1657, June.
The same Mr. Bampfield made a report on the 11th of June "from the Grand Committee for Religion," when a sub-committee was empowered to send for godly and learned ministers and laymen to consult respecting a better version of the Psalms. And, at the same time, upon its appearing that the Scriptures had been grossly misprinted, it was ordered that 7,900 copies, printed in 1653, should be seized to prevent their sale or their dispersal; and that John Field, the printer, should be required to get in such books as were of this impression: and also attend the House to give an account touching the misprinting of the said Bibles.[150]
Debates on Sabbath Observance.
The Sabbath question also came under debate this same summer month. Too many penal laws, in the opinion of Colonel Holland, who represented Lancashire, had already been enacted for enforcing the observance of the day. The last Bill, he said, had been passed on a Saturday, and the consequence was, that the next morning, he could not get to church by land or by water, without violating the Act. The honourable member's own waterman, after conveying him to hear a sermon at Somerset House, became subject to a fine, and the honourable member's own boat was seized as a security for payment. A debate ensued as to the right of searching houses to find delinquents, when Mr. Godfrey, member for Kent, moved that such right should be exercised only in taverns, tobacco-shops, and alehouses. Mr. Vincent, and Colonel Chadwick—the latter then a representative for Nottingham—thought that this restriction would defeat the purpose in view, as the principal breaches of the law were committed in private habitations. Lord Whitelocke, on a division, carried an amendment to the effect that entry should only be demanded, but not forcibly accomplished. The Bill enumerated such offenders as, on Sundays, idly and profanely sat by their gate, or door, or elsewhere, or walked in churchyards. He urged that all these words ought to be left out; and Mr. Godfrey suggesting that idle loungers thus described would plead that they were meditating upon holy things, urged the omission of the terms "profane and idle sitting," and especially the word "elsewhere." Major-General Whalley objected that, if people at Nottingham, for example, might not sit by the entrance of their rock houses on a Sunday, they would be deprived of every breath of air. Mr. Bordura considered that as some people had no accommodation for sitting, words should be subjoined prohibiting them from "leaning or standing at doors." In reply to Colonel Briscoe, who said he would not have laws too rigid, Major Burton—member for Great Yarmouth—declared he would as soon drop the Bill altogether as leave out the disputed clause. Then rose Mr. West—who represented Cambridgeshire—saying they would not leave out the word "elsewhere," for there might be profaneness in sitting under a tree, or in an arbour, or in Gray's Inn Walks. The stringent clause was thrown out on a division of 37 against 35. Colonel Holland expressed himself as not satisfied in reference to the time when the Lord's Day should be considered to begin; and added, that some godly people were in doubt as to the institution altogether; and that, whereas once he himself would have gone to six or seven sermons a-day, now he would do no such thing. He thought he could as well serve God at home. He was for keeping the Sabbath as much as any man, believing that though there was no precept enforcing it, every one by nature was tied to its observance. Amidst cries of "question," the debate continued "so late that a candle was called in, and after a while the Bill was agreed to pass, and ordered to be engrossed."[151]
Sabbath Observance.
This animated conversation in the old House of Commons—which we have thought it worth while to report, even at inconvenient length—reflects the various opinions, both strict and lax, which were then held relative to the question of Sunday observance. Yet, after all, perhaps, the report scarcely conveys to us exactly what the speakers meant. Some of them really might intend by their extravagant statements and ridiculous method of argument only to meet their opponents' reasoning with a reductio ad absurdum, although the steady, plodding diarist who took the notes from which we have drawn up our summary did not seem to see the matter in that light.
1657, June.
The Act, as it appears in Scobell, prohibited travelling, entertainment at inns, every kind of trading, and all dancing and singing, and other amusement, inclusive even of walking during Divine service. Moreover, if people did not attend church or chapel where the true worship of God was celebrated, they were to pay for each instance of neglect two shillings and sixpence, which sum, after the payment of informers, was to be appropriated for the benefit of the poor.[152]
Cromwell's Second Installation.