Lords Sitting of 11 June 1835

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of RICHMOND, Lord WHARNCLIFFE, and the Earl of KINNOUL, from several Places in Scotland, for a Grant of Money to provide Church Accommodation.—By Lord BROUGHAM, from Presbyterians of London and its Vicinity, against such a Grant—By the Bishop of LONDON, from Sunday School Teachers of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, to enforce the Observance of the Sabbath.—By Lord WHARNCLIFFE, from Protestants of Northampton, for Protection to the Established Church.

SAVINGS'BANKS—CASE AT HERTFOBD.
The Marquess of Salisburywished to call the attention of the House to a subject which was likely to excite a great deal of alarm out of doors. Some time since he was sorry to say, there was a serious defalcation in the funds of the Savings' Bank for Hertfordshire, in consequence of a fraud committed by an agent of that bank, a clergyman. That person had drawn considerable sums from the Savings' Bank, and had appropriated them to his own use. It seemed to be ascertained that the trus-
638
tees and managers were liable to a certain portion of the defalcation, about 12,000 l. The remainder of this loss must fall on the depositors. He wished to call the attention of the noble Viscount opposite to the manner in which the law now stood, and to ask him whether it was his intention to bring in a Bill to alter the law. As the law now stood, no trustee or manager of a Savings' Bank was to be personally liable except for his own acts, nor even for his own acts except for his own wilful negligence or default. The law was liable to great objections, as it might subject some innocent trustees and managers to an action if any defalcation took place; and the fear of such a liability would render many Gentlemen most anxious to withdraw their names, in a legal manner, from the office of trustees. However, the clause might be ultimately interpreted, he was sure that the evil he had mentioned would be dreaded, and would lead to this consequence. If, on the contrary, the clause was to be interpreted strictly according to the letter, he did not see what security there was for the depositor. It appeared to him that a depositor placed his money in those banks in which, on account of the names of the trustees, he had full confidence. The powers of the trustees were large. Any two of them might draw out a sum of money not exceeding 5,000 l. To draw out a greater sum required the signatures of four trustees. The trustees received no remuneration for their labours; and the necessary consequence was, that they could not be called on to give security for the due discharge of their duties. Any trustee would, however, if a literal construction were put upon the clause he had mentioned, be liable for such a loss as he had described. If the other construction was put upon the clause, the depositors would be liable to the consequences of the fraud. This was no trifling matter. When the Savings' Banks were first formed, but few individuals expected that the sums subscribed would amount to what they now were. The amount now was equal to six-teen millions; and it was, therefore, a most important question, whether the Government would think fit to introduce a measure relating to those Savings—the more important as they were the savings of the poorer class of the people—or whether they should be left without any security whatever. He was sure that no persons would consent to remain trustees without knowing what was the amount of their

