The Sun.
London, England, 1834-03-12 00:00:00

THE SABBATH.

Mr. ROEBUCK presented a petition from Bath,
against the Bill for the better observance of the Sabbath.
Mr. WYNN presented sixteen petitions, ten of which
were from parishes in the county of Montgomery, and six
from parishes in the county of Merioneth, in favout of the
Bill for the better observance of the Sabbath.

Sir ANDREW AGNEW presented petitions from
Greenwich, Blackheath, and another place, with a similar
prayer.
Sir A. AGNEW did not consider it necessary for him
to go at length into the subject of his bill for the better
observance of the Sabbath at that time. The number of
petitions presented in the last session showed the wishes
of the people on the subject. The voice of the country at
large was unequivocally in favour of an alteration in the
present laws.—(Loud cries of "No, no.") He would, there-
fore, content himself with moving for leave to bring in a
bill for the purpose he had mentioned.
Mr. CHICHESTER seconded the motion.

Mr. POTTER, if allowed to express his feelings on the
subject, must say at once that if the bill in question was
substantially the same as the hon. baronet's measure of
last year, he would give it his decided opposition.---(Loud
cries of " Hear, hear.") Why move for leave to bring in a
bill, and not explain its provisions? He (Mr. Potter) held
in his hand the hon. baronet's bill of last year, and if the
house feltinclined he would read it.—(Laughter, and loud
cries of " No, no," from all parts of the house.) By one of
the clauses of the bill of last year, not only were bakers to
be prevented from working on the Sabbath, but baking was
prohibited altogether.—(A laugh.) With regard, again,
to the provisions of the bill as they related to buying and
selling on Sunday, it was impossible they could ever be
carried into effect in large towns. When the hon. baronet's
hill of last year was brought forward, he (Mr. Potter) had
the curiosity to go on two occasions into the houses of
poor people on Sunday mornings, when he found that the
meat they were preparing for dinner would, from the
impure atmosphere of the places, be unfit for use if kept
till the following day. That hill also prohibited travel.
ling on Sundays. He would put it to hon. members
whether such a provision ought to be sanctioned by that
house. He would only, in order to show the hardship
and injustice of such a clause, refer to the case of the
shopkeepers in London. They were closely confined all
the week, and yet the bill of the him. baronet would deny
them the recreation of which they had so much need on
Sunday. The bill also intended to prohibit the innocent
amusements of the people.—(Hear, hear.) The amuse-
ments of the people hail already, of late, suffered unneces-
sary curtailment. A few years since that house bad passed
a law to put down fairs in London ; this lie thought im-
proper. The Bill of the hon. baronet, so far from bene-
fitting religion, would be found to have a quite contrary
effect. He would oppose it, being brought in.
Lord MORPETH thought some legislative enactment
on the subject necessary. It was necessary that the Sab-
bath should be a day of rest to the body and improvement
to the mind. The laws both of God and man ordained

that it should. On this ground, therefore, he ‘vould vole
for the admission of the bill.
Colonel WOOD said there were several objectionable
details in the lion. baronet's bill of last year; but at the
same time he must say that it was the general wish of the
middling and upper classes of society that some legislative
measure should be adopted by the house to insure the
better observance of the Sabbath.—(Hear.) He was
aware it was a difficult thing to legislate on such a sub-
ice. His own impression was that a great deal more
tnight be done by example on the part of the hon. mem-
bers of that house, than by any act of Parliament they
could pass on the subject.—(Hear, hear.) He would,
however, vote for the introduction of the bill ; and if the
house were pleased to allow it to be read a first and second
time he thought the best course for the hon. baronet
vould be to refer it to a committee up stairs, when they
.vould he able to ascertain bow the Sabbath was spent, and
vbat parts of the bill might admit of beneficial alteration.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS thought the bill, having the

)li.ject in view of that of the hon. baronet, would he best

livided into two sep irate bills; the one endeavouring to
4.cure the better observance of the Sabblth as regarded

