III. Mode of Action at the Meetings.
1. On this subject, it is of great consequence for the party to be well versed in the forms of conducting the business of a public meeting. These, in general, are borrowed from the admirable, and most just, and time-saving forms of the House of Commons, more or less acknowledged, and, it may be added, increasingly adopted at all public meetings in this country. The genius and principle of these forms is, and the duty of a faithful chairman ever is, the protection of the minority. A majority is always safe, and can protect itself. But the form of business throws a shield over the minority by securing a hearing, or a standing at least, for all, in spite of clamour and violence. It is to be remembered that on every new question there is a right to speak once; and it is advisable that no friend should attempt to speak more than once. He can thereby better challenge the like liberty when taken by the obstreperous opponents. He may indeed “explain;” but a good chairman will rigidly enforce the rule against multiplied speeches. Where, indeed, a gentleman says merely, “I second the motion,” he is not thereby exposed on rising afterwards to the “Spoke, spoke,” which ordinarily shuts mouths; on the contrary, he is understood as having reserved his fire for an adversary, and must have his full swing. But the great protection is, the right of moving an amendment to any effect, and upon any motion; and, an amendment moved and seconded, the chairman must allow to be debated and put. Where two or more amendments are moved, the two last are put against each other till the ground be cleared of all but the original motion and amendment, which are then voted. This is not quite the House of Commons’ amendment system; but it is a very good one, well adapted to Scotch ideas. The mover, it will be kept in view, has always a right of reply; and this suggests the practical remark, that the party, having chosen a leader, should always stick by him; for much depends on his judgment and tact as to the time to speak or to be silent, the time to ask for more or to ask for less, as the tide ebbs or flows, and so forth.
2. Where the business of the meeting is conducted with fairness, it is advisable to allow the directors’ report to be discussed and disposed of, and to leave the secular business proper to be settled before the Sabbath motion—which is the secular-sacred—be tabled. But where there are symptoms of unfairness, and of a disposition to suppress the discussion, then the safe course is to move an amendment on the motion for approval of the report, to the effect that it be disallowed in so far as it sanctions Sabbath traffic. A strictly courteous mover and seconder cannot be overborne, even where there is force and unfairness. A protest tabled with the clerk, or, if rejected by him, taken (as once the Friends were driven to) in the hands of a notary-public, will put all right.
3. One thing to be added is, that the Sabbath party ought to make a point at all meetings of dividing. Generally the personal attendance of friends is greater than their proxy strength; and it is very encouraging to the friends to know one another by face. On the contrary, there are not a few of the opponents who feel themselves somewhat in an awkward predicament—professors not quite relishing the exhibition of themselves as enemies of the Sabbath; and who knows but that, where this feeling is found, it is symptomatic of incipient change? At any rate, the division brings all the real friends into prominent action; and so, their names being dotted down at the time by the whipper-in, they may be summoned henceforth to the private meetings, and become doubly efficient; as much more so than before, as a party of drilled soldiers are than an awkward squad of recruits.
4. And this leads us to say, that all friends should, where possible, attend in person, instead of resting at home and flying their mere proxy into the field. The moral influence of the living man is great. It ought always, besides, to be remembered, that where directors fight within a wall of majorities, personal and proxy-form, the defenders of the faith are exposed to an overbearing pressure, which is to be met with a serried strength on their side. Their great point is, to be heard, that they may speak the words of truth in the ears of the company and of the country. But this the adversary instinctively hates; and this, therefore, he shifts where he can. But where the Sabbath phalanx is not only compact but strong, it makes itself to be respected and heard. Therefore the friends are exhorted to come to the meetings.
5. We add a word on the subject of the proxy system at large, which gives an unlimited preponderance to wealth over number. Bad as this is, it would be tolerable if wealth must always hear before it strikes. But the proxy system acts without hearing. Directors spending the monies of companies in providing themselves with proxies, establish for themselves a sort of despotic power, which, even after an argument that would have reached the conscience of wealth itself had it been there to listen, declares its pre-determination, and proceeds in its reckless course, regardless of reasons. This is a system which ought to be stopped by act of parliament. The power of granting proxies should be taken away; and then the truth on every question, secular as well as sacred, would have fair play. For the wholesome effect would not be limited to the Sabbath question. There are many things coming home to worldly business and bosoms which the ventilation of personal attendance would greatly tend to rectify.
6. The Sabbath party had better not generally incur the expense of proxies; they should merely ask individual proprietors to send them in extraordinary cases. Their best general policy is, to request friendly shareholders, prevented by necessary causes from giving personal attendance, to address letters to the leader expressive of their adherence to the cause, and adding the number of shares held by them. These the leader will put in by way of exordium to his speech, naming a few of the more influential and conspicuous.
7. It is necessary to add, that the debate having proceeded, and the motion being disposed of—it may for the present be assumed unfavourably—the leader then publicly intimates that he will renew it at the next ordinary meeting. It will be right for him to see that this notice is minuted, for thereby it enters the advertisement of the following meeting. He must, at the same time, give a public notice on the adjournment, that there will be a meeting of the friends at a place and hour to be then named; for in addition to the preparatory meeting, before the assembling of the shareholders, already adverted to, it is always good to hold another after their adjournment; first, for the purpose of unitedly rendering thanks to Almighty God for what may have taken place, confessing the sin that may have mingled itself, and asking strength and counsel for the future; and secondly, for the purpose of arranging the course of policy for the ensuing six months.