639
liability. The question affected the noble Viscount as well as himself, for they were both liable, as trustees of this Hertfordshire Savings' Bank, to pay each a share of the loss.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that certainly the subject deserved consideration; but much as he lamented what had occurred in Hertfordshire, he did not think that in consequence of one misfortune it would be prudent or wise to interfere with the business of the general Savings' Banks of the country. He believed that there had been considerable negligence in the management of the Hertfordshire Bank. The noble Marquess must not consider such an observation as an attack upon the noble Marquess, for he himself (Lord Melbourne) was just as much liable to the charge as the noble Marquess; but he believed if those precautions had been observed in this case which were observed in the case of other Savings' Banks, the loss would not have occurred, at least to the same extent. He must, however, suggest to the noble Marquess, that if alarming the trustees was a matter to be avoided, the public discussion of this subject was not the best way to prevent it. All he could say on the subject was, that at present he did not see any reason to propose an alteration in the existing law.
Lord Broughambelieved, that there had been some degree of carelessness in this case, but he was happy to find, for the sake of the depositors, that the trustees were such undoubtedly solvent men. [The Marquess of Salisbury: We are only responsible for half the loss.]
He regretted to hear that, on account of the depositors—if it had been 100,000 l. it would have been equally safe. Spreading alarm among the trustees certainly was a thing to be avoided, and it was much to be desired that nothing should occur to scare men of influence and property from the performance of a duty attended with such beneficial consequences to the poorer classes. On the other hand, it was necessary to see that the regulations of Savings' Banks were carefully enforced, so as to prevent consequences of the kind now described, which must be extensively prejudicial. He agreed with his noble Friend that the subject deserved consideration, and was happy to find that though he would not pledge himself to introduce a measure on the subject, he was ready to give it his serious attention.
Viscount Melbournehad not intended to make any promise, direct or indirect, that he
640
should do anything with respect to this subject. He thought it better not to legislate on a particular instance.
The Marquess of Salisburysaid, that from what he knew of the trustees of the Savings' Bank of Hertfordshire, he believed that they would immediately withdraw their names from it if nothing was done to settle the question, and therefore he still hoped that the Government would take up the subject.
The Duke of Richmondagreed with the noble Marquess that a great many of the trustees of Savings' Banks would withdraw their names, and the consequence of that would be that the great body of the people, losing their confidence in the trustees, would withdraw their deposits. Such a consequence would be extremely unfortunate, and every thing should be done to avoid it. He was afraid that the Hertfordshire case was not the only one of the kind; there had been another of a similar description within the last six months in Northamptonshire.
Lord Denmansaid, that he might be allowed to make a few observations upon this subject. He apprehended that alarm among the trustees was quite unnecessary, for that they had effectual means of protecting themselves from liability, and of protecting the interest of those who were connected with them as depositors. They should take care strictly to enforce the provisions of the act of Parliament, and then defalcations could scarcely happen. With respect to the probability of their withdrawing their names, he was by no means sure that that would put an end to their responsibility. If any money had been paid to them, they had accepted it at their peril, and were answerable for its administration. If there were cases in which difficulties occurred as to legal remedies, it would be the interest of all to see that innocent trustees were taken care of.
The Earl of Wicklowbelieved, that it would be a difficult thing for the trustees to relieve themselves from their responsibility, but he believed also that if the laws of the Savings' Banks were observed, it would be almost impossible that there should be any defalcation. Such defalcation he thought must be owing to the neglect of the trustees, and nothing could be more unjust than that any portion of the loss so occasioned should fall on the depositor. Nothing could be more unwise than to let it be supposed that the depositor would be liable for any loss whatever. He hoped that in this

641
instance the trustees would be found liable for the whole of the loss sustained.
The Marquess of Salisburythanked the noble Earl for his wish. It would be perhaps more satisfactory to state what were the circumstances of the defalcation. Mr. Small, the defaulter, was the agent, and he had drawn out a large sum on the authority of the different contributors, and had appropriated it to his own use. For that sum the trustees were liable, but after notice of a change had been given, and the St. Alban's bank had been detached, as a branch bank, the depositors still continued to pay money into his hands, which money he had never deposited in the bank, but had appropriated it to his own use, and for that money the trustees were not liable.
The conversation dropped.

