FIRST READING. (Hansard, 2 April 1867)

§ VISCOUNT AMBERLEY
moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Act of 21 Geo. c. 49, intituled "An Act for preventing certain abuses and profanations on the Lord's Day called Sunday." He said, that he would shortly state the objects of the Bill and the circumstances which, in his opinion, rendered some legislation upon the subject desirable. It would be within the knowledge of many Members of the House, that during the winters of 1865 and 1866 certain lectures, accompanied by sacred music, were delivered in St. Martin's Hall on Sunday evenings. The lectures were given by scientific and literary men; the first by Professor Huxley, followed by Sir John Bow ring, Mr. Carpenter, and others. Before many of these lectures had been given, or, he should rather say, before many of these services had been held, notice was given by the chairman of the Lord's Day Observance Society that if these meetings were continued he would prosecute the proprietor of St. Martin's Hall as the keeper of a disorderly house under the Act of Geo. III. It was represented to those conducting these services that if such prosecution should deprive the proprietor of the hall of his licence, he would thus lose the income upon which he depended for his livelihood, and the services were therefore put a stop to. In the winter of 1866 they were again begun, and an association was formed, for the purpose of conducting them, but a similar course as on the previous occasion was resorted to by Mr. Baxter, the chair- 999 man of the Lord's Day Observance Society. He (Viscount Amberley) made no imputations upon that gentleman, and did not doubt the propriety of the motives by which he was actuated; but he gave notice that if these services were not discontinued he would not only oppose the renewal of the licence to the proprietor of the hall, but would also sue for certain penalties under the Act of Geo. III. The services which met with this opposition were of a perfectly decorous and innocuous character. There was a musical performance, and admission was by money; but there was nothing that was in the least degree hostile to existing religious communities, unless, indeed, instruction in the mere facts of science could be looked on as hostile. There was therefore nothing that need have been offensive or abhorrent to any one of these communities. In spite of this, however, under the influence of the notice that had been given by Mr. Baxter, it was found necessary again to discontinue the services, and the last of them was held on the 10th March in this year. In order to render clear how it was that the services were stopped, he would briefly explain the provisions of the Act of Geo. III. It was passed in 1781, to prevent places of amusement being opened on Sundays; and to prevent also the discussion of theological matters by incompetent persons. The Act provided that any place of public entertainment or discussion open on Sundays should be deemed disorderly if money were paid at the door, or tickets for admission were sold, and that the keeper of such house should forfeit £200 for every one of these Sunday evenings; the chairman, moderator, or president was to forfeit £100, and any person advertising such an assembly was to forfeit £50. In order to fix upon any person who might be the keeper of the place, it was enacted that any person who should act as such was to be deemed the keeper, and any person might within six months recover the penalties by bringing actions of debt. The circumstances under which the Act was passed were rather peculiar. It was intended mainly to put a stop to a place called Carlisle House, which seemed to have been not only a place of amusement, but a place of immoral character. It was opposed in the House of Commons by two Members, and they went to a division upon the second reading; they were appointed tellers, but they were left in the unfortunate position of having nobody to tell. The Bill went to the 1000 House of Lords, and in the House of Lords it was opposed no less strenuously, but equally ineffectually, by Lord Abingdon. It was supported by the Bishops, and, indeed, its real author was a Bishop, and it passed by a large majority. It might be said, in order to prevent the effect of this Act in putting a stop to these services at St. Martin's Hall, that the simplest course was to propose its entire repeal. But to this there were objections. The first object of the Act appeared by the Preamble, which said that— Whereas certain Houses, Rooms, or Places, within the Cities of London or Westminster, or in the Neighbourhood thereof, have of late frequently been opened for publick Entertainment or Amusement upon the Evening of the Lord's Day, commonly called Sunday; and at other Houses, Rooms, or Places, within the said Cities, or in the Neighbourhood thereof, under Pretence of inquiring into religious Doctrines, and explaining Texts of holy Scripture, Debates have frequently been held on the Evening of the Lord's Day, concerning divers Texts of holy Scripture, by Persons unlearned and incompetent to explain the same, to the Corruption of good Morals, and to the great Encouragement of Irreligion and Profaneness. The next object contemplated by the Act was the suppression of places of amusement in addition to the suppression of such theological discussions as he had referred to. Now, those who opposed that Act laboured under the disadvantage of insisting on a general principle, resting their opposition upon the ground that the Bill was contrary to the principle of religious toleration, whereas the promoters of the measure argued that it was merely framed to meet a particular evil which required a remedy; that, in fact, it was meant to put an end to such practices as were carried on in Carlisle House. That appeared to have out-weighed what was advanced on the other side. In respect to what were called places of amusement, he did not propose to interfere with them. There was, however, a broad distinction between liberty of amusement and liberty of speech. Whether places of amusement should be altogether closed upon the Sunday he did not wish then to express any opinion upon. He believed, however, that the general feeling of the community was in favour of closing places of amusement on the Sunday, and he felt every desire to respect that feeling. There was nothing in this Bill which in the least proposed to alter the law in that respect. It would be a great injustice to those who had been conducting the services in St. Martin's Hall to mix them up in the slightest 1001 degree with those who had wished to open places of amusement on Sunday. They did not wish to re-open Carlisle House. They wished to hold meetings for what they considered religious worship, and they wished to conduct that service which most approved itself to their intellect and their conscience. With regard to the liberty of speech, as he had observed, it differed materially from the liberty of amusement. They could not impose any restraint upon the liberty of speech without in some degree trenching upon that toleration now so much enjoyed and so highly valued by Her Majesty's subjects. If they said that ignorant or incompetent persons should not be allowed to carry on theological discussions, there was no power to decide who was ignorant or who was incompetent. The practical effect of an Act so framed was this—that any person however ignorant or incompetent who was able to speak from a pulpit might say what he pleased, but no such toleration would be allowed to those who spoke on religious subjects from a platform. The first object, therefore, contemplated by the Bill was to repeal so much of the Act of 21 Geo. III. c. 49 as related to the delivering of lectures, and the holding of public debates or discussions at places where money was paid at the door, or where tickets were sold for admission. Under the provisions of the Bill such lectures and discussions would be permitted. There would exist on Sunday evenings the same guarantee for the maintenance of order and decorum as on any other day of the week. There were, he had been informed, places in London where discussions were carried on on Sunday evening. They were not discussions of an edifying character. They were held in defiance of the law, and the Act of Parliament was unable to reach them. But if a serious or valuable discussion was to take place, it immediately became an object with the Lord's Day Society, and those worthy persons who thought they were charged with the spiritual welfare of their neighbour, to put a stop to such discussion. Therefore, the Act of Geo. III. was powerless for good and powerful only for evil. In order that the provisions of this Bill might not be extended to places which Parliament would not be inclined to sanction on the Lord's Day, it was suggested by a legal gentleman whom he had consulted that a clause should be introduced imposing penalties on those who 1002 sold refreshments in the room where such lectures or debates were held. There was nothing, therefore, in the Bill which would lead to the opening of places merely for the purpose of entertainment or amusement. He had now explained the provisions of his Bill, and the circumstances which, in his opinion, rendered it important that some such measure should be introduced on the subject. Perhaps he owed some apology to the House for having undertaken at so early a period of his Parliamentary career the responsible task of introducing a measure of this importance. It would have been a source of sincere satisfaction to him if some hon. Gentleman more entitled to command the attention of the House had been willing to undertake this Bill. Especially he would have rejoiced if his hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill), who took much interest in the services to which he referred, had undertaken the conduct of the Bill, and had brought to the subject the weight of his authority, and the power of his eloquence. But his hon. Friend not being able to do so, he (Viscount Amberley) thought that he ought not to shrink from what appeared to him to be a public duty. He looked upon this subject as one in which the principle of religious liberty was deeply concerned, and he did not think that that liberty was perfectly secured so long as this vexatious and arbitrary Act was allowed to remain, without alteration or amendment, on the statute book of England.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
said, he did not rise to oppose the Motion. The question was no doubt an important one, and no one could complain of the manner in which it had been treated by the noble Lord, who with great propriety and clearness had stated the case upon which he proposed to legislate. He (Mr. Beresford Hope), however, thought that this was too serious and too complex a case to be dealt with by the Bill of the noble Lord. He was willing to admit that from the noble Lord's statement there appeared nothing against those—he would not call them services, that would be begging the question, nor would he call them performances—but he would use a neutral term, and he would call them those gatherings in St. Martin's Hall. From what they saw in the newspapers those gatherings seemed to be regular, and there was nothing about them that could raise any objection to them, except the incident of their being held on Sunday. The two 1003 questions raised were whether the meetings were services in the sense in which we understood the word, and in any but a non-natural sense; and whether it was right to have meetings that were not services on the Sunday evening. The facts respecting them were at present only ex parte. They were brought in the shape of legal proceedings before the magistrate about a month ago. But, as well as he recollected the affair, the magistrate himself appeared to be exceedingly puzzled as to the course he ought to take, and it stood over at that moment without any solution. Under those circumstances, he put it to the noble Lord whether it was exactly fair to attempt to cut the Gordian knot by a measure of this kind. He suggested to the noble Lord the propriety of referring this question to a Select Committee when the whole matter could be gone into. He warranted that a blue book of the evidence taken before a Select Committee on this question would prove a most interesting addition to our social history. They would then be better able to understand the limits of this question, and to determine what the law ought to recognise as religious services on the one hand, and on the other the amount of toleration to be allowed to innocent amusements on the Sunday. Although he had no wish to oppose the first reading of the Bill, he must express his regret that the question should have taken this form rather than that of an inquiry as a preliminary step to its being considered by the House.

