§ Lord Wynford, in rising to move the second reading of the above Bill, after alluding to the mistake in printing it which had been made in its principal provision, and for which he was unable to account, as he had penned the Bill himself, said he felt more than ordinary anxiety, inasmuch as the measure was one, which appeared to him, of great importance. He believed that noble Lords who might object to his Bill, would admit the necessity of something being done upon the subject, when they looked at the vast number of petitions which had been poured into the House, complaining of the desecration of the Lord's day, and praying the adoption of a law which should put an end to such a state of things. He believed more petitions had been presented in the course of the last and present Session, in reference to this subject, than had ever been presented upon any topic in the same space of time, since the passing of the law for abolishing slavery. He confessed he was not one of those who thought it right to yield on all occasions to petitions, especially if the subjects were such as appeared not right to be entertained; but, on the contrary, if the thing asked for ought to be granted, then petitions became a good ground for an alteration being made. He could not concur in what his noble and learned friend had stated a few days back, with respect to the observance of the Sabbath. No doubt, however, that in some classes of society, the Sunday was better observed now than formerly, whilst in others the contrary was the case, or at all events no improvement had taken place in the observance of that holy day. The circumstance of so many petitions being presented against the desecration of the Sabbath, proved that the opinion of the public was, that the Sabbath was not kept in the way it ought. Now, the Bill which he had introduced proposed to prevent persons from doing that upon the Sabbath which ought not to be done, and which was admitted should not take place on that day. The Bill went no further than what would be found to exist in the old laws relating to the subject, the principal object of it being to render effectual the provisions of the old law. Indeed, it was admitted, that the provisions of the old law could not be enforced. The Magistrates who had given evidence before the Committee of the House of Commons had 1008 stated that this was the case, and that the penalties were much too small. A person, however often he might sell on a Sunday, could only have one penalty inflicted; so that it acted very ineffectually against offenders of that nature. Two most respectable gentlemen had given evidence before the Committee of the House of Commons to which he had already alluded, viz., Colonel Rowan, the head of the police, and Mr. Chambers, a highly respectable man, a Magistrate, who had been many years at one of the police offices in the metropolis, and was now at Marlborough-street office; and their opinion was, that the law was entirely inefficacious as it at present stood, to prevent Sunday trading. So much so, indeed, that persons against whom informations were laid, were in the habit of saying, that they would cheerfully pay before hand the penalty—the single penalty, for no more could be imposed for these illegal transactions on one and the same Sabbath, in order to have no trouble of appearing to answer the charges. In certain parts of London, where trading to a great extent was carried on, a tradesman would thus obtain in half-an-hour sufficient profit to discharge the penalty. It was obvious, from the numerous petitions which had been presented, in fact the table had been again and again loaded with petitions, that the feeling in the country from whence they came was adverse to the manner in which the Sabbath was now spent. Dr. Doyley, the rector of St. Giles's, had given a fearful description of the state of that part of the town on the Sabbath-day. He stated, that the parishioners who attended the parish church could not pass along to the place of worship without witnessing scenes of drunkenness and vice, and thereby indisposing their minds to devotion, or preventing them from entering into their religious duties with the feelings which were necessary. He had thought it right, under all the circumstances, to bring in the present Bill, which was little or nothing more than for the purpose of giving force to the laws already existing relative to the Sabbath. Since the Bill had been introduced, he had received communications from all quarters and all classes of persons, earnestly imploring him to persevere in his efforts to carry the measure; and the baneful effects which beer-houses and gin-shops had produced on the morals 1009 and habits of the poorer classes had been strongly and feelingly urged upon his attention. His noble and learned friend on the Woolsack would, he had no doubt, confirm all that he had said respecting the inadequacy of the present laws relating to the Observance of the Sabbath, and, if they were on all hands acknowledged to be defective, surely it was the bounden duty of their Lordships to supply that which was wanting. The present system of penalties was perfectly nugatory; and, therefore, instead of a delinquent being subject only to a single penalty, no matter how frequently he violated the law in the course of the day, his Bill proposed that each separate offence should be visited with a distinct penalty. This, he submitted, would be a great improvement. He did not mean to interfere with Sunday travelling, because he knew it to be wholly unavoidable; but, although that was the case, he thought, that