THE CHURCH (ENGLAND).
The Earl of Westmorelandpresented a Petition from the Protestants of Northamptonshire against any appropriation of the Church revenues to other than Ecclesiastical purposes. They hoped that their Lordships would not consent to any measure which would have the effect of weakening the Church and destroying the prosperity of an Establishment from which the country had derived so much happiness and glory. It was not easy, in recommending this petition, to avoid expressing some opinion upon the different points it touched upon, which seemed to be comprised under three heads,—the Alteration of the Forms of Marriage and Registration;—the Repeal of Tithes and Church-rates;—the Alienation of Church-property. With respect to the first, it must be the wish of every one to relieve persons from any forms or ceremonies injurious to their religious feelings;—but, in society, all persons must make some sacrifice to the welfare of the rest of society. The protection of property and legal title, was as necessary to Dissenters, as to other persons. For the sake of Dissenters, as well as the rest of the community, great caution then must be used in the alteration of these laws. With respect to the abolition of tithes and Church-rates it was asking for what the petitioners had not bought; and were not entitled to. The petitioners had bought an estate at a low price in consequence of its being charged with these rates; and he therefore trusted that the charges would be continued, (whatever changes might take place) and not be laid on the rest of the community. The poor were not to be taxed to increase
642
the estates of the rich. It was put forward that the abolition of tithes would be a relief to the poor, particularly in Ireland. He would maintain that the abolition of tithes would be a most heavy burden upon the people of Ireland—no doubt, though (to their credit, not sought,) most beneficial to the landlords, both in England and Ireland. The last proposition to which the petition related was the alienation of Church-property, which seemed to be in direct contravention of the Act of Settlement of the Crown, and the Act of Union with Ireland. Many Acts of Parliament and oaths might be argued upon their construction and tendency, but here the words were positive and distinct. Having been one of the Ministers who were engaged in carrying the Act of Union, he was convinced (and he could call upon some present to concur with him), that the Act of Union, could not have passed without that clause.
Petition read at length, and ordered to lie on the Table.

SLAVE TRADE IN THE MAURITIUS.
Lord Broughamwished to ask two questions relative to 30,000 Negroes, who he said had, by an act of piracy, been carried as slaves into the Mauritius. He wished to know whether measures had been taken for their release, and also whether measures had been taken to prevent that abuse, that gross abuse and outrage on the feelings of the people of England, who would have to pay the money, namely—to prevent the giving of one farthing of compensation with respect to these persons thus unlawfully and piratically treated as slaves.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that his noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies was not present, and, in his absence, he begged to decline answering the questions.

SUBSCRIPTION AT THE UNIVERSITIES.
The Earl of Radnorbrought in a Bill, the object of which was to do away with the necessity of subscribing to the Thirty-nine Articles on Matriculation at either of the Universities, the noble Lord moved that it be read a first time.
The Bishop of Glocesterremarked, that at Cambridge a person was not called on to subscribe the Thirty-nine Articles on Matriculation, or on taking his first degree of Bachelor of Arts.
The Bill read a first time.