8. One important point remains to be considered. What ought to be the subject-matter of the railway debate? On this point it is proper to bear in mind, that while, at the opening of the controversy, the discussion most properly assumed a polemical form, embracing questions of Christian faith at large as opposed to dissolute infidelity, latterly the field has been considerably narrowed. Whether the enemy were driven from the infidel position by the power of argument or the force of shame, we know not; but latterly the line of defence has fallen back very much on the “necessity and mercy” plea, which of course assumes the divine authority of the day of rest. And most certainly it is advisable to follow their lead, and address the argument as to Christians frankly and avowedly, leaving all others to vindicate and vote for their Sabbath traffic at pleasure. This saves the necessity of a great deal of preaching; for if, according to the standards of all evangelical churches, the Lord’s day is to be kept as a sacred day of rest—the institution of God himself—then it must be vain to argue with men professing to be members of these churches who advocate its breach otherwise than as a question of mere necessity and mercy; because, when they go farther, they in the very act violate their own principles. This pre-eminently applies to all members of the Church of England, all of whom, after having read the fourth commandment in its solemn particulars, are accustomed to exclaim on their knees, “Lord have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law!”
9. The question of necessity and mercy then, which alone remains, is capable of much and varied illustration, and deserves and will repay careful study. In a few words, it may be stated as a question, Whether, in order to provide for the few and far between real cases of this description, it is necessary or expedient to entail on the railway staff of the whole island, the tyrannical burden of a toil which knows neither interval nor remission, from week to week and from year’s end to year’s end, save the middle of the night—if that—and as completely deprives unhappy railway officials of the moral and religious blessings of God’s appointed Sabbath as if they were so many beasts. London proclaims that the land needs no Sabbath post. Old Scotland proclaims that it needs no Sabbath coach. Where then is the necessity? where the mercy? Echo answers, Where?
10. On the subject of motions for statistics bearing on the number of Sabbath travellers, and the expense, and consequent profit (or loss) of Sabbath traffic, let the Sabbath leader free himself as much as possible of either. The profit or the loss forms no portion of his principle, just because it forms no part of the commandment; and he is apt, entering into this walk of inquiry, to be ensnared into secularity, whereof the enemy always takes strong and sometimes unfair advantage. Besides, through the process of “cooking” (using this technical term in the gentlest and honestest sense of which it is susceptible), he can always be defeated in his attempt to establish a loss. He knows, that “in keeping of the commandment there is great reward;” and that is his strength even on the profit and loss account.
11. It may be very right, however, for some skirmisher in his band to call for Sabbath statistics; and it is believed that these, when perfectly fair, will support the good cause. But the less the leader has to do with them the better. The more indeed he can, in a missionary way, penetrate into the dwellings of the stokers and switchmen, and there learn, for the public good, the Sabbath statistics of the man, with his declension from the washed face and decent garb, family worship and patriarchal walk to neighbouring church with wife and children, downwards to the greasy hand and clouded face, and cast clothing, and hasty meal, and testy temper, and troubled wife and larking children, of the now Sabbath-breaker—the more of this the better. O, surely, as the Sabbath was made for man, so pre-eminently was it made for the working man, for the poor man! To him, however, the railway director says: “Thou shalt not remember the Sabbath-day; thou shalt not keep it holy; in it thou shalt not only not do no work, but thou shalt do much work. To the poor the gospel shall not be preached.”
Lastly. One point of policy, resting on a solid truth, is, while addressing shareholders and proprietors at large, to lay the responsibility of all the Sabbath delinquencies of railways leadingly on the directors. There is not a doubt of the general fact, that where directors take a righteous view of the matter, they easily carry the proprietors, who relieve themselves by devolving responsibility on their boards, and thinking by proxy. Then it is to be remembered that the mass of monied men, who invest for gain, covet Sabbath gains; and so whenever a body of directors quietly have the same wish, but do not relish the shame, they tell the shareholders that the matter is left to their decision, and down comes the desired proxy power, to which they, “nothing loth,” blushingly consent. Now, were such a course as this adopted by the Sabbatarians, they would be, in no measured terms, charged with hypocrisy. Good men, however, must use good words; and therefore all we say is, that directors would be safer in their position, and more respected, if they frankly avowed their opinions, whatever these might be, and claimed the support of the constituency to them. It is right, therefore, that all talk about directorship impartiality, when the Sabbath is left by them to the tender mercies of the Stock Exchange, should be courteously rejected, and the charge of the evil fastened on the right shoulders, and pressed on their consciences in the face of all, even the most pathetic, disclaimers.
The office of the directorship is equally delicate and important; and it is a singular fact that the chairmen, now or lately, of the whole line from London to Aberdeen (Mr Carr Glyn, Mr Hasell, Mr Hope Johnstone, Lord Breadalbane, and Lord Wharncliffe), are men of decided religious profession. Now, where the Breadalbanes and Forrests, the Hendersons and the Grahams, the Greigs and the Campbells, take office with the purpose of protecting the Sabbath, they merit the homage of the whole Christian world for placing themselves on their vantage ground in the fore-front of the battle; and we entreat them to allow no adverse circumstance whatever to withdraw them from their post of influence and power. To all others who, like these, make a religious profession, but support the Lord’s-day traffic, we say, “You have no call of duty compelling you to be railway directors. Your churches condemn the traffic which you maintain; you paralyse their discipline, and greatly weaken them by your public counteraction of their principles. Put your practice in accordance with your profession; protect the Sabbath in your place of power, or come out from among them and be separate.”