trading on th it day, and the other as regarded amuse-
' ments. The house, in his (Sir Robert Inglis's) opinion,
had an undoubted right to legislate for the better ob-
•ervance of the Sabbath with rtsrect to trading on that
day. With regard to amusements, be concurred with the
bon. member that the example of that house would be
better than its legislation. There was a very general and
strong feeling existing in the country on the subject of
the extent to which the profanation of the Sabbath was
carried in large towns, as was proved by the fact of the
petitiors, praying the house to interfere, which had been
presented to it, being signed by 277,000 individuals.
Mr. Secretary LITTLETON, without wishing to be
understood as approving of the details of the bill, would
vote for its admission, as he conceived the ,law, as it at
present existed for the observance of the Sabbath, re-
quired alteration. He admitted that the example of hon.
members and others would, in such a case, have greater
force than the legislation of the house. One of the great-
est instances of Sabbath profanation was the markets held
in so many places on the morning of that day. What, he
would ask hon. members, was the cause of those Sabbath
morning markets ? It arose from the circumstance of
the masters of working people paying them their wages
at so late an hour on the Saturday night as to render it
impossible for them to purchase the articles they rt quired
until the following morning. He thought something
ought to be done to get this arrangement altered. It ap-
peared to him (Mr. Littleton) that another day than Sa-
turday ought to be appointed for masters paying their
workmen their wages. In several large towns in the
country masters had come to an understanding among
themselves to depart from the practice of paying their
workmen on Saturdays, and the change had been attended
with the best effects. He thought it his duty to say thus
much, as it was only by such means as he had relerred to
that relief could he afforded.

Colonel EVANS would vote for the bringing in of the
bill of the hon. baronet ; but if the bill should prove to
he essentially the same as ►hat of last year, he should
afterwards give it his most decided opposition.
An HoN. MEMBER, whose name was unknown in the
gallery, said, that after labouring for the six days of the
week, it was necessary the Sabbath should be observed as
a day of rest. He would, therefore, vote for the intro•
duction of the hill of the hon. baronet.

Mr. T. B. LENNARD said that the right hon. Secre-
tary for Ireland had pressed on the attention of the house
the necessity of changing the time of paying workmen their
wages from Saturday till some other day. That might be
practicable in some cases, but in others it would not. In
many country towns it would be impossible for masters
to pay their workmen their wages sooner than Saturday,
because they did not thems4ves receive the proceeds of
their goods, out of which they were to pay their men, be-
fore that day. With regard again to working on the
Sabbath, there were many cases in which it was necessary
man should work. There were many businesses, for ex-
ample, which required fires to be kept on all Sunday. If
the present bill of the hon. baronet were the same as last
year, be would give it his decided opposition.
Mr. WARBURTON 'paid, that after the explanation, or
rather no.explanation, of the bon. baronet, the bill, for any
thing the house knew to the contrary, might be the same
as that of last year. He, ih refore, thought the house
would be warranted in deciding not to admit the bill ;
still, he would not oppose its being brought in.
Mr. ROBINSON said, that if the bill of the bon.
baronet did not apply to other classes whom he (the hon.
baronet) roust have in his eye, as well as to the labouring
classes, he would oppose it in its after stage. In the
mean time he would vote for its being brought in.

Mr. ROEBUCK contended that there did not exist
any necessity whatever for legislating on the subject.
The Sabbath was well kept, and there was a growing
improvement in this respect. Everybody was aware of
this. The present was, therefore, not the time for le-
gislating on the subject, and he hoped the house would
not admit the bill of the hon. baronet. But if he (ths
hon. baronet) would entitle his bill " A Bill for the better
Observance of the Sabbath, by the Higher Classes;" and
if, instead of prohibiting stage-coaches from running
on that day, he prohibited the carriages of the rich—if
instead of the omnibus he prohibited the chariot—if in-
stead of the steam-boats he prohibited boats sailing with
parties of pleasure—if instead of shutting fields and gar-
dens, be shut up Hyde-park ; if be did this, he (Mr
(Roebuck) would vote for the bill.—(Loud cries of
"Hear, hear," from all parts of the house.)

Mr. RICHARDS said such a bill was necessary for the
strict observance of the Sabbath, and, therefore, it should
have his support.

Mr. AGLIONBY said it was important the house
should know whether the present bill was the same as
that of last year. If it were, they might properly refuse
to admit it. The alterations, so far as known, were quite
unimportant.

Mr. HARDY said, that one of the objects of the bill
was to protect journeyman bakers from being compelled
to work on the Sabbath Day. It was necessary for their
spiritual improvement, that they should enjoy a day of
rest. Were they to be deprived of all religious privileges
on Sunday? They had been told that to propose legis-
lating for the better observance of the Sabbath, was a
piece of cant. There was, no doubt, cant in some pro--
fessors of religion. There was cant also in many pro•
fessors of patriotism, and of liberalism.—(Cheers.) It
would often be found that those who made the greatest
profession of patriotism, had least of it in reality.
Ur. PEASE had received so many letters from all
parts of the country respecting tl.e necessity of some
legislative measures being adopted to secure the better
observance of the Sabbath, that he felt it his duty to
support the motion for leave to bring in the bill. He
thought that a great deal might be done to enforce the
better observance of the Sabbath, without at all trenching
on the liberty of the subject.—(Hear.) Were the bill
once in committee, he conceived a great deal might be
done to expunge the objectionable parts which appeared in
last year's bill.