the transmission of goods from place to place on the Lord's-day should be prevented. He could recollect the time when nothing of the kind ever took place, but now it was as common to see waggons and other vehicles travelling with goods upon the Sunday as on any other day in the week. The statute of Charles the First contained provisions to check this abuse, but then that statute was a dead letter. He also proposed altering the law relating to, not only beer-houses and gin-shops, but to all houses of public resort, and to make a different arrangement for opening and closing them on the Sabbath-day to that which now existed. He intended to empower constables to enter places of this description during divine service, and to take all persons who might be found drinking in them into custody. They were not, however, to be brought before a Magistrate, but merely detained until they got sober, as it was not on such unfortunate persons that penalties should be levied. Another provision of his Bill went to do away with the present practice of giving secular notices in churches during divine service. That practice was rendered necessary by the present law, but still, as it was not free from objection, it ought to be done away with. He proposed, that all such notices should be affixed to some conspicuous part of the porch of the church, and that plan, he thought, would make all parish business equally as well known as the present plan, 1010 and would be infinitely less objectionable. It was also intended to place bakers under fresh regulations. He did not think it would be advisable to prevent the poor from having their dinners baked on Sunday, but then there would be no hardship in enacting, that no dinners should be sent to the oven later than ten o'clock in the morning, or delivered from thence after two in the afternoon. The object of his measure was, if possible, to relieve the poor from the state of moral degradation in which they were plunged, and not to debar them of any rational enjoyment which they ought to have. Even in point of economy, a restraint upon Sunday trading would be of immense advantage to them. The noble Lord concluded by moving, that the Bill be read a second time.
§ The Question having been put,
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that he as well as his noble and learned friend felt strongly the great importance of this measure, and he freely admitted, that a subject of such deep and vast interest ought to receive their Lordships' most serious consideration. It was their duty, undoubtedly, to remedy any defects which might exist in the present law; but it was no less their duty to guard against taking any step which, instead of removing the evils complained of, might rather have the effect of increasing those evils. There could be no denying, that a deep interest was felt on this subject throughout the country, and that the number of petitions which had been presented to both Houses of Parliament praying the Legislature to take measures for remedying the inefficient observance of the Sabbath-day was almost unprecedented. Nevertheless, he looked, as every one of their Lordships was bound to do, with a strong feeling, at not only the great importance, but the great difficulty of the question with which they were called upon to deal. If they did nothing, the country would naturally complain; but still, having before their eyes the fact, that every attempt which had hitherto been made to legislate on this subject, only went to prove the difficulty in which it was involved, they would be acting most unwisely if they were to do anything which could not be done safely and effectually, and without the possibility of creating mischiefs as bad as those which at present existed. He freely confessed, that he did not object to en- 1011 counter the risk, merely because the other measures had failed; but before any proposition was adopted it should, he thought, be made clear, not only that it was safe that no fresh evil could arise from it, but that it would not have the tendency of making the observance of the Sabbath less strict than they knew it now to be. He was averse to any measure interfering with the ordinary avocations of the humbler classes, or the mode in which they passed their time, which could render the due observance of the Lord's-day either burthensome, unpopular, or less favoured than it now was; but he was at the same time desirous to do all that might be necessary for preventing any unbecoming conduct on the part of the less scrupulous or irreligious portion of the country. If any law could be framed such as was suggested by the right reverend Prelate (the Bishop of London), the other evening, there would be no objection to it, if it could be tried without incurring any risk. He (the Lord Chancellor) had often stated when petitions had been presented on the subject, and he then repeated it, that the Sabbath was better observed in England, and it was undoubtedly the case in Scotland, than in any other country of Europe. He had visited most of the continental states, and he never found anything like the same regard to the sanctity of the Sabbath as in this great metropolis. If, then, they had such an advantage as to have the Sunday so well observed without legal interference, they should well consider that they ran some risk of injuring what they already had, by endeavouring to enforce the better observance by means of legal compulsion. At present the Sabbath was respected by the people, not merely from their religious habits, but as a day on which there was a relief from worldly occupations. The higher classes regarded Sunday as a day of rest for the lower classes, and the humbler classes regarded it as a day of religious rest, and also as one of relaxation from their secular callings. There were also other causes for the same observance of the day which he would not more particularly allude to. At present it might truly be said, that the reason that the Sabbath was so well observed in this country arose from the moral and religious feeling of the people, as the laws did not interfere to produce this result. 