CORN-LAWS.
Earl Fitzwilliampresented a Petition from the inhabitants of Auch-

643
termuchty complaining of the present system of Corn-laws. He said that the petitioners considered these laws as opposed to the best interests of the labouring classes of the community. For himself, he considered them to be beneficial to no class whatever. He had not abandoned his intention of pursuing is former course with respect to these laws, and he trusted he should do so with success, for the present system, he was convinced, was one which could not be a permanent part of the system of the commercial law of the country. The time was not far distant—perhaps he should live to see it—when a considerable number of those who took the greatest interest in the welfare of the agricultural classes would be convinced that their interests could not be secured by this system. The price of wheat was now under 40 s. a quarter. It must therefore be obvious to their Lordships that no legal enactments could secure to the agricultural interests of this country a price, nor to the landlords a rent dependent upon a price such as they required when that price was determined by the operation of natural causes which no system of laws could alter. Unless the law was assisted by a short supply, all classes would soon find that the idea of maintaining a high price of corn by law was a delusion.
The Earl of Malmesburydenied that the agriculturists were seeking for high prices. The state of the market proved this fact. If they were monopolizers or jobbers, it was clear that they had failed in their object. But such was not the case, they were neither the one nor the other. A reaction must take place in some way or other, or the ruin of the farmer must inevitably follow. The Corn-laws were not intended to secure high prices, but they were adopted as a shield to protect the country from ruin hereafter. Take away the Corn-laws, and the ruin of the farmer would be confirmed. Let their Lordships look at the manner in which the farmer was burthened, and then say, why he should not receive his share of protection. Relief was granted to others. To the landowner special protection was given for special reasons, and he could not conceive why protection should not be extended to the farmer; so long as those laws remained they would save the country from the greatest possible of evils—the discouragement of the agriculturist. All the farmer desired was a fair remunerating price; he did not seek to have anything to do with monopoly or jobbing.
Lord Broughamprotested against the two doctrines laid down by the noble Earl who had just spoken. One of the noble Earl's positions was, that the object of the Corn-laws was not to raise the price of corn. If it were not, he did not know what raising the price and keeping up the price of corn was. [The Earl of Malmesbury: I spoke of a remunerative price.] A remunerative price! That was a very nice question, upon which there was a great diversify of opinion, just as circumstances operated on different parties. It was, however, clear that the object of the Corn-laws was to keep the prices higher than they otherwise would be. Exorbitant prices, he knew, was out of the question. There was, therefore, no great difference of opinion between him and the noble Lord with reference to the effect of the Corn-laws (and this was often the case) when they came to understand each other's meaning. The other position of the noble Earl was, that it was not the object of the agriculturists by means of the Corn-laws to raise the price of wheat, because the prices were low, and they had failed in producing such an effect. But how stood the fact? Wheat was now at 39 s., whereas it was down to 36 s. some weeks ago. But if it were said to be the object of the Corn-laws (it was a common argument and a very intelligible one) not to keep up prices at all, not to keep up even remunerative prices, but to establish steady prices and to prevent those fluctuations, how had those laws operated? Why, they had failed to produce any such effect—for under the protection of those laws, corn had fallen from 60 s. and 64 s. down to its present price. He believed that if the Corn-laws were repealed, or Mr. Ricardo's plan of a fixed duty of 10 s. per quarter were adopted, such a proceeding would not reduce the price of corn so low as many individuals imagined.
The Earl of Malmesburysaid, if 1,200,000 quarters of foreign grain, which were now hanging over their heads, were let out of bond, such a supply would ruin the agriculturists both of England and Ireland.
Earl Fitzwilliamsaid, this remunerative price varied exceedingly. In 1815, the remunerative price was 84 s., but, according to the Corn-law Bill of 1828, it was 62 s. or 64 s. One of the strongest illustrations of the fact, that the Corn-laws were not beneficial to the agriculturists generally, was to be found in this circumstance—that the poor agriculturist was not enabled to

645
take the benefit of any rise of price which might chance to occur. Owing to the extraordinary abundance of the harvest, and the consequent lowness of the price, larger quantities of corn were at present lying on the hands of the farmer than was usual at this time of the year. It would, however, be uniformly found that the farmers thus situated were amongst the most wealthy of the agricultural class. The poor farmer who rented bad land, and who had but little capital, had been, at a very early period, compelled to part with his stock; so that any rise which might take place between the second week in June, where they now were, and August next, when they might expect that the harvest would be reaped, would benefit the more wealthy class of agriculturists, but not the poor farmer. But those who would derive the greatest advantage from the existing system were the speculators in foreign corn—the persons who owned that large mass of foreign corn which was now in bonded warehouses those were the individuals who would derive the chief benefit from any rise that might take place in the price of grain. For these reasons he would contend, that the Corn-laws did not tell so much in favour of the great body of agriculturists as some noble Lords supposed.
Lord Ashburtonsaid, that the present Corn-laws gave no protection when wheat was beyond 55 s. After that price foreign wheat might come in on a reduced scale of duty. The noble Earl appeared to think that the farmer was not benefitted under the present system of Corn-laws, and would be better off without any protection at all, but he (Lord Ashburton) was at a loss to understand how it could be argued that the agriculturists of England, Ireland, and Scotland, did not derive advantage from keeping to themselves the markets of the country when the price was below a certain sum. If there were no protection, wheat might come in at 30 s. a quarter. It could not be fairly contended, therefore, although the agriculturists might not have full protection under the existing Corn-laws, that they enjoyed no protection. Knowing how difficult it was to adopt any artificial system which would be satisfactory to all parties, he thought it would be hard to devise any scheme that would work better than the present, and he hoped, therefore, that Parliament would not be lightly induced to tamper with the Corn-laws.
Petition laid on the Table.

