NEWCASTLE RAILWAY—SUNDAY TRA- VELLING. (Hansard, 11 June 1835)

The Bishop of Hereford
rose 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 1,000l. 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 Wallace
observed, 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 3,000l. 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 Roden
having 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 Richmond
observed, 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 Wharncliffe
did 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 London
would 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.