p. 278 | Untitled article by R. S. Owen

Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · September 3, 1891

FromThe American Sentinel, Vol. 6, No. 35

NATIONAL

By R. S. Owen

Religious Liberty Association.

The Sunday Bill in Canada.

MR. CHARLTON’S bill which has been before the Dominion Parliament the past two years, is at last disposed of. The committee to whom it was referred cut it down to less than one half its original size, retaining only those sections which prohibited the publication of Sunday newspapers, the running of certain railway trains, and the opening of canals for traffic on Sunday. In this mutilated form it was brought before the House of Commons. On motion of Mr. Charlton, the promoter of the bill, the House went into a committee of the whole to consider his measure. A sharp debate followed, in which many of the members took part. The strong opposition to the bill from various quarters, showed that the present Parliament has a majority which does not fall in with the movement now on foot to enforce Sunday observance. In the debate, some of the members spoke in behalf of the Sunday newspaper men; others opposed the bill on the ground that such legislation should be left to the discretion of the provincial Legislatures, while other opposition was based on the broad ground of religious liberty, that the people should not be hedged about with “cast-iron laws,” nor could they be “legislated into Christianity.”

Sir John Thompson, a prominent member, spoke decidedly against the bill; but out of deference to the feelings of the Christian community, he recommended Mr. Charlton to withdraw the measure. He moved that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. This is called “the tenderest form of perfumed asphyxiation known to Parliament.”

This brought Mr. Charlton to his feet. He protested against the committee rising without further considering the bill, and insisted that they had the right to deal with the question of Sunday observance, and ought to exercise it. The Montreal Star thus describes Mr. Charlton’s last effort in behalf of his bill:—

Mr. Charlton made so vigorous a fight against this effort to chloroform his bill, that the House could hardly recognize in him the mild gentleman who usually sits next to Sir Richard. His voice rang out defiantly through the chamber as he asked if there was nothing left in the bill worth so much as consideration, and twitted Mr. Mills with being far too great a stickler for provincial rights in the face of so important a question. The bill did not meet his views by any means, but he wanted to get some legislation through on this subject. Amid cries of “No” and “Carried,” he held that some law of this kind was demanded by the Christian people of Canada, and threatened members with arraignment before public opinion if they flung aside the bill without consideration.

The chairman pronounced the motion to rise carried, but Mr. Charlton demanded a vote. A rising vote was then taken, and the motion was carried with sixty-three yeas, and eighteen nays.—R. S. Owen, in Review and Herald.