Mr. HUDSON would support the motion, reserving to
himself the liberty of making any objections in committee:

Mr. F. BUXTON supported the motion, because he
found that there was a general feeling throughout the
country that the sanctity of the Sabbath should be better
preserved than at present; and that, for this purpose,
some bill like that proposed should be framed.—(Loud
cries of " No, no.") The Sabbath Day, in the metropolis
and its suburbs, in particular, was profaned by many
gross abuses, which everybody must ailow ought to be
put an end to; and he trusted that the house would not
run so counter to the deep feeling on this subject, which
pervaded most of their constituencies, as to refuse the
motion.

The question was then put, and leave was given to
bring in the bill.
Sir ANDREW AGNEW then moved for leave to
bring in a bill to explain and amend certain acts rela-
tive to the observance of the Sabbath Day in Scotland.—
Agreed to.

The same HON. BARONET then moved for leave to bring
in a bill to enable local authorities to change Saturday and
Monday fairs and markets to other days.
Mr. P. HOWARD must really protest against this bill
of the hon. baronet's, the mention of which he thought
more particularly calculated to excite alarm in the minds
of all classes, and which, if carried, would produce the
greatest mischiefs. The bon. baronet appeared to think
there could not be too much of a good thing; but he
(Mr. P. Howard) thought that this multiplicity of bills
was calculated to effect nothing like a beneficial object.
Mr. O'CONNELL concurred with the hon. member,
and must really suggest to the hon. baronet that be was
rather too premature in thus bringing on his third bill
before he had made sure of the two first or even the first.
The house had merely given him leave to introduce the bills,
tl,ey said nothing about allowing them to pass.—(A
laugh.) The lion. baronet, while he was about it, seemed
determined to cut the working part of the week short
enough, or rather too short; for no sooner had the house
allowed him so far to have his way about his Sunday Bill,
than he set to work upon Saturdays and Mondays.—(A
laugh.) This was rather too much.
Sir M. W. RIDLEY said (as we understood him, for
the extreme impatience of the house manifested itself in the

most unequivocal way), that he thought the present bi
the most f all the four.

Mr. M. PHILLIPS protested more particularly against
this portion of the lion. baronet's projects. The ereat
markets of the principal cities and towns of the empire
were held on Saturdays or Mondays—Smithfield on Mon-
days—and he (Mr. Phillips) considered that any attempt
to interfere with the present well-advised arrangement of
market days would be most prejudicial to all classes, if not
wholly destructive of a great portion of internal traffic.
The only improvement that could be made would be that
labourers, &c., should be paid on the Saturday mornings,
so as to enable them to make all their purchases by the
close of the day.
Lord MORPETH supported the motion, and said that
a petition had last session been presented to the house
from the grasiers of Skipton, which altogether was in fa-
vour of this specific bill, and mentioned that the cattle
fair at Skipton being held on a Monday was greatly pre-
judicial to their interests as traders, and opposed to their '
feelings as Christians, as they were compelled to travel
,vith their cattle all the Sunday, in order to arrive i❑ time
fur the Monday's fair.

Mr. GISBORNE addressed the house amidst the
greatest uproar and confusion of cries of " Question, ques-
rim)," " Divide, divide," &c. The hon. member parti-
cularly objected to this portion of the hon. member's
id ans.

Sir J. WROTTESLEY said that any alteration in the
Saturday's market would he very injurious to Birmingham
and many other great towns. No doubt the sanctity of
'he Sabbath was not preserved in all its desirable purity
in the metropolis, but even here a very great improvement
had taken place in the last few years. The proposition of
the hon. baronet, if agreed to, would derange, to a very
mischievous extent, the internal traffic of the country, and
if the hous.3 did not at once reject it, their table would be
loaded with petitions against so prejudicial a plan.
Sir R. PEEL thought, as the house had agreed to the
other motions of the hon. baronet, they should, for the
s►ke of consistency, agree to this ; the more particularly
when it was considered, that if they rejected this specific
-motion on the ground of opposition to the principle it con-
tained, such a proceeding would ipso facto imply that
they had approved of the principle of the motions they
had agreed to. He saw no reason for singling this specific
motion out for rejection. It was but one of the wings of
the great measure.
Mr. CRIPPS recommended the house to clip the wings,
bill and all.—(A laugh.) The measure, if agreed to,
would materially injure internal traffic, if nut put an end
to it altogether.