1012 In this case, therefore, the old maxim, leges sine moribus, was reversed, and there existed mores sine legibus; and great caution, therefore, must be exercised in interfering in the matter. With all gratitude, then, to his noble and learned friend (Lord Wynford) for the pains he had bestowed on the Bill, and for the candour with which he had spoken of it, he (the Lord Chancellor) felt bound to state, after all the consideration that he could give to the matter, that his noble and learned friend did not appear to legislate on a right understanding of the subject, or on sound principles. If they attempted to interfere with that which was now done by the voluntary feelings of the people, they would be running a risk of danger even if they succeeded in their object. In short, it appeared to him doubtful whether employing the inflexible hand of the law was the right mode of dealing with the subject, which was, in point of fact, more a matter of morality and of religion than of penal legislation. The Bill was a law to improve the morals and habits of the people. With these feelings he came to the consideration of this important measure. If he said, that he thought that the present Bill never could be taken in the shape in which it was, he did not say more than he believed, as it was most objectionable in its details. The defects and errors of which he complained did not exist merely in one part, but prevailed throughout all parts of it. It was a Bill to make all business stand still, not merely on Sunday, but on every day of the week.—["No, no," from Lord Wynford.]—He (the Lord Chancellor) had no doubt that the noble and learned Lord thought, as he expressed his opinion, but still what he (the Lord Chancellor) had stated was the case. The first clause, after providing that all deeds, bargains, contracts, or agreements made or executed on the Lord's-day should be utterly void, went on to enact, "that every person that shall become a party to, or in any manner assist in, the making of any deed, &c., or shall attempt or propose to make any bargain, contract, or agreement, or shall sell, offer to sell, or expose, any articles for sale, shall, for every such act or attempt as aforesaid, whether done or attempted on the same day, or on different days, forfeit, &c., a sum not exceeding—," to be recovered in the manner subsequently prescribed by the Bill. He 1013 begged their Lordships to remember, that nothing was said about Sunday, for it was immaterial, according to the clause, whether it was Sunday or any other day; and he asked their Lordships whether this would not put a stop to all trading whatsoever? This defect was not merely a misprint, for it extended throughout the Bill. It was the case in the second clause; it was also the case in the fifth clause, and others, that he could refer to. He was aware, that, a great number of petitions had been presented with respect to the state of the morals of the people, but he had never heard of petitions presented to prohibit drunkenness on any day as well as Sunday. Drunkenness was undoubtedly a very odious vice, but there were many others equally so; for instance, a want of chastity was a much worse vice, as it affected others, than drunkenness; and yet his noble and learned friend did not propose to interfere with it in any manner. His noble and learned friend, in point of fact, said, that a man must not get drunk on any day of the week, but that he might, as far as his Bill was concerned, practise all other vices with impunity. His noble and learned friend made no exception against the commission of other vices even on Sunday; but his noble and learned friend was satisfied, that one vice was so odious, it was so obnoxious to his feelings, that he would put it down every day in the week. He (the Lord Chancellor) would ask whether there could be a grosser injustice to the poor publican, than the course which his noble and learned friend wished to pursue? It would be almost impossible for the publican to escape punishment. The noble and learned Lord proposed, that the publican should be punished who allowed any man to get drunk on his premises. Not one man in ten thousand who had sat as long as his noble and learned friend in a Court of Justice, or had had experience of Courts as his noble and learned friend and himself, would be able to explain this clause in any other manner than that which he had stated. It proposed to punish the publican for allowing any person to get drunk on the premises. Why, one man might get drunk after two or three glasses, and another man might be perfectly sober after two or three bottles. How could the poor publican judge to which class those who wished to become his customers be- 1014 longed? Could his noble and learned friend furnish such information to the publican that he could take upon himself to say to one, "You are a two-glass man," and to another, "Oh, you are a three-bottle man?" By the Bill of the noble and learned Lord, if the publican furnished a bottle or a pint to the two-glass man, and it made him tipsy, the publican