On the 15th February, 1965, in the House of Commons, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Sir Frank Soskice, M.P., introduced before the House, the Lord Crathorne Report on the law relating to Sabbath Observance.
He stated that a Departmental Committee was set up in 1964, and, by its terms of reference, was invited “to review the law (other than the Licensing Acts) relating to Sunday entertainments, sports, pastimes and trading, in England and Wales, and to make recommendations.”
We will give some quotations from Sir Frank Soskice’s introductory speech so that readers will have an authentic view of what is envisaged in the recommendations of this Committee.
Sir Frank Soskice: “The law on this subject is to be found in a variety of statutes, including some of considerable antiquity, such as the Sunday Fairs Act of 1448, and the Sunday Observance Acts of 1625, 1627 and 1677. . . . It is to the later statutes, and, in particular, the Sunday Observance Act, 1780, and the modern Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, that we should look in considering how far the existing law needs to be changed and modified.”
“In 1941, 1951 and 1953, proposals for relaxation of the law on Sunday entertainments were defeated on free votes of the House. . . . In 1958 there was an inconclusive debate in the House. . . . The continued interest of the House was evidenced by further Motions and Questions.” And Sir Frank Soskice pointed out that this led to the appointment of the Crathorne Committee with the terms of reference quoted above.
Sir Frank Soskice now indicated the character of some of the Acts involved. “The Sunday Observance Act of 1625 prohibited meetings, assemblies or concourses of people out of their parishes on the Lord’s Day for any sport or pastime whatsoever” . . . “the Sunday Observance Acts, 1627 and 1677 . . . prohibited certain forms of travelling and working. . . .”
“The 1780 Act appears to have been aimed at certain public discussions and other activities which were thought to be in themselves undesirable and improper. It prohibits the opening on Sunday of any house, room or other place, for entertainment or amusement to which the public is admitted on payment. It is this Statute of 1780 which forbids to this day the opening of public theatres, music and dance halls and the holding of sports events when charges are made for admission.”
The Home Secretary further explained that the Sunday Entertainment Act, 1932, modified the 1780 Act by allowing Sabbath cinema opening in areas where public opinion had expressed itself in favour of that course. It also permitted musical entertainment though not of the variety type. Museums, picture galleries, zoos and botanical gardens were also allowed to open. He also mentioned that attempts were made to secure further relaxation by abolishing the restrictions on stage plays and dancing, but all those attempts were unsuccessful.
In its Report, the Committee recommends a considerable relaxation of the restrictions imposed by the 1780 Act. The Home Secretary dealt with the recommendations as follows:—
“The Committee proposes that the public performance of stage plays, cinematographic exhibitions, circuses and public dancing should be allowed after 12.30 p.m. on Sunday without there being any provision for local option such as is at present requisite under the 1932 Act in the case of cinematograph shows.”
“The Committee makes the same recommendation with regard to sports meetings, but in relation to sports meetings the Committee introduces a major exception to its recommendation which it defines as relating to contests where the players or participants are remunerated for taking part.”
“The Committee has not proposed any change in the law relating to betting and gaming under which betting . . . on Sunday is prohibited at racecourses. And the holding of horse racing on Sunday would be prohibited under the Committee’s proposal that sports in which the participants receive payment should not be allowed on Sunday.”
On the law regarding trading and employment on the Sabbath, the Home Secretary summarised the Report as follows:—
“Here again, there is very old legislation. It includes the Sunday Fairs Act, 1448, and the Sunday Observance Acts of 1627 and 1677, which contain provisions restricting certain forms of Sunday work and trade. This legislation is now obsolete and no longer enforced. The modern law relating to trading is contained mainly in the Shops Act, 1950 . . . relating to shop hours both on weekdays and on Sundays.”
“The Committee had conflicting evidence about the justification for statutory restrictions on Sunday trading and came to the conclusion that it would be better to make no radical alteration in the present position. The present position is that there is a general requirement that shops should be closed on Sundays, but provision is made for a considerable number of exempted transactions, for example, meals, liquor, fruit, vegetables and newspapers, and some others.”