The house then divided, when there appeared—

For the motion 137
Against it
Majority against the motion -44
DURATION OF PARLIAMENTS.

Mr. Tennyson was called upon to bring forward his
motion for a Bill to shorten the Duration of Parliaments,
the greatest confusion prevailing in the house, cries of
" Postpone, postpone !" When silence was in some mea-
sure restored,

Mr. TENNYSON said, for his own part he felt too
exhausted to do justice to his very important motion at
that late hour of the night, and as the house appeared
also unwilling to enter upon the question, he would readily
agree to postpone his motion, provided the hon. member
for Barnstaple, who had also a motion on the same sub-
ct, would consent to postpone that motion, he (Mr.
Tennyson) would be willing to name the 15th of May (as
we understood), the first open day, as the day on which
he would bring forward this important question.
Major FANCOURT was understood to accede to the
hon. member's proposed arrangement, and the motion was
accordingly postponed till the 15th of May.
Mr. GOULBURN then brought forward his motion of
an address on the subject of the deaneries of Raphoe and
Down. The question before them involved the consider-
ation whether eleven parishes should or should not be pro,•
perly attended to as to their spiritual wants, and whether
adequate remuneration should be made to those who under-
took the duties. The members of the preceding parlia-
ment were fully aware ofthe extent of the mischief arising
from these unions, and it had been a subject both of regret
and complaint—of regret to the friends of the established
church in Ireland, and of complaint to those who were
ever anxious to assail and revile it. The object of those
interested in the main'enance of the established church
was to do away with the pluralities, and place the parishes
in such a position as to make them adequate to the main-
tenance of persons who would undertake to fulfil the
dutit s. During the administration of the Duke of Wel-
lington, a committee of inquiry had been appointed to in-
vestigate into the subject, and, with the assistance of the
Master of the Rolls and some other intelligent laymen,
they reviewed the whole system with great diligence.
The consequence was, that in the July of 1831, the com-
missioners laid a report upon the table of that house, in
which the evils arising out of the union were pointed out,
and the proper remedies au:Tested. In the part of the
report which referred to the deanery of Down, it was
stated to be a union of six parishes, producing 3,0001.
per annum, because of the tithes and five other parishes
being annexed to the deanery; and the report went on to
recommend that the parishes should be separated, leaving
to the dean 1,000/. per annum. It event on to recommend,
that at the next voidance of the deanery the parishes should
revert to the incumbents. When, after this report, be (Mr.
Goulburn) heard that the deanery of Down became
vacant, lie had hoped that the recommendation of the
commissioners would have been attended to, more espe-
cially as this was a case in which the duties for which
2,800/. were paid, were performed by curates, who only
received 751. or 76/. each—(Hear)—when to his surprise
he learned that the appointment to this situation had been
made, and made to a near connexion of one of the com-
missioners, he thought the recommendation contained in
the report would be adopted, but he found the suggestion
had not been attended to. This was in 1832. He con-
sequently asked the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr.
Stanley) concerning the matter, and the reply was, that
he had not at that time bee❑ aware of the matter, but he
assured him the recommendation of the commissioners
should be carried into effect. In the ensuing parliament,
he (Mr. Goulburn) repeated his question, and was told
that the bill for regulating the church temporalities would
make an adequate provision to meet this case, but to his
surprise no such provision was introduced. Fortunately
that bill bad been withdrawn, because of certain informa-
lities. Up to the present period he found no measures
taken to fall in with the suggestions of the commissioners,
and therefore it was that he called upon the house to
address his Majesty to have the recommendation of that
report carried into effect without delay. In the case of
Raphoe no practical inconvenience resulted, but in that of
Down the grievance was of a crying nature, as five pa-
rishes were dependant upon the spiritual services of
curates with small incomes, and in a part of the country
where a growing town was situated, which was daily
increasing in population. He would move :
" That his Majesty be graciously pleased to give directions to
have carried into effect the recommendation contained in the
report of the Ecclesiastical Inquiry in Ireland, with regard to
the deaneries of Down and Raphoe, as contained in the report
of the 13th of July, 1831."