would be liable to a penalty. The publican, however, might be most anxious to prevent those men who avoided the "golden mean" from drinking in his house, and yet be liable to the penalty. Thus a man might get one glass in one house, and go to another and get a second, which might make him drunk, and the publican must be fined for letting a man get tipsy on his premises. The unfortunate publican might say to his guest, "Before you pass into my house, I will impannel a Jury—not of matrons, but of waiters—and you shall be tried in the bar, and I will be chairman, and a verdict shall be returned as to whether you shall or shall not drink in this house." And yet, notwithstanding all his care, the publican might be deceived, his guest might get drunk, and he be exposed to punishment. To be consistent, there must be a punishment for those who did not inform the publican whether they had been drinking in another house. He might think that he was perfectly safe in what he allowed his customer to drink, but it would be impossible for him to see what had taken place in another house. He might ask, whether his guest was drinking on "a virgin soil," or whether one glass would make him drunk, for if it did, it would make him guilty of a Penal Act, and liable to punishment. He (the Lord Chancellor) was sure, that their Lordships must see, that strong objections existed to such an enactment. Would their Lordships send to the Commons to ask them to agree to a Bill containing such provisions? He repeated, that whatever might be the intentions of his noble and learned friend, the general effect of the Bill did not apply only to Sunday, but to every day in the week. ["No, no," from Lord Wynford.] He contended, that it was as he had stated, and referred to the words of the clause for confirmation of what he had stated:—"If any person admitted or permitted to remain in any house licensed for the sale of spirituous liquors, or place licensed the sale 1015 of beer, shall be permitted to get drunk, &c." There was nothing about Sunday in the clause. An after clause in the Bill alluded probably to Sunday, but the one that he had read did not. He might be told, that the clauses might be altered; but the errors or nonsense of which he complained, ran through the whole of the Bill, and it would not be possible to make any change which could make it satisfactory. The Bill would put a stop to all business whatever on Sunday, however urgent it might be. He might be told, that works of charity and necessity were specially excepted. Was it to be made a question to go to a Jury to say what works were necessary? The Bill specially declared, that no man should pursue his worldly calling on the Sunday, and that no deed whatever should be valid that was made on that day. He (the Lord Chancellor) was not of opinion, that it was a work of necessity for a man to make his will on the Sunday under any circumstances; but he could very well imagine cases in which it might be necessary to make other dispositions of property even on a Sunday. He said, that be did not think that making a will was a work of necessity, as he thought that a man should always do so before he arrived at the day of his death. If the matter ever came before him, he would at once decide, that making a will on a Sunday was not a work of necessity. Again, the Bill allowed work to go on for the six days, and prevented all but the performance of household duties on the Sunday. Now, he (the Lord Chancellor) would ask, what business had a Lord, because he happened to be rich, and to live in a great house like a palace, to call for the labour of those under him, while all work for the poor man was prohibited? A nobleman or other rich man might give a dinner to twenty-five on a Sunday; but what business had he to endanger the salvation of the soul of his cook or his butler by giving a feast on that day? As the servants of the nobleman were employed for household purposes, he would not be liable to any penalty; but supposing a poor man wished to start in a stage-coach to visit a sick child, or any other work which he might consider of necessity, he would be prevented doing so by this Bill. In the one case, the poor man who might be engaged on a work apparently to him 1016 of necessity would be liable to a penalty; and in the other, the Lord who unnecessarily gave a feast on that day might do so with impunity. He (the Lord Chancellor) should like to know what Magistrate—for be it recollected, that there was to be a summary conviction—without the intervention of Judge or Jury, could determine the marks and character of works of necessity or charity. He challenged any man to state distinctly what was a work of necessity and what was not. One man might say, that it was a work of necessity to go and see a sick child or parent, and another might consider that it was not so. One man might say, that it was a work of necessity to make a will on Sunday, while he (the Lord Chancellor) did not think that it was so. He, however, thought that there might be a case in which it was a work of necessity to make a deed or mortgage on a Sunday, whereas it was stated in one of the clauses of the Bill, that any deed or mortgage made on Sunday was void and of no effect. He also doubted whether they could say what was a work of charity. He knew of no legal definitions of charity, unless in connexion with charitable bequests or charitable institutions. He was unable to give any definition as to what was a work of charity. Again, he saw nothing in the Bill to prohibit a post-boy from driving a gentleman in his own carriage on