POOR LAWS—IRELAND.
The Earl of Carberysaid, that it being now twelve months since the appointment of the Commission to inquire into the state of the poor in Ireland, and four months of the present Session having elapsed without any report from the Commission, he wished to ask the noble Viscount at the head of the Government when their report might be expected? He observed that a Bill relative to a Poor-rate in Ireland was about to be presented to the other House of Parliament by an hon. and learned Gentleman, but he hoped when the report was laid before Parliament, that any measure to be brought forward in consequence of it would not be intrusted to the care of any individual, be he who he might; but that the subject would be undertaken by the Ministers on their own responsibility.
Viscount Melbournereplied, that the inquiry had extended to a greater length than was expected; however, considering its great difficulty and importance, noble Lords could not be surprised at that circumstance. He could not exactly say, at what time the report would be presented, but he had reason to hope that it would not be very long delayed. His Majesty's Government had nothing whatever to do with any Bill about to be produced in another place in reference to the subject. The measure alluded to by the noble Lord was brought forward without concert or agreement with Ministers. When the report of the Commissioners should be made, it would then be the duty of Government to consider what course they would adopt.

NEWCASTLE RAILWAY—SUNDAY TRA- VELLING.
The Duke of Sutherland The Duke of Sutherland moved the third reading of the New-castle-upon-Tyne Railway Bill.
The Bishop of Herefordrose to propose a clause by way of Amendment, which had been negatived in the Committee on the Bill by a majority of one. Some of the landowners interested in this rail-way not feeling satisfied with that decision, wished to have the opinion of the Legislature again taken on the subject. The clause which he intended to propose would have the effect (if adopted) of restricting the use of locomotive engines on the rail-way to six days of the week, prohibiting their application on Sundays. He was not about to advocate this Amendment on the ground of a better observance of the Sabbath, however much he felt the importance of that object; but he believed that the faith of Parliament

