The Sun.
London, England, 1833-07-09 00:00:00

oath as a Divine or human institution, as intended for the I
high ends of religious worship and moral improvements, or
merely for the purposes of relaxation and rest, all must agree
with the great. commentator on the laws of England, Judge
Blackstone, that it was equally valuable for thepurposcs of moral
culture and good citizenship. He would not at present discuss
the matter in a religious point of view, although he had no
doubt of the extent of the ground of religious obligation of
the Sabbath. It was, however, well-known, that there
were in the statute book laws such as those passed for
instance in the rtign of Queen Elizabeth for compelling
the attendance of all the parishioners at chur:
were in themselves odious, and inoperative, and which
if enforced as they might be, and had been at the
instance of malignant persons, could only make men either
hypocrites or martyrs. The object of the present mea-
sure was to remodel and amend the provisions of those laws
and bring them within the compass of a single statute.
It was classed under four heads,—one, relating to ship-
ping and labour, which it proposed to suppress entirely;
another to houses of entertainment, which, under certain re-
strictions, were allowed to be kept open, and the other to Sun-
day travelling.
The penalties of the Bill were recoverable before two magi-
strates. The principles of the Bill did very little more than
modify and mitigate the statutes as they now existed, to suit
the times in which we lived. It relieved the statute book from
no less than seventeen statutes, and for them substituted one.
It was not a measure that drew invidious distinctions, or was
partial in its operations at all—it afrected the rich equally
with tire poor—the hotel-keeper with the pothouse-keeper.
It did not interfere with the innocent pastime of indivi-
duals. It was not a Bill for coercion or intolerance;
it was not to compel religion, bee to enable persons to be reli-
gious if they thought proper. It was not a perfect Bill, but its
imperfections could be remedied in Committee, and he hoped
the House would ridsti rermit the second reading.
Mr. SLANEY seconded the motion. He did not approve
of all the details of the Bill, but relieving the Statute Book of
17 or 18 Statutes, many of which wire partial, and in many
respects objectionable, and reducing their wean enact-
ments into bite Meastrre was, together with many provisions of
the Bill, that which did the Hou. Member credit. No doubt
in Committee, the Bill would fie materially improved. It
would meet the wishes of the public', as regarded a true ob-
servante of the Lord's Day. There could he no doubt that
the higher eiftles preventing the humbler orders frdm breaking
through that decetit fetularity which ought to be observed
on the Sabbath, they would act as their best benefactors.
On that account there was one or two details in the Bill to
which he was decidedly opposed; but as his lion. Friend
(Mr. Petre) did not pledge himself to all the details, he
(Mr. Sieneee work, give his concurrence to the
principle of tile theasrtre. Ho thought that to prevent
people its large towns flare enjoying rational and innocent re-
creation, would tend more to give then? d dislike of that holy
day, for it was in his opinion for the benefit of the humbler
classes, end in order to make them happy in their eledition,
that they should tie et liberty to enjoy any reasonable amuse-
ment after the morning serfiCe on the Sabbath. There was
only one part of the Bill which Induced him to in-
cline against its second reading, and that war the extensive.
repeal of such a number of statutes bearing upon this subject
—(Bear, heir.) If it had no other object than that repeal,
and the re-enactment elf the least objectionable clauses
in those Acts, he could net oppose its going into
Committee, but he found a number of novelties in.
troddced. He found that mackerel was nel to be
allowed to lie gold on the Sunday, so that fishermen !Mist
keep the Jewish fast tet the Saturday or throw away
the fish caught on that day. if the observance of the
Sabbath were to be so strictly enfoided, the law would
soon be a dead letter, and so far from tending it/ enforce the
proper observance of the Sabbath, it would throw an Sir of
ridicule ever that sacred day. There must be a degree
of forbearance respecting the religious habits of the people,
and any law tying the people up More strictly than at present,
would be sure of being a dead lettet. The Hon. Member come
mented upon various other parts of tile Blil, add contended
that it Would interfere materially with the peetlines Of the
people. Hd, however, was inclined not to stop the Bill in its
present stage, altheugh he had great doubts whethet
the House could give it that attentiee consideration which
would justify them in passing it this Session.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. BERNAL gave every credit to the Hon. Meneber who
brought in the Bill, for his meritorious Ind praise-
worthy intentidns, but he doubted very much whether
the evil would not be :increased tenfold, by the
measure.--!Hear, hear.) It could not be expected tha
sufficient consideration could be giveti le the Bill, so as
to correct its faulty clauses at that late period of the
session.—(Hear, hear, hear.) He thought that the best
mode Of increasing moral add religious feelings was by good
example—(Heete hear.) But tee Bill did not at all pro_
promote this.—(Hear, hear, hear:) Eor byl it the [poor man
would be prevented freed commencing a journey
however urgent, at certain hours in the morning, by a stage .
coach, while there was nothing to prevent gentlemen from fol-
lowing their own wishes or duties bp the employment of
post:hdrses.—(Hear.) He felt obliged to object to many
the clauses fri iimin4 and those clauses involved the principle
of the Bill.—(Hear.) Among, the exemptions, the Hon.
Member had introduced steam-boats, but steam-coaches were
to be disused—was not this an anomaly? _ _

Mr. FINCH wished that the principle of the Bill
should be carried into effect as far as possible. The former
Bill on the subject was a statute of protection ; it insured to the
poor man one.seventh of the time as was done by the common
law of the land. It ought, however, to have been brought
in earlier. _ .

Lord GEOROE SOMERSET' said the objections as
stated by the Hon. Members for Bridport and Rochester,
were so unanswerable, that he thought they would be fatal to
the 13iil. Ile thought the Bill ought to be withdrawn for the
present Session, and brought forward next in en amended form.
Wr. WILBRAHAM Would vote for the second reading of
thr Bill, though he could not support The whole of
its details, because he had presented so many
petitions in favour of some measure of the kind, and he thought
that even in v. worldly point of view of the matter it would be
well that some rest was secured to the working population.
Mr. EASTCOURT approved of the principle of the Bill, but
not of its details. He hoped his Hon. Friend would withdraw
it fut the present Session, and introduce it next Session in
more than one BIM _ .

Mr. PETER said he would have no objection, if it was
allotted to be read a second time now, referred to a select com-
mittee, iihti would report udon it, then to postpone it till the
nextseosion. _ . .

Sir A. AGNEW defended some parts of the Bill, and stated
that he believed it was the general wish of the poor opera-
tives to have as strict an observance of the Sabbath as the
Hotise could enact.

Cries of " Divide, divide," resounded from differents parts
of the House, but
The SFEAKER said it would be useless dividing, as the
division would go for nothing, it being{ past three o'clock.