Sunday; but, whatever might be the object of a person not keeping a carriage, he would be unable to get post-horses. Was there any exception to enable a physician who did not keep his carriage to visit a sick patient. There might be cases which he thought of the greatest exigency, namely, visiting a parent or child dangerously ill. A person was to be allowed to do so provided he could keep a carriage, but not so for a poor man. The noble and learned Lord could not restrain the progress of disease; he could not prevent the tide of life ebbing out during the time of divine service; but the apothecary of the poor man who did not keep his carriage could not visit a sick patient at a distance during these hours. The noble and learned Lord might say, that the defects which he (the Lord Chancellor) had pointed out might be remedied; but the Bill was so full of holes that, however anxious he might feel to amend it, he was sure it would be impossible to do so. Mr. Wyndham once said, 1017 that he did not know where to begin or where to leave off his objections to some matter under discussion—he (the Lord Chancellor) believed the Walcheren expedition—and such was what he felt with respect to the present Bill. There were many other things in the Bill as bad and objectionable as those he had mentioned; for instance, in one of the clauses there was a positive inducement to conduct much worse than drinking on Sunday. It was proposed in one of the clauses, that any master paying wages to his workmen engaged at a weekly salary on any other day but the day before market-day might be called upon to pay them over again. Was not that opening the door to constant disputes between master and workmen, and was it not also holding out an inducement to fraudulent conduct on the part of the workmen? The dishonest workman might, in some cases, be enabled to get his wages twice; he might go to his master and state that his wife or his child was ill, and might work upon the heart of the master so as to induce him to let the man have his wages, and a day or two after he might turn and say, "Ay, you paid me on such a day, but that was illegal, and you must pay me over again." There was no discretionary power given with respect to this clause; but the workman could enforce payment. He (the Lord Chancellor) had no doubt, that this circumstance had never been thought of by those who framed the clause, but it was a strong objection. He was aware, from the votes of the other House, that its Table was crowded with petitions on the subject; and at present he believed, that more than one measure on the subject was then under consideration. He had no doubt, that at least one of them would be brought under the consideration of their Lordships; and, therefore, he would suggest to his noble and learned friend, whether it would not be better to let his Bill stand over for the present. He recommended this course as he did not wish or mean to move its rejection. If a Bill was sent up from the other House, both measures could be referred to a Committee up stairs. As to sending the Bill to a Committee as it stood at present, he, with every disposition to give full credit to the noble and learned Lord for his labours in it, felt that it was utterly impossible to vote for it. He (the Lord Chancellor), after what he had said of the 1018 Bill, might move, that it be read this day six months; but he would not do so, because it might appear as if their Lordships were not anxious to concede the wishes of the people on the subject. All that he desired was, that they should go on carefully and cautiously. That was all he desired; and he was extremely anxious, that his motives should not be misconstrued on the subject. He regarded the question as involving something more than religious considerations, as he thought that nothing contributed more to the comfort and well-being of the people, than securing to men a day from their secular occupations. This object was of importance to the upper, the middle, as well as to the humbler classes of society. He was aware, that there was a strong religious feeling on the subject, and he was, therefore, most solicitous that nothing should be said or done which could lead it to be supposed, that the House was indifferent on the subject. The present Bill, however, was most injurious in its tendency; and, he was sure, could not receive the sanction of the Legislature. He, therefore, humbly suggested to his noble and learned friend, that he should postpone his measure until the Bills on the subject came up from the Commons, when the whole subject could be referred to a Select Committee.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, that under all circumstances of the case, and to avoid a discussion which might be productive of results unfortunate to the measure, he would recommend his noble and learned friend (Lord Wynford) to adopt the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. He (the Bishop of London) would also humbly suggest, that it would be better to wait for the measure from the other House, which would more probably be successful coming from the other House, than a measure would be, sent down by their Lordships. From what had taken place in the other House, he thought that there was a fair prospect of something being done; and there could be no great harm in waiting for a short time. At any rate, he was anxious that there should be no division; and that it might go forth to the country, that there was a disposition in both Houses of the Legislature to do what, under existing circumstances, was practicable on this subject.
§ Lord Wynfordfelt called upon to make 1019 some observations in reply to the speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack; but, before he did so, he wished to observe, that he thought he had told his right reverend friend, that he did not intend to proceed, for the present, beyond the second reading of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord had grossly misrepresented the Bill before the House. He had detected a literal error in the first clause, and had assumed, that the error applied to the whole Bill. He denied, that there was anything in the Bill to authorise the construction that the noble and learned Lord had put upon it. The noble and learned Lord ought to have recollected, that, in a Bill which he had lately before the House, there was an error much more extensive than any that had been found in that on the Table. The noble and learned Lord's Bill involved a mistake throughout. He alluded to the Bill brought forward by the noble and learned Lord for the trial of offences in parts of Essex, Kent, and Surrey, at the Old Bailey; in which all mention of an extensive class of offences was omitted. [The Lord Chancellor: That was an error of the press.] After the error of the Press had been corrected, the omission was continued. The object of the noble and learned Lord in the extraordinary speech which he had made—and he (Lord Wynford) had never heard a more extraordinary speech from any noble Lord—was, from the beginning to the end of it, to throw ridicule on the whole subject. The noble and learned Lord had said, that the Sunday was at present well observed. Where the noble and learned Lord got his knowledge on the subject, he (Lord Wynford) did not know; but all the witnesses examined before the Committee of the House of Commons gave an account of the matter directly contrary to that of the noble and learned Lord. It was stated by several witnesses, that there were shops open in several parts of the town on the Sunday; and that, in Lambeth, the shops were kept open as on any other day. Was that a proper observance of the Sabbath? The noble and learned Lord said, that this measure would be oppressive to the lower orders of the people, and inimical to their feelings. He (Lord Wynford) would tell the noble and learned Lord, that he knew little of the feelings of the lower orders. He was in an exalted station, and had no means of becoming 1020 acquainted with their opinions on the subject. He (Lord Wynford) would venture to assert, that the feelings of the lower orders were decidedly in favour of the Bill; and he had had many letters and other communications from public meetings of the labouring classes in which they urged him to proceed with his measure, and afford them relief and protection from the cupidity of their masters. The noble and learned Lord had proceeded to discuss some of the clauses in a manner peculiar to himself; and in which, he thanked God, he could not imitate the noble and learned Lord. The noble and learned Lord had misrepresented the clause with respect to public-houses. There could be no doubt, that the noble and learned Lord intended what he had said for a joke, and that he had spoken with a view of throwing ridicule on the subject; as he must have known, if he had read the clause, that it only referred to letting into public-houses during the period of divine service. The only object of the clause was to prevent persons being in public-houses, when they should be at places of worship. The noble and learned Lord asked, how the publican could judge, on Sunday or any other time, as to the quantity a person had drunk previous to entering his house. In answer, he would only observe that, however learned the noble and learned Lord might be on other parts of the law, he was completely ignorant of it on this point; and, if he would look, he, would find that there were laws in the Statute Book to prevent men tippling on Sundays in public-houses. He was also surprised, that the noble and learned Lord had never seen the word "charity" used in any statute, but that respecting charitable donations. The words "works of necessity and charity" were used in the statute of Charles 1st, and in other statutes to which he could refer. If the words were ridiculous, he would only observe, that they were not brought forward by him, but had been made use of in statutes introduced by some of the most learned men of their day. The noble and learned Lord also said, that this Bill would prevent a man making his will on a Sunday, There was nothing in it to prevent a man doing so. All that was prevented was the execution of deeds on that day; and he had told the noble and learned Lord, that he intended to modify this part of the Bill.
The Lord ChancellorAny person not engaged in works of necessity was to be liable to penalties. Would an attorney drawing a will be so engaged?
§ Lord WynfordMaking a will on Sunday might be a work of necessity.
§ Lord WynfordAll that was meant in the clause was, that a man should not engage in trading in his worldly calling on the Sunday. He begged to remind the noble and learned Lord, that it was customary to construe Acts of Parliament by their general meaning, and not by detached sentences.
The Lord Chancellorwished to know whether an attorney making a will was not engaged in his ordinary and worldly calling.
§ Lord Wynfordpresumed, that the noble and learned Lord intended his observation for a joke, like the rest of his speech, which was merely a string of jokes. The noble and learned Lord, when he alluded to the attorney, ought to have remembered, that when the principal was innocent, the accessory was also innocent. If the noble and learned Lord was determined to make so many jokes on the Bill, he ought, at least, not to have misrepresented it. Where did the noble and learned Lord find a word in the Bill to prevent a poor man travelling on a Sunday? If he looked at it, he would find that the clause only prevented goods being carried on Sunday, unless in case of necessity. He never recollected such gross misinterpretation of any Bill as the noble and learned Lord had put upon that on their Lordships' Table. In vindication of his own character, he felt bound to say, that the noble and learned Lord had misrepresented every clause in it, from the beginning to the end. He, in conclusion, would only observe, that, in moving the second reading of the Bill, he did not intend to press it further until it was ascertained whether any measure would be sent up from the other House.