“Likewise, the Committee recommends no major change in the law governing Sunday employment of shop workers. . . . It favours extension of the present statutory provision for time off in lieu of Sunday working. . . .”
What the Home Secretary calls further “far reaching recommendations” are given as follows:—
“It is recommended that launderettes should be allowed to open on Sunday, and that the sale of coal and other domestic fuel should be allowed on Sunday. The arrangements for the sale of goods by chemists on Sunday mornings, at present restricted to medicines and medical appliances, should, the Committee thinks, be relaxed so as to permit the sale during a two-hour period of any goods. One of the problems to which the Committee turned its attention was the need in holiday resorts to provide adequate facilities for visitors on Sundays. It proposes that local authorities should be given wider powers than exist at present to allow certain shops to open in their areas. . . .”
In concluding his speech, Sir Frank Soskice made some observations. He said that he had said enough to illustrate the range of the problems involved in any consideration of the revision of the Sabbath Observance law. He also reminded Members of the House of Commons that the object of the debate to follow was to afford an opportunity to hon. Members to express their views on the issues involved.
We have refrained from making comment on the many points in the Home Secretary’s speech with which we utterly disagree and to which we are opposed on the main basis of the law of God enunciated in the fourth Commandment. We thought, at this stage, that it would be well for our readers, who love the Lord’s Day, to ponder seriously over what is proposed by the Crathorne Committee and which is calculated to further eliminate the precious heritage of the Lord’s Day from the life of Britain.
But we give one final statement from Sir Frank’s speech which reveals the outlook of the Committee upon the religious aspect of the existing laws anent Sabbath Observance. He refers to Chapter 3 of the Committee’s Report as follows:—”It is there stated that the present law is still largely based on principles laid down in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, namely, to encourage church attendance and religious conformity by the prohibition on that day of secular activities and the restriction of employment coupled with a ban on all profane entertainment. The Committee is clearly of the opinion that in modern conditions the teaching of Christian doctrine and religious observance cannot be secured by law. It seems, indeed, that the Church itself does not desire any such direct assistance, and, moreover, activities once regarded as profane are no longer so regarded except by a small minority.”
It appears that the Committee did not consult the Word of God which goes back much further than the seventeenth century in calling upon men to “Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy,” etc. And surely in the light of the record and teaching of the Old and New Testaments, we cannot dismiss the place and obligations of the Civil Power in relation to the Christian Church, in one sentence, as the Committee does. And what is profane or not, on weekday or Sabbath, is judged accordingly by the doctrine of holy Scripture and not by majorities or minorities apart from the Scriptures.
The debate continued in the House for more than five hours and there were speeches for relaxation of the laws regarding the Sabbath and one or two good speeches by members opposed to relaxation. Mr Malcolm MacMillan, M.P. (Lab.—Western Isles), spoke in support of the retention of these laws. One thing he said was, that the Lord’s Day was at present a “protective bulwark” against the inroads being made by the increasing pace of industry and life in general. He also declared: “Now there came an attempt to take away the one guaranteed day of rest.” We were somewhat disappointed with what we read of Sir Cyril Black’s (Con.—Wimbledon) speech, having in the past the impression that he was an out and out Sabbatarian. He stated that he and others “… on general grounds, oppose relaxation in the Sunday law.” Further, he said: “I am not a Sabbatarian, extreme or otherwise. But I happen to belong to a not inconsiderable body of people who believe that there are sanctions that should be recognised and accepted in connection with the Christian Sunday and its observance.” Sir Cyril, although speaking well against any relaxation of the laws in question, appears to base his views on a general interpretation of the fourth Commandment. Mr Tom Driberg (Lab.—Barking) made a scathing attack upon the Lord’s Day Observance Society. He said the Government should not pay too much attention to the views of this Society; and “The noise it makes is out of all proportion to its real weight.” When we read these words, there came to mind how Jeremiah, the prophet of the Lord, was situated in Jerusalem and Judah. He was practically alone, except for a few friends, declaring the Word and warnings of the Lord to the backsliