The order being read for their lordships going into a committee on this bill, the chair was 917 accordingly taken by lord Walsingham. On the clause being read for abolishing the existing holidays observed at the Custom house, with the exception of four or five,
The Archbishop of Canterburyexpressed his disapprobation, in a great degree, of what was proposed. He expatiated on the importance of a due observance of certain solemn church festivals and holidays, besides the Sabbath. He was not an advocate, in any point of view, for an excessive number of holidays such as were observed in the church previously to the reformation; a number of these were, he thought, very properly abolished; on the other hand, there were several which, he thought, a due respect and reverence for the holy religion of which we were members, should inculcate the observance. On this principle, he would wish that, perhaps, three or four more holidays were retained, beside those already allowed in the bill. Those to which he chiefly referred were holidays more particularly commemorative of the history of our Saviour. Before, however, he moved any amendment with respect to these, he should wish to hear from any noble lord who supported the bill, the objections which he entertained to suffering the other holidays in the protestant calendar, to stand in the present bill.
§ Lord Grenville ,argued in defence of the measure, in the shape in which it came up from the other house. In a great degree, the precedent of former regulating acts of the kind, was followed with respect to the present. The consideration of such days as the description of persons to whom the bill applied were in the habit of devoting to divine service, was kept in view, in framing the present measure. Many of the holidays, which, as far as Custom-house attendance went, were proposed to be abolished, were not appropriated by those persons for divine service, but for purposes of idle amusement or relaxation. The object was to compel those persons who were to execute the duties of the respective offices, duly and diligently to attend to the same. The inconvenience and disadvantage which the present number of holidays at the Custom-house produced to commercial men, was inconceivable. At times, and on days where-in all other species of commercial business was in a train of regular transaction, the doors of the Custom-house were shut. The merchant who could regularly perform all his other business, was unable to transact that, often most important part of it, which appertained to the Custom-house. After 918 adducing some other observations in favour of the measure, in its present shape, he expressed his disapprobation of such amendments as were adverted to by the right rev. prelate.
The Archbishop of Canterburyobserved, that after what had fallen from the noble lord, he despaired of being able to introduce an amendment into the bill, for the observance of those holidays, he had at first in contemplation. There were some particular days, which he still remained strongly of opinion should be observed, such as those days for which regular church service was established. Notwithstanding, however, the objections which had been offered, he hoped their lordships would still agree to the addition of at least two holidays, which related to points essentially connected with the history of our Saviour. The first of these was the Epiphany, and which he should propose for insertion, as an amendment.
The Bishop of St. Asaphsupported the observations of his grace of Canterbury. Those holidays which were commemorative of the earliest and most important facts in the history of the Gospel, should, at least, be retained; those especially which referred to the history of our Saviour's own life, should be retained; he meant at the Custom-house. Were those suffered to remain, he would not, in that respect, be so anxious about the rest. The days to which we undertood the right rev. prelate to refer were, the Epiphany, the Annunciation, the Ascension, and the Nativity of St. John the Baptist. In what he advanced upon the point, he observed, he was not actuated by a puritanical desire for a rigid observance of holidays. He knew there were some wherein an idle or improper observance of the holiday did more harm than good; for that reason he was not unwilling to contract the number. He was aware, that in some cases the commissioners took the liberty to order the attendance of clerks on Sundays. In cases of urgent necessity, with respect to public business, he, perhaps, should not decidedly object to that —but upon the grounds on which he had stated, as well as those advanced by the right rev. prelate, he was of opinion, the holidays to which he referred should, at least, be retained on the present occasion.—The question was put on the first amendment, and negatived. Strangers were ordered to withdraw, but no division took place, and the bill passed through the committee and was reported.