THE LORD’S DAY ACT OF 1871.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4572, 15 November 1875, Page 3

THE LORD’S DAY ACT OF 1871.

(From the Pall Mall Gazelle.) Attention has been drawn to the Act by which the Brighton Aquarium has been recently closed on Sunday. The debates which took place in the Commons and the Bords when the Bill was carried through both Houses are interesting and amusing. In May, 1781, the Solicitor-General Mansfield, moved for leave to bring in a Bill for preventing certain abuses and profanations on the Bord’s Day called Sunday. Dr. Porteous, the Bishop of Chester, had been the first to move in this matter. He had been shocked with a Sunday promenade that had lately been opened in Soho-square, and with certain Sunday debating societies. Ho would have himself brought a Bill into Parliament if he “had not been prevented by the rules and practices of the Bower House, which would not consent that any Bill for levying money on the subject should originate m the House of Bords, and a Bill of this nature would be deemed a money Bill, because itv as to operate by way of fine.” The SolicitorGeneral, in attacking the promenade said, that “for the evening purpose of walking and drinking tea and coffee, persons abandoned to all sense of shame, of decency, and religion, made it a point to resort.” In the debating societies, he said, “religion was trampled under foot by ignorant people who wished to acquire a reputation for eloquence in an assembly composed of the low, the vulgar, and the illiterate. He read two advertisements —the one for a Theological Society in High Holborne, where the existence of the Trinity was the theme proposed for discussion; the other for a Theological Academy at the Museum, Springgardens, for bringing forward a “dissertation about the existence or non-exist-ence of purgatory.” Mr. Turner opposed the Bill with great warmth, “as being little better than introducing an inquisition in religion. King William had disgraced himself by Intolerance or tyranny in religion. This was a blot in his escutcheon ; and he would declare it, though he wore his buttons. _ _ A few days later Mr. Turner presented a petition from the proprietors, Thomas de la Mayne, Esq.', and Thomas Greaser, gentleman. They had spent £4OOO on the rooms “as a place of society and exercise, which were visited and continued to be visited and frequented by the first nobility of both sexes—the clergy, justices of the peace, and other respectable characters. They admitted no singing or music whatever, dancinir, or any kind of play or gaming, nor any drinking of wines, beer,_ or spirituous liquors, nor any kind of exhibitions, transparent or moving pictures. The institution had become a recreation useful to society where innocence, taste, and politeness can encage visitors.” They ended by asking that if the promenade was to be closed some adequate compensation might be made them. On the second reading of the Bill, Mr. Turner, in renewing his opposition, said “he wished to read them a chapter from the Bible. , It contained doctrines which he loved better than the sermon he had heard preached in his Majesty’s chapel the Sunday before. He here read the fifteenth chapter of St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, with comments and ; explanatory notes, and recommended every verse of it to the House. He pressed the House to reject the bill, saying it would be the forerunner of other bills, which would once more , cause a deluge of human blood, Mr. Powys i “ disapproved of all such meetings on Sunday , evening. If the poor people wanted amuse- , ment they might, for a shilling go to the devil at Sadler’s Wells ; and if persons had half-a-guinea to spend, they might go to the Opera ( House, and see a man stand upon one leg ,