Mr. STANLEY must object to the proposed address.
He would not dispute the statement of the hon. member,
neither would he undervalue the labours of the committee.
The hon. member omitted in his statement on this
matter one important fact, to wit, that there was no legal
power to carry into effect the object of the commissioners,
because the chapter could still induct fresh curates and
vicars. In the Church Temporalities Bill of last year a
remedy had been introduced. The hon. gentleman com-
p!ained that no step had been taken in pursuance of the
recommendation of the committee, but he did not take
into consideration that the passing of the bill altered the
views of the commissioners. It was net, therefore, to be
presumed that the measures consequent on the recommend-
ation of the committee were abandoned ; but the necessary
steps were to be taken, and the two cases were to be ren-
dered separate before they came under the consideration of
the Privy Council in Ireland. The Church Temporali-
ties Bill made such changes that it would be necessary
for the commissioners to revise their report and snake
alterations accordingly. By a statement which ap-
peared the other day, it appeared that the Dean of
Down bad surrendered a living of 1,0001. per annum,
and under these circumstances, if the suggestions of the
commissioners were carried into effect, he would be re•
duced to an income of only 3501. per annum. He was
sure the house would not u. ish to be accessory to any mea-
sure so unfair as to enforce such a sacrifice. He could
assure the hon. gentleman (the member for the University
of Cambridge) that it was the wish of the Irish govern-
ment to make adequate provision for those who performed
the duties by an equal division; and he would go further,
and promise, that if, at the close of the session, no mea-
sure were adopted, he (Mr. Stanley) would join in an
address to the Crown on the subject. After this explana-
tion and promise of support on a future occasion, lie hoped
the hon. member would withdraw his motion.

After a few words flout RUTHVEN, which were
rendered inaudible by a noi,e in one of the side galleries,
Colonel CONOLLY said he was aware that the Dean
of Raphoe was anxious to urge the matter to an imme-
diate issue.

Mr. LITTLETON had merely to state, that since the
passing of the Church Temporalities Bill, an inquiry had
been set on foot for the retinue of income, and though

some difficulties lay in the way,these returns had now been
procured. With reTect to the deanery of Rapboe, tin re
,vere circumstances which, if explained, would justify the
lelay.
Sir ROBERT PEEL was satisti-d that the right hon.
gentleman (the Si.:!''eta,...y for the Col-nies) would cut off
~is right hand before he won rt.;e,;:t's a reason that which
'he did not deem Fufficient, or mare c ple",4e which he
Was nut ready to redeem. S in his (6:tit. Peel's)
opinion, the case before them was one which call, d fot
revocation, and if his hon. friend the member for th,
University of Cambridge pressed his motion to a division,
lie should feel himself bound to vote with him. It wa,
the universal opinion, that great evil arose out , f the
unions in the Deanery of Down, and the report fully bore
out that opinion. Here the right hon. baronet read over the
passages in the report refereed to by Mr. Goulburn, and
yet, despite this very recommendation, a son of one
of those very commissioners was appointed to the vacancy.
—(Loud cries of " Hear.") What confidence could there
'he on the part of those who suffered from these union, it
• itch transactions as this were permitted with impunity ?
Mr. STANLEY said, the right hon. baronet argu:d a,
though it was intended not to carry the recommendations
if the commissioners into effect in this case. If that
were done, the income of the Dean would be reduced to
380/. per annum ; whereas the commissioners recom-
otendrd that he should have about 1,000/. or 1,1001. per
annum. The income at present was from 1,5001. to 2,0001.
The question was, be believed, now before the Privy
Council in Ireland. His Majesty's Government were de•
termined to enforce the spirit of the commissioners' re-
commendations.

Mr. HUME thought it a matter of serious importance.
A commissioner who had made a certain recommendation
vas the first to break that recommendation in the person
of his own son.--(Hear.) If ever interference with an
appointment was justifitble, it was in such a case as this._.
(Hear.) . .

Mr. ROBINSON considered this a most serious case,
and one involving the character of public men. It seri-
ously affected the character of the Lord Chancellor of
Ireland, who was already celebrated for giving good things
to his family.
Mr. LITTLETON thought the house should not ex-
press any very strong opinion until they ascertained the
ourse that would be taken by the Lord Lieutenant in
council. He had seen a letter, not directed to him, but
transmitted to him by the Primate, expressing an opinion,
that in consequence of the Church Temporalities Act, i
would be necessary for the commissioners to revise their
report.
Colonel DAVIES said that this appointment was in•
dependent of any recommendation the commissioners
might m ike on that score, as it took place before the
Church Temporalities Act came into operation. The
whole case was very discreditable to the Lord Chancellor
of Ireland.—(Loud cheers.) tie hoped the right hon.
gentleman would not withdraw his motion, and he was
sure it would be carried.

Mr. SHEIL considered the facts required no com-
mentary. _

111 r. -GOULBURN acceded to the request made to him,
and withdrew his motion. From the general expression
of feeling in the house, he was satisfied that his object was
attained.

Mr. HUME thought public justice required that the
overplus should be refunded.
Sir R. PEEL said it was much more important to effect
the separation and division of the Union into five livings.