bromley, R. Farrer, J.
Brotherton, J. Fergus, J.
Bruce, C. L. C. Floyer, J.
Burghley, Lord Foley, J. H. H.
Buxton, Sir E. N. Forbes, W.
Childers, J. W. Galway, Visct.
Cobbold, J. C. Gaskell, J. M.
Colvile, C. R. Gladstone, rt. hon. W. E.
Conolly, T. Gooch, E. S.
Cowan, C. Grenall, G.
Currie, H. Grosvenor, Lord R.
Davies, D. A. S. Halsey, T. P.
Denison, E. Hamilton, G. A.
Dickson, S. Hastie, A.
Hastie, A. O'Connor, F.
Headlam, T. E. Oswald, A.
Heald, J. Palmer, R.
Hildyard, T. B. T. Pearson, C.
Hodges, T. L. Perfect, R.
Horsman, E. Plumptre, J. P.
Hotham, Lord Pugh, D.
Jermyn, Earl Pusey, P.
Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H. Richards, R.
Keating, R. Robartes, T. J. A.
Lacy, H. C. Scott, hon. F.
Lewisham, Visct. Smith, J. A.
Lockhart, A. E. Smyth, J. G.
Lockhart, W. Stanley, E.
Long, W. Stanton, W. H.
Macnaghten, Sir E. Strickland, Sir G.
M'Gregor, J. Sullivan, M.
M'Taggart, Sir J. Tenison, E. K.
Meagher, T. Tollemache, J.
Milner, W. M. E. Turner, G. J.
Moody, C. A. Verney, Sir H.
Morris, D. Villiers, hon. F. W. C.
Mostyn, hon. E. M. L. Welby, G. E.
Mundy, W. Williams, J.
Muntz, G. F. TELLERS.
Newdegate, C. N. Ashley, Lord
O'Brien, Sir L. Acland, Sir T.
List of the NOES.
Armstrong, Sir A. Lewis, G. C.
Baines, rt. hon. M. T. Lushington, C.
Berkeley, Adm. Mackie, J.
Boyle, hon. Col. Mackinnon, W. A.
Brown, W. Maule, rt. hon. F.
Burke, Sir T. J. Melgund, Visct.
Carter, J. B. Moffatt, G.
Cavendish, hon. C. C. Nugent, Lord
Cobden, R. O'Connell, M. J.
Craig, Sir W. G. Packe, C. W.
Dundas, Adm. Palmerston, Visct.
Ebrington, Visct. Parker, J.
Elliot, hon. J. E. Rich, H.
Fagan, W. Russell, Lord J.
Ferguson, Sir R. A. Russell, F. C. H.
Fordyce, A. Salwey, Col.
Forster, M. Scully, F.
Fortescue, C. Sheil, rt. hon R. L.
Fortescue, hon. J. W. Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W.
Fox, W. J. Stansfield, W. R. C.
Grace, O. D. J. Tancred, H. W.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J. Thompson, Col.
Granger, T. C. Thompson, G.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. Thornely, T.
Grey, R. W. Tnfnell, H.
Hall, Sir B. Walmsley, Sir J.
Hawes, B. Walter, J.
Hayter, rt. hon. W. G. Willyams, H.
Henry, A. Wilson, J.
Heywood, J. Wilson, M.
Heyworth, L. Wood, rt, hon. Sir C.
Hobhouse, T. B. Wyvill, M.
Howard, hon. C. W. G.
Howard, hon. E. G. G. TELLERS.
Hume, J. Hill, Lord M.
Jervis, Sir J. Bellew, R. M.