647
was pledged to the parties on whose behalf he proposed the clause. In 1829, the Act establishing this rail-way was passed, and the company contracted a voluntary engagement with the landowners on the line that no locomotive engines should be used on the rail-way. That agreement was sanctioned by the Legislature in the shape of a clause of the Act. In March, last, the rail-way was opened, when, notwithstanding the clause, locomotive engines were immediately put in operation. One of the landowners obtained an injunction from the Court of Chancery to prohibit the practice, which injunction was now in force. Meanwhile, improvements took place in the machinery of the engines, and in the consumption of the fuel used by them so as to occasion a diminution of the nuisance before experienced from their use. Mr. Gray, the landowner who had obtained the injunction, finding that the Act would be impeded by enforcing it, consented to give it up, and allow locomotive engines to run on the rail-road six days of the week, provided they were not used on Sundays, when there was no occasion to carry goods on the rail-way, and it could only be made use of for the conveyance of passengers on pleasure excursions. The Company proposed to bring in a Bill to sanction the use of locomotive engines; but although the other landed proprietors agreed to this, Mr. Grey refused to consent to the use of engines on Sundays. He (the Bishop of Hereford) relied upon the contract between the parties which forbade the use of locomotive engines on the Sabbath. It had been openly avowed by the company that, as might be supposed, emolument was their only object, and that they expected to gain 1,000 l. a-year by Sunday travelling. The proprietors, Mr. Grey and another individual, objected to this on the ground of desecration of the Sabbath and breach of contract. Numerous petitions had been presented against the use of those machines, which it was proved would be attended with a great nuisance, disturbing the quiet of the inhabitants of the line of road. During the three Sundays that the locomotive engines were in use, a great number of people passed along the rail-way. It was quite true that Mr. Grey had signed an agreement on the subject, but it did not appear to him the (Bishop of Hereford) that that Gentleman meant to give up his right to object to the use of engines in the way proposed, although he might have been to blame for not taking care that the
648
document was more cautiously worded. He thought that the agreement, if fairly and liberally construed, would convey the meaning that Mr. Grey intended to give up his objection to the use of locomotive engines on six days in the week, but not to withdraw his opposition to their use on the seventh. In other words, Mr. Grey was willing to give up six parts of a contract sanctioned by Act of Parliament, and only required in return for this concession that the Company would allow the seventh portion of the agreement to remain undisturbed. The right reverend Prelate concluded by moving a clause excluding the use of locomotive engines on the Lord's-day.
Lord Wallaceobserved, that the Amendment proposed by the reverend Prelate was recommended on two grounds, one general connected with the better Observance of the Sabbath—and the other a special one founded upon an alleged breach of compact arising out of an Agreement entered into by the Company, promoting the Bill in the year 1829, by which the use of locomotive engines was precluded. He did not deny, that in the Act of 1829, by which the Newcastle and Carlisle Railway was originally established, a clause to that effect existed, but it appeared to him that all the parties who might be considered as having an interest in the protection afforded by that clause, (including the petitioners against the Bill), had by subsequent Acts of their own deprived themselves of all right to appeal to the provision alluded to. That this clause might have operated to induce some of the landholders on the line to become at that time consenting parties to the rail-way was very probable—it would certainly have been an inducement to himself, but how far it had in fact so operated—how far the proposal of the present measure was strictly consistent with the spirit and meaning of the previous engagement, or what his own conduct would have been, had a large proportion of the landowners who then consented thought it right to resist this Bill as a breach of the compact then made, it would be a useless waste of time now to discuss; for the reason he had already assigned that there remained no party in a condition with the least show of justice to claim the benefit of it.
The line of rail-way extended sixty miles—the proprietors of fifty-nine of those miles had consented to this Bill for the removal of the restriction imposed by the former Act. This, in respect to each