The Lord Chancellorwas anxious to say one word in explanation. Every noble Lord who had heard his (the Lord Chancellor's) speech must feel surprised at the accusation brought against him of misrepresenting the Bill on the Table. One of the clauses of the Bill distinctly declared, that no trader, or artificer, or labourer, or any other person, should be 1022 engaged in his ordinary calling on the Sunday, or be employed in any other work. Might not an attorney be informed against under this Bill for pursuing his ordinary calling?
§ Lord Wynfordcalled the noble and learned Lord to order.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that he was not out of order, as he was explaining that he had not been guilty of misrepresentation. The noble and learned Lord had taken credit to himself for his good humour, with which, however, on the present occasion, he appeared to be little troubled. He begged, however, to state, that nothing was further from his thoughts than to make any thing like a wilful misrepresentation of any of the clauses or provisions of the Bill.
Lord Plunkettregretted, that the Bill had been introduced, and he concurred in the objections made by his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. He objected particularly that that clause relative to the payment of wages, whereby frauds would be caused, since it would enable labourers to claim a second time payment of their wages if, in the first instance, those wages had been paid them on the Sabbath-day. According to the present Bill, every species of contract entered into on the Sabbath-day would be null and void. He begged to ask the noble and learned Mover whether a marriage contract entered into on the Sabbath-day would be rendered null and void by the present measure?
§ Lord WynfordBefore I answer that question I beg to be allowed time to consider of it.
Lord Plunkettwas sure, that the noble and learned Lord would take plenty of time to consider on such a matter if it were his intention to enter again into the blessed state of matrimony. But he would suppose a case. He would suppose a gentleman meeting a lady on a Sunday, and entering into a contract with her to the following effect:—"Madam, I'll consent to marry you, if you will be so kind as to consent to marry me." Very well, then, after this offer, let them suppose that the lady took the gentleman at his word, and accepted of his offer, and agreed to the contract; but it might after wards happen, that, the gentleman might think better on the subject, and refuse to fulfil the contract. He might perfectly well make such a refusal, since the pre- 1023 sent Bill would completely exonerate him from performing the contract. He was extremely unwilling to move, as an Amendment, that the Bill should be read a second time that day six months; but he felt, that he would be obliged to do so if the noble and learned Lord persisted in his Motion.
§ Lord Wynfordsaid, his great object was to have the Bill read a second time. Their Lordships might make any amendments they thought proper, or even reject the measure, at some future stage of the proceedings.
The Earl of Wicklowdeprecated the long string of witticisms in which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had so copiously indulged. No single Bill, no matter of what description, could be introduced into that House, which, with the peculiar talents and powers possessed by the noble and learned Lord, might not be treated with exactly the same levity that the present Bill had been treated with. He, however, thought, that the present was not the most opportune occasion for a display of those peculiar powers. For his own part, he really did not think any new legislative enactment necessary to enforce the better observance of the Sabbath-day. However, he felt, when he considered how strongly the public mind had been excited, that some measure was called for. He could see no reason, however, why their Lordships' House, in their legislative character, should abstain from introducing Bills merely for the reason, that similar Bills were, or might be, brought into the other House of Parliament. Their Lordships very well knew that scarcely a single measure had originated in that House during the present Session, whilst during the very same time the other House was overwhelmed with business. He contended, that the House of Lords represented the people equally as much as the other branch of the Legislature. If that were not the fact—if such were not the case—why, he would ask their Lordships, was their Table covered with petitions in favour of the present measure, and measures of a similar character? He would suggest to his noble and learned friend to withdraw the present Bill, and to prepare another, which, he had no doubt, would meet with the gravest consideration of the House. It was of the greatest importance that his noble and learned friend 1024 should make some alteration in the provisions of the Bill; and this would only be done well by framing a new one. If his noble and learned friend would comply with this suggestion, he felt confident that their Lordships would give the new measure all the just consideration it demanded.
