§ On the Motion of Lord Redesdale, the Bill was read a third time (according to order).
§ On the question, that "the Bill do pass,"
The Bishop of Londonrose, pursuant to notice, to move an Amendment, to the 6th Clause, to the intent of preventing railways from being compelled to run trains on the Sabbath. By the present system, perfect freedom of action was permitted to all Railway Companies as to the number of trains run upon their lines on the Lord's Day. There was no interference with them, nor, as originally proposed, had this Bill contemplated any such interference—the Clause respecting the Sunday trains not 1675 being compulsory. In the course, however, of its passage through Committee in the other House, an hon. Member (Mr. Thornely) had moved to introduce certain words into a Clause, under which words, Railway Companies would be forced to provide carriages for third-class passengers travelling upon Sundays. The right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), had opposed the introduction of those words; but, after he had ceased speaking, a number of Members, who usually voted with the Government entered the House, and, without stopping to make themselves acquainted with his argument, voted for the Amendment, in many cases, as he believed, under a misconception as to its nature. The effect was that now, for the first time, the Government of this Christian nation professed to interfere to compel provision to be made for cheap travelling upon the Lord's Day. Heretofore, it had been thought sufficient not to prevent such travelling—now, however, measures were about to be taken with a view to compel it. He must say, as a Prelate of the Church of England, that he thought such a step was a step in the wrong direction. The principle had hitherto been to encourage by legislation, as far as possible, the due observance of the Lord's Day; and though the Act of Charles II. which imposed penalties for the non-observance of that day had fallen into disuse, the Legislature had never until now, encouraged by direct enactments, its desecration. He had no wish to interfere to prevent Railway Companies affording facilities to all classes to travel on the Sabbath if they thought fit, and if they found it worth their while they would do so, no doubt; but what he objected to was that they should be compelled by law to provide those facilities. Their third-class trains would not be used, as some might suppose, for short pleasure trips, but being slow trains, they would in all respects be business trains, and would be used by the working classes to go from one part of the country to another, where their was more demand for their labour. They were not the trains which were provided for passengers who were seeking pleasure and relaxation, and therefore they would not answer the purpose of taking the people out on Sundays from crowded cities and towns in order to enable them to recruit their health or increase their enjoyment of life. They were, as he said before, trains adapted for business purposes, 1676 and why should the Government of the country, for the first time, interfere to force Sunday travelling upon the people, by enacting that these business trains should everywhere be caused to run? Besides, let him remind their Lordships, if these trains were to run, the inspectors appointed by the Board of Trade must be out to see them run, and to enforce compliance with all the conditions of the Act. Would not this be the first time that Government officers would be employed, under the requisition of an Act of Parliament, to see that certain parties pursued their business upon the Lord's Day? The Directors of the different Railways, too, were in many cases making laudable exertions to afford opportunities to their servants to attend Divine Worship on the Lord's Day. Let the House observe what an impediment this Clause of the Bill would throw in the way of such an excellent intention. But, as he said before, what he chiefly relied on was the unadvisableness of any Government in a Christian country, for the first time lending its sanction to such a novel principle as that of a compulsory provision for travelling upon the Sabbath. He was not advocating that any restraint whatever should be put upon travelling on that sacred day, when such travelling was thought to be necessary and desirable; whatever might be his own opinion on that point; but what he did require was, that Parliament should not make it compulsory, and therefore he should move that the words "every day," in the 6th Clause, be omitted, in order to insert these words, "every week day except Christmas-day and Good Friday."
Lord Broughamsaid, he was one of those who looked upon every thing which tended to the desecration of the Sabbath Day and the interruption of Sabbath rest as a great evil, and as a breach of duty—and not only as not conducive, but as prejudicial to the interests of the poorer classes, and by that he meant, above all, the working classes; but, on the other hand, they ought to take into account one circumstance, which was a fact of undeniable truth, that so far from the Sabbath being less well kept in this country now than in former times, it was in every way so much better kept, that there was no foundation whatever for the extravagant and exaggerated zeal that many persons displayed, who viewed as the great and crying evil of the present age the desecration of the Sabbath Day: for he must say, that 1677 with the exception of that country which had given him birth, there was not a country in Europe in which the Sabbath was better kept than in England. And if he were called upon to point out that one place in England where the greatest improvement in this important particular had taken place, he should point to that great metropolis in which they then were. When he remembered, some fifteen or twenty years ago, the way in which it was not kept, and saw the great change which had now taken place, he confessed that to him the improvement appeared almost marvellous. For the purpose of having the Sabbath well kept, they must make the day a favorite with the people—they could not by legislation go further—for they would always find in the end that the keeping of the Sabbath must be regarded as a matter of morals and feeling, and not a thing they could enforce by making the desecration a punishable offence. That being the nature and condition of the question, the Parliament ought to take especial care in all they did, and in all they omitted doing in the matter, to carry public opinion with their legislation, and, above all things, they should avoid any thing that might have a tendency to make Sabbath-keeping unpopular. Extreme puritanical rigour, and enforcing the keeping of the Sabbath, was not only bad in principle, and most pernicious in its consequences, but more than any thing else tended to frustrate the object they had in view, and by making the people hate the Sabbath, conduced manifestly and directly to Sabbath desecration. What he was anxious for was a just medium between the ascetic observance of Scotland and the laxity of Catholic countries in this respect; and that was the medium which he thought this country was attaining. He wished to see the people attending their religious duties in the morning, and devoting the evening to healthful recreation and amusement. In some respects this was the case in other countries; but still, as in Paris for instance, though there was a marked improvement upon the habitual and systematic desecration of the Sabbath which had been introduced at the Revolution, there was yet a disregard for that day exhibited in the carriage of timber, and the employment of persons in their every-day occupations, which he should be sorry to see introduced here. If the people went to church in the morning of the Sunday, 1678 what harm could there be in their enjoying themselves in the evening of that day? He was a friend to the maintenance of the sanctity of the Sabbath, and a great advocate for its reasonable observance—but could anything be more cruel than to prevent the poorer classes of Manchester, of Liverpool, and London, who were cooped up in the dark courts and alleys of those towns, and in the garrets, cellars, and work-rooms of Spitalfields, never or scarcely ever seeing the light of the sun during six days of the week, never breathing the fresh air during that time—could anything be more cruel or unjust, than to interfere to prevent these people from walking out on the Sunday and enjoying, not the sight of the sun and the fresh air a little, but a little of the country also, at an expense they could bear? It was, in his view, a good and wholesome observance of the Sabbath to go to Church in the morning, and in the evening to the country and the green fields, and, he said, let the people, in God's name! enjoy the country, if they could do so on that only day, and during those few hours of the week in which they were relieved from the toils of the week. He had lately come up from Brighton, on one of the finest mornings he had ever seen—he knew not why the health and amusements of the people should be made the subject of mirth, instead of one of a question of fellow-feeling and sympathy—he had recently travelled up from Brighton by the railway on one of the finest Sabbath mornings he had ever seen; a train passed at the station where he stopped, and in that train he saw somewhere about 600 or 700 persons as decently dressed as it was possible for them to be, with their wives and daughters, completely filling the cheap trains, and upon enquiry he found that they had to pay 4s. each as the fare to Brighton, 4s. to return, allowing them 4s. to spend there, he found that they thus, for some 10s. or 12s., could have the delight of a long and pleasing journey on the railway through the country, of seeing the green fields, and inhaling the fresh air during the journey: and, more than all, of spending some three or four hours by the sea side. Could their Lordships be insensible to the advantages which these poor people thus derived, after having been pent up during six days in the heat, the filth, and the darkness of the streets and courts of London? For his part, his (Lord Brougham's) 1679 heart leaped within him when he saw that large body of his fellow-countrymen and countrywomen enjoying so wholesome and salutary, and, at the same time, so innocent a recreation. Innocent it was in the greatest degree, and enjoyed, as he believed it was, without any of that dissipation and immorality which, if by law they had been compelled to remain in town, either by a direct law to keep them in London, or by placing obstacles in the way of their going into the country, and by which, instead of spending the Sabbath soberly, healthfully, and morally, they would have kept it in the ale-houses or gin palaces which so plentifully studded this metropolis. For these reasons, and being always anxious to see as little prevention placed in the way of the innocent and healthful recreations of the poor during the only time in which they could enjoy them, viz., the latter part of the Sabbath, he trusted that nothing that would interpose any obstacle to these recreations would meet with their Lordships assent.
§ Lord Monteaglewas anxious to say a few words, not with a view of adding anything to that powerful and noble appeal his noble and learned Friend had made to the sympathies and understandings of their Lordships, but rather to place the question on its right foundation, and remove an impression which might otherwise have been created in the minds of their Lordships by the speech of the right rev. Prelate. The right rev. Prelate might turn to his noble and learned Friend, and say that, without following him through all his argument, that argument was not opposed to his proposition. The right rev. Prelate might say, I do not propose to prohibit Sunday travelling; I want merely to leave matters as they are under the existing law; and if, under that law, people could now obtain that enjoyment which he had so well described, we may very reasonably suppose that they will have equal facilities under the new law. According, as he (Lord Monteagle) did, from the bottom of his heart, with his noble and learned Friend in all his observations, he was anxious to reply to the forcible argument which might be urged against him. He would undertake to prove, if their Lordships adopted the Amendment, matters would not be left in their present condition, or remain as they would otherwise have been if this Bill had never been introduced. Practically speaking, all the 1680 inconvenience that would result from a prohibitory Clause would be realized, if the provision which the right rev. Prelate sought to expunge were not inserted. Their Lordships would remember what was the explanation which had been given by the noble Earl opposite on introducing the Bill; they would recollect how much stress he had laid, and justly laid, on the desire of the Government to give increased facilities for travelling to the poorer classes; and it was quite clear that, to justify the Bill as it stood, these compulsory Clauses were relied upon by the Government as necessary to ensure for the poorer classes the accommodation the Bill required to be afforded to them. If that compulsory Clause was not introduced the Railroad Proprietors would never consent to give that accommodation to the poorer classes. If the noble Earl struck it out of the Bill—if he said that the Railroad Proprietors would give the accommodation without the Clause, then where was the merit of the Government in having such a Clause introduced? Either the Railway Proprietors would do it of their own accord, or they would not. If they did it of their own accord, then the interference of the Government was not required; but the noble Earl knew perfectly well that the means of conveyance supplied to the poor were made as disagreeable as possible, and had acted, in fact, as a punishment upon the poor. It was on that ground that the Government was warranted in interfering, and introducing this compulsory Clause. The Government interfered in one respect for the benefit of the public—why not include in its care a provision exclusively for the advantage of the poor? The right rev. Prelate observed that this was the first instance in which the Government had interfered to compel travelling on Sunday. [The Bishop of London: With only one exception, the transmission of the mails.] But where was the difference? It was a Christian obligation, or none at all. And how did the Government keep the Sabbath in respect of the Post Office? They kept the Sabbath as to the Post Office in London; but let them go ten miles from London, and there their Christian conscience deserted them. All over the Empire the business of the Post Office was transacted on Sunday, and he only found that their Christian consciences applied on Sunday to London, 1681 Dublin, and Edinburgh. They compelled travelling for the mails, but by the Amendment they would refuse to the poor alone the means of travelling. He remembered on one occasion travelling in England to have met with a similar instance of inconsistency. He required to pass the Severn. The authorities of the town where he was permitted a ferry to ply on Sunday, and to transport horses and carriages from one side of the river to the other, but they would not allow any steam-boat to run on that day; the inconsistency in that case being rendered more glaring by the fact, that the ferry was worked entirely by human labour, and the steam-boat by mechanical labour. Now, on what earthly principle were they to allow recreation where human and animal labour was required, and to forbid it where human labour was the least, and where the labour was chiefly mechanical? The right rev. Prelate had said, that these cheap trains would travel at a slow rate. They would not travel at a less speed than ten miles an hour, and that would enable parties to go down to Windsor or to Brighton and return the same day. If a rich man wished to travel on Sunday there was not a railway on which he might not enjoy the luxury, if he pleased, by the higher priced trains; but then the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate, whilst it allowed the transmission of first-class passengers, prohibited—for it amounted to that—the transmission of the poor third-class passengers; when they left the first-class free, they prohibited the poor enjoying the Sunday as a day of relaxation. It had indeed been said, with great truth and force, that they allowed an indulgence to Dives, but they refused any to Lazarus. Were they prepared to say to the people of England, after the proposition had been adopted by the other House of Parliament, of giving equal facilities to the rich and the poor on the Sundays as on week days—that they would take away that advantage to the poor which it was the intention of the Government and the House of Commons to give them; and to leave to the rich—to themselves in truth—the very same advantage? Again, the right rev. Prelate attempted to raise an argument by saying that the Inspectors from the Board of Trade would have to visit every railroad on Sunday. There could not be a more unfounded supposition; because, if the Inspectors were to be em- 1682 ployed on Sunday, there would be the same necessity for their attendance at the different railroads on every other day; and if so, duties were to be imposed on the Board of Trade which, he believed, they would be the first to reject and repudiate The question had hitherto been dealt with as a matter of pleasure, but were there not other considerations that might influence them? Could they not imagine a young workman passing his days of labour faraway from his family, his connections, and the persons with whom he had been brought up, and to whom his constant return was one of the best and surest guarantees for his own good conduct and virtuous life? Sunday, their Lordships ought to know, was the only day on which the workman could visit his family, who were at any distance from him. Let them, then, not introduce any inequality; let it not be said of them, that they were careful of themselves and regardless of others; but let them not do it on a ground which, if it were the one they acted upon, they would be bound to carry the proposition infinitely further than it had been done by the right rev. Prelate.
The Marquess of Clanricarderemarked, that the Bill did not compel any railroad to carry passengers on a Sunday. It only established this, that if Dives did travel on the Sunday, so might Lazarus. It did not compel any railway to run on Sundays; but it did compel this, that if a rich man should have provision made for his enjoyment, so also should the poor. If the mere matter of pleasure were to be considered, then he said the poor man ought infinitely to be preferred to the rich, for the rich man had six days in the week for his pleasure—the poor man but one. Then as to business, if it were excusable for a rich man to follow his business on a Sunday, how much more so for a poor man, who had no other day? The plain question was this, whether their Lordships would have accommodation themselves which they would deny to the poor man?
§ The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, it appeared to him, after having heard this discussion, that their Lordships did not entirely understand the Bill; and, perhaps, it might be desirable for their Lordships to adjourn this discussion. Nobody could desire, and it could not be intended by 1683 anybody, to compel the Proprietors of Railways to run carriages on Sunday, and, on the other hand, there was no prohibition to prevent travelling on Sunday. All that was desired by the Bill was this—that the Railroad Proprietors should provide carriages of a particular description, and going at a certain rate, for third-class passengers. Now it was proposed that where other persons travelled on a Sunday, that this class should be prevented from doing so. He begged to submit to the right rev. Prelate one consideration, which he was sure that right rev. Prelate would feel. There was nothing to prevent persons travelling in third-class carriages for three or four days together, in which days a Sunday might intervene. There could then be nothing more unreasonable than to require the third-class passengers to remain stationary on Sundays, when the carriages of other classes were going forward. It could not be the intention of the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate to do this; for, in the first place, persons would by it be put to great expense—that expense falling upon those not able well to bear it; and then he was afraid that it would happen that at whatever place or railroad station those persons might happen, by his Amendment, to be stopped on the Sunday, that they would not find the means of attending Divine Service, because the might not be able to find any place of religious worship capable of holding them in addition to those who regularly attended them. Under the circumstances he thought they ought to adjourn the discussion to Monday next.
Lord Campbellundertook as a lawyer to declare that the Clause was not compulsory, if the Railroad Proprietors thought fit to run no trains on the Sundays. If it were determined to run no train, whether slow or swift, the Clause would not compel them to do so; but then it provided that if the railroad did send on trains for the benefit of the rich, they should, for the benefit of the poor provide third-class carriages. He thought it would be more fair to propose a Clause prohibiting travelling on the Sunday altogether than an Amendment like the present, which drew such a distinction between the poor and the rich.
Lord Broughamsaid, that a calculation had been made as to 700 persons visiting Hampton Court on the Sunday. These 700 were conveyed by means of the 1684 labour of three individuals; whereas, if they went in coaches, to enable them to do so 120 persons must break the Sabbath.
The Bishop of Londonreplied: He had been misrepresented on the other side. His simple object was to prevent the direct interference of the Government on the subject; that the Government should not by its interference facilitate traffic on that day.
The Earl of Radnorwished, if they were then going to a division, that it might be borne in mind that the Clause was one for enabling the poor to travel by a railway train whenever the rich man did so.
§ Debate adjourned to Monday.