649
of these individuals, amounted to a complete abandonment of all pretension to complain of a breach of faith or to resort to a provision which they had themselves thus consented to abrogate. They were then out of the question. There remained only the single mile divided between the petitioners both of whom, he concluded, were equally deprived of any advantage such an appeal might afford them. Whatever effect the clause prohibiting locomotive engines might have had in obtaining the consents of some of the landholders to the Bill of 1829, he did not think it could be affirmed to the same extent in respect to Mr. Grey the first of the petitioners—at least any influence it had was considerably assisted by the receipt of 3,000 l. paid to him by the Company in consequence of his withdrawing his opposition to that Bill; but this was not all—a subsequent and recent agreement on the part of that Gentleman more decisively precluded him from resistance to the present measures on the ground of previous compact—it was executed on the 4th of May last and stated, that Mr. Grey should withdraw his opposition to the Bill now before Parliament on condition that the Company should give him an engagement under their common seal that they should hereafter do what? respect the sanctity of the Sabbath, and on that day no locomotive engines should be employed? Nothing of the kind—the condition thus formally prescribed is that "they should not hereafter apply to Parliament for a power to use raw coal or any fuel equally offensive for these locomotive engines"—and after this a clause was introduced into the agreement to prevent all misapprehension, and as if it were to anticipate and obviate the very claim put forward by the reverend Prelate to press the insertion of the Amendment proposed as arising from the Bill of 1829, it went on to say—"But it is to be understood that Mr. Grey is at liberty to propose for insertion into the Bill a clause to prevent Sunday travelling, and the Company is at liberty to oppose such clause." After this, what pretension, he would ask, could be reasonably insisted upon for the introduction of the Amendment as sanctioned by the Bill of 1829. The motive for inserting this clause in the agreement he conceived to have been to guard against any construction being put upon it that might bring into doubt, Mr. Grey's exercise of the right of petitioning upon the general ground which he possessed in common with every subject of the realm who
650
felt the importance of obtaining a more solemn Observance of the Sabbath through the means of legislative enactment. The circumstances in which Mr. Graham the other petitioner stood were even somewhat different. Mr. Graham had been and still was a holder of shares in the rail-way—in that character he received notice of a meeting to be held in reference to this Bill at which the several objects of it were distinctly brought forward for consideration, and amongst them that of obtaining the repeal of the restriction upon the use of locomotive engines imposed by the Bill of 1829—at this meeting he did not attend either to make any objection to what was proposed, or to limit his acquiescence by any condition, and not having done so, he became bound by the decision of the majority of the shareholders assembled, and in fact a promoter of the present Bill—so situated, it was impossible that with consistency any part of his case could be supported on a breach of compact—in which, if it could be imputed at all, he by his connexion with the Company must be considered as participating—he desired not to be supposed to object to the petitions of either one or the other of these Gentlemen—in prosecuting them they had only availed themselves of the unquestionable right they possessed—what he contended for only was that neither of them had made any case upon which to establish a claim to especial attention drawn from the previous engagement embodied in the clause of the Bill of 1829. The claims of both to their Lordships' consideration of the prayer of their respective petitions resolved themselves into the general question of the necessity of enforcing a more solemn Observance of the Sabbath, and the expediency of legislating for that purpose on the particular point to which the prohibition petitioned for was confined.
Although the reverend Prelate had adverted to the general consideration, he had not thought it desirable on the present occasion to enter into the discussion of it, and he willingly followed his example—it was a subject, however, to the importance of which no man was more alive than himself nor was he less alive to the difficulty that belonged to it, and he believed those who had most anxiously directed their attention to it, had found that the difficulty of dealing with it, was at least equal to its importance. His objection to the proposition of the reverend Prelate was less to the principle of it, than to the in-