The Earl of Radnorconcurred generally with what had fallen from the noble Earl who had just spoken. He thought, however, that, at the present time, the Sabbath was, taking it altogether, extremely well observed. He agreed with the noble Earl as to the suggestion thrown out to the noble and learned Lord who had brought in the Bill; and he hoped that that suggestion would be attended to. He felt, that it was utterly impossible to argue the Bill seriously. There was no single clause, from the beginning to the end, except, perhaps, the last clause, which was not a mere matter of form. It certainly appeared to him, that his noble and learned friend laboured more at effect in the latter part of his speech than was necessary. In conclusion, he recommended the noble and learned Lord to withdraw the present Bill, and endeavour to produce something better. He really did not see how the present Bill could be satisfactorily amended.
§ Lord Wynfordbegged to say a few words as to the withdrawing of this Bill. If the noble Earl objected to the principle of the Bill, no Bill of a similar character, no matter how it might be amended, could prove satisfactory to him. For his own part, he wished that the Bill might be allowed to have a second reading, and be amended afterwards; but if noble Lords thought otherwise, he begged them to throw it out at present altogether. If the Bill were allowed to pass its present stage, he would allow a month for its committal; and he begged to assure their Lordships, that he would consider himself pledged to attend then to all their suggestions. If they meant to throw out the Bill, let it be done now. He had nothing further to say, than that, in Committee, he would endeavour, as far as it was in his power, to correct any errors that might have crept into the measure.
The Bishop of ExeterThe chief question was, whether the principle of the measure was approved of or not. The principle of the measure was, in his opinion, clearly stated in the preamble of the 1025 Bill, in which it was set forth, that it was necessary that there should be better provisions for the observance of the Lord's-day. He agreed in some measure with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in his opinion of the details of the Bill. Though there were, however, many faults in the measure, still he did not think them so grave as that they might not be amended. He could not, therefore, give a negative to the second reading, since it was his opinion, that some legislative enactment was necessary, in order to provide for the better observance of the Lord's-day.
§ Lord Aucklandsaid, that he had compared the original Bill with the printed copy, and found that they did not differ. The clerical errors complained of were scarcely any, and no blame was to be attributed to the officers of the House.
The Lord Chancellorwished to say a word or two in explanation. One of the most extraordinary misrepresentations he had ever heard, either in that House or beyond its walls, was that made by a noble Earl (the Earl of Wicklow) who had lately addressed their Lordships. It was a most extraordinary and uncalled-for misrepresentation; yet did he not attribute it to wilfulness on the part of the noble Earl, but to the fact, that the noble Earl did not understand either the scope, drift, or course of his argument. The noble Earl had said, that he had treated the Bill before their Lordships with levity. No one else but the noble Earl could perceive, that the scope of his argument savoured of levity. Reargued the Bill seriously; and his great objection to it was, that it would render unpopular the importance of having the Sabbath religiously and decorously observed. He begged distinctly to deny, that he had treated the subject with levity; but the noble Earl was so completely lacking of perception, that he could not understand the drift of his observations. It was the absurdity of the measure, and not any observations of his, that created laughter. Was it not most absurd to punish publicans for allowing their guests to get tipsy? How could publicans know the precise capacity of any man's head or stomach? How could they know what quantity of liquor was necessary to make their guests tipsy? It was impossible to call the attention of their Lordships to such absurd clauses as this, without creating, in some sort of way, 1026 laughter. He begged to repeat, that he acquitted the noble Earl of wilful misrepresentation; the only fault of the noble Earl was, that he misunderstood the scope of his (the Lord Chancellor's) argument.
The Earl of WicklowThe noble and learned Lord, with his usual attachment to introduce reform into this House, has favoured it with no less than three speeches. He has stated, that I have misrepresented him, not wilfully, but through misconception. I shall say nothing in answer to that; and as the noble Lord has solemnly stated, that he did not intend to treat the Bill with levity, I have not a word, of course, to say in contradiction.
§ The House divided on the Second Reading: Contents 16; Not-Contents 13—Majority 3.
§ Bill read a second time.
| List of the CONTENTS. | |
| Bangor, Bishop of | Gage, Lord |
| Beresford, Viscount | Gloucester, Bishop of |
| Bexley, Lord | Kenyon, Lord |
| Cashel, Archbishop of | London, Bishop of |
| Chester, Bishop of | Prudhoe, Lord |
| Colchester, Lord | Wicklow, Earl of |
| Exeter, Bishop of | Winchester, Bishop of |
| Feversham, Lord | Wynford, Lord |
§
Against this measure the Lord Chancellor entered the following Protest:—
Dissentient,