§ MR. KINNAIRD
said, he was in London at the time of those services to which reference had been made, and he took some pains to ascertain what they really were. They were not entitled to be called religious services or religious worship. There was a great crowd. Tickets were sold at the door. That was a species of trading. The only objection to them which the law could take hold of was that in reference to the sale of tickets at the doors. There was as the law now stood nothing to prevent a religious discussion being held on Sunday, provided that it was not made a matter of trade. The proceedings were admirable in their way, and conducted by able men. There were paid musical singers dressed as at concerts which gave the place the appearance of a concert. He concurred with the hon. Member for Stoke in thinking that this question ought to be inquired into by a Select Committee before they proceeded to legislate upon it.

§ VISCOUNT AMBERLEY
said, that the Lord's Day Observance Society had threatened the St. Martin's Hall people to sue for penalties. The effect of their interference was that the services were stopped; but the legality of those services had not as yet been tried. He hoped it might be. He should be glad to hear that a decision had been taken upon it. He acknowledged that there might be some advantage in referring the question to a Select Committee, but could not then pledge himself to do so. In regard to the observations of his hon. Friend (Mr. Kinnaird) that the services in St. Martin's Hall could not have a religious character because money was paid at the door, and because there were paid singers, he (Viscount Amberley) need not remind him that there were several churches in the metropolis in which money was paid at the doors, and where there were paid singers. He admitted that the payment was of a voluntary character. But, as in these churches, there were also free seats in St. Martin's Hall. He had used the term worship in a somewhat broad sense; but those meetings were regarded by those who conducted them as religious services. He did not consider the fact of money being paid at the door sufficient to deprive those houses of the character of places of worship.