who could stand much better upon two; but he humbly conceived that the half-guinea would be as well disposed of if given to some man who had only one leg to stand upen. Mr. Eoile “ wished the Bill had gone further. The gaming-houses that were open every Sunday in the neighborhood of the palace ought not to be suffered, and yet he understood they were frequented by some of the first men, in point of rank and ability, in the two Houses of Parliament.” When the House divided, the ayes were 64 and the noes none ; there being no one against the Bill but the two tellers, Mr, Turner and Mr. Alderman Sawbridge._ They were, on going into committee, joined in their opposition by°Mr. Martin, who said that the Act should run in this manner ;—“ And it ia hereby enacted that all his Majesty’s subjects shall be permitted to exercise their reason and use the utmost freedom of inquiry into religious opinions for six days of the week ; but on the seventh, which is called Sunday, their understandings shall be in a state of rest. And it is further enacted that six months’ imprisonment and a fine of £2O shall be levied on every man who shall profane the Sunday by exercising those rational faculties with which God has endowed him.” Sir Joseph Mawley took the same line as Mr. Kolle, and wished to close the gaming houses. “The morals of young men of fashion were well worthy the consideration of the House.” Mr. Hill also wished the Bill went further. He talked of a newspaper being put into people’s hands just as they were o-oin° into church, and took notice of the old custom of debating in that House upon religious subjects which prevailed in the first Parliament of Charles I. He hoped he should be pardoned for having the very first time he presumed to rise, spoken on so serious a consideration, and’ the rather as, though religion had lately been adverted to one day out of seven, o-enerally speaking, it was not mentioned there once in seven years, Mr. Turner amin attacked the bill. “He hardly approved of anything suggested by the long robe • half the countries that had been ruined were rained by the men of the long robe. He made a distinction between ministers who were worthy good men, and ministers who were proud priests, wealthy, wallowing in preferments, pluralists, deans and bishops. The curare of his own parish had but £4O a-year, and he was glad to see him at all times. His table was open to him every day in the week if he chose to come to it. The bill had orimnated in the crude ideas of the musty fellows'of a college, who, loving a pipe, a bottle of port, or a bowl of punch better than either pulpit exercise or a walk in the air, wanted to

prevent others who could not make themselves so comfortable within doors from going abroad for the purpose either of improving the health or of tnnocent recreatioe ” In spite of all oppose tion the bill was rapidly carried through the Lower House, and penalties were fixed as follows • The master of each house where the meeting prohibited by this bm should hereaster be proved to assemble to forfeit £2OO , the moderator of every such meeting to forfeit £100; and each of the servants who should be proved to stand at the door to forfeit £2O. In the Upper House Lord Abingdon opposed the Bill in a speech which the Bishop of i.-heater not unfairly described as so indecent that he thought it unworthy of a reply. It is reported at full length in the parliamentary history, and is interesting as showing the change which has occurred in the tone of the debates. Ihe second reading was carried bo twenty-nine contents to three non-contents. On going into committee Lord Abingdon moved_ an amendment “ of the title-page, which being ‘ A Bill for preventing certain abuses and profanations on the Lord's Day, called Sundays. I would wish after the words ‘ profanations to insert the words, ‘ as on the days of the week, and then the title will run thus :—‘ A Bill for preventing ceitain abuses and profanations as well on the Lord's Day, called Sunday, as on the other days of the week.’” This amendment being rejected, he then proposed “ a clause of proviso : ‘ Provided also that this Act does not extend nor he construed to extend to Quakers’ meetings on a Sunday evening, inasmuch as these meetings, being silent meetings, they cannot in any sense he said to fall under the meaning and intention of this Act.’ ” This clause was also negatived, and the Bill passed. . It is curious thet part of the Bill which struck at free discussion of religious matters met with no opposition from the great Whig leaders. Sheridan, indeed, who had entered Parliament the year before, did speak : hut merely to attack the public lotteries. “If, he said, “the vice of gaming was to be suppressed, I he hoped that most pernicious species of it, the • advertising in lotteries, would be the first object [ of attention; this, it is true, was patronised by the legislature, and yet nothing could be more

detrimental to the morals of the people.” Burke, a few years earlier, in a letter to a friend, had said : “ My ideas of toleration go far beyond even their (the Dissenters’). I would give a full civil protection, in which I include an immunity from all disturbance of their public religious worship, and a power of teaching in schools as well as temples to Jews, Mahommedans, and even pagans.” Yet neither he nor Fox took any part in the debate. Still stranger was Wilkes’ silence. Only two sessions before he had stated in Parliament that “Deism—sound, pure Deism, has made a rapid progress not only in this island, but in every port of the Gontinent. It has almost become the fashionable religion of Europe.” Perhaps by the year 1871 Wilkes was, in his own words, no Wilkite.