651
justice and partiality of its application—it was to a single mode of travelling—a single rail-way—a single district—a single class of individuals; while any other district—any other mode of travelling, and description of persons were exempt from the same oppressive restriction. Be the object of the proposition ever so expedient—the expediency must be general, not local. If for the due Observance of the Sabbath, a prohibition against travelling was required, it was equally required in every part of the kingdom and for every class of its inhabitants whose religious duties and obligations were the same for every rank and station, the richest as much as the poorest; not for one place or one class alone and particularly for that humbler class on whose occasional recreation and wholesome exercise their comfort, their enjoyment, and, he might add, their health so essentially depended—upon the recreations and enjoyments of this valuable class every measure he had yet seen brought forward with a view to the object of this Amendment, as well as the restriction resulting from this Amendment itself appeared to him exclusively and cruelly to fall. The motive he had in opposing himself to it was to prevent this, and that the humbler classes of his fellow-subjects whose less fortunate lot consigned them to laborious occupations, pursued in close habitations amidst the deleterious atmosphere of a smoky town during six days of the week—should not on that remaining one, in which they were at liberty to profit by it be deprived of the benefit of salutary exercise—a cheerful and innocent recreation—the refreshment of the country and the blessing of breathing for a few hours a pure and untainted air, that might revive their spirits, recruit their strength, and sustain their powers of exertion in the various branches of useful industry to which they were devoted. God knows, my Lords, he added, the distinction between the rich and the poor is wide enough from their respective positions, let us not aggravate the sense of it by injudicious, because unequal legislation.
The Earl of Rodenhaving presented a Petition signed by 5,000 inhabitants of the town of Newcastle, against the Bill, thought it necessary to offer a few words on the subject. It had been proved that the use of locomotive engines on Sundays was not required on this line for the purpose of trade, and that the only object was to promote pleasure or riots in trips from Carlisle to Newcastle, He agreed with the noble
652
Lord that Mr. Grey had no reason to complain of the Bill, but he thought the noble Lord mistaken in his opinion of the position of Mr. Graham, the other proprietor referred to. He entered fully into the feelings of that Gentleman, who resided on the spot, and was anxious to extend spiritual and Sunday-school instruction among the people about him. With respect to the better observance of the Sabbath, he admitted the difficulty of legislating on the subject, and believed that more good might be done in this way by the example of the higher, classes, who should keep the Sabbath as Protestants were bound to keep it. In conclusion, the noble Earl said he should support the clause.
The Duke of Richmondobserved, that the clause, if adopted, would not prevent Sunday travelling; it would only cause horses to be substituted for locomotive engines on that day. If the Bill were passed, a great benefit would be conferred on the inhabitants of Newcastle; it was better for them to take a trip on the rail-way, than to pass their time in beer-shops on Sundays. He agreed with the noble Lord in thinking that the higher classes ought to set an example of observing the Sabbath; and he objected to a clause which prevented the labouring man from riding on a rail-way, while a noble Lord might drive along tle turnpike-road with four post-horses. Was it a greater breach of the Sabbath to ride on the rail-way than to go down the Tyne in a steam boat? The House would do well, if it legislated at all on the subject, to pass laws which would equally affect the rich and poor.
Lord Wharncliffedid not understand why a greater objection was made to travelling on a rail-way than on the turnpike-road to Greenwich, or any other place which the people were in the habit of frequenting for innocent recreation and amusement. In the case of great towns, where the inhabitants were frequently engaged in unwholesome employments, it ought to be an object to encourage not to obstruct the people in the pursuit of recreation and relaxation on Sundays, for the sake of their health. Such a pursuit would benefit them physically, and not hurt their morals. He thought it desirable that the Sabbath should be properly observed, and in his opinion it was so observed at present. He opposed the clause as the beginning of a system under which he had reason to know it was intended to introduce similar provisions into every other Railway Bill.
The Bishop of Londonwould not have said a word on this subject but for the principle laid down by the noble Baron who had last addressed the House, a principle which, if fully carried out, would go the length of declaring that Parliament ought to pass an Act for the increase and encouragement of Sunday stage-coaches, and to shut up the churches. The noble Baron's principle directly encouraged the poorer classes to employ their Sundays not for the purpose for which the Creator had given the Sabbath to man, but in recreation and amusement. He (the Bishop of London) was far from opposing a recreation of bodily strength any more than a cessation from intellectual labour, both of which were necessary, and might be accomplished by rest; but he protested against its being held forth as one of the main objects of a Government to encourage Sunday excursions. General legislation on the subject of the observance of the Lord's day was surrounded with difficulties. Unless there could be equal legislation, it was better to have none at all. But in reference to this clause, which differed entirely from an attempt at general legislation, there had been no complaint from the poorer classes of Newcastle or Carlisle, still less from the agricultural population of the county through which the rail-way passed, of any want of proper means of recreation on the Sabbath. There were these great differences between this and other modes of travelling, that it was at present a novelty, and would always be attended with excitement and rapidity, and the impulse arising from numerous and rapid assemblages on given points. Noble Lords ought to pause before rejecting a clause which did not take away any established amusement or recreation of the people, but merely removed a temptation and an obstacle to the performance of their moral and religious duties. As to the case of steam-boats, rivers were the established high roads of commerce, and the addition of a steam-boat created no new temptation; but here was a rail-way carried into a new part of the country, and offering a fresh temptation to the agricultural classes to neglect their duties. He quite agreed with noble Lords as to the responsibility of the rich, and the awful profanation occasioned by their travelling on the Sabbath, a practice against which he should always lift up his voice.
Their Lordships divided on the question that the clause be inserted—Contents 19; Not-contents 40; Majority 21.
Clause rejected.
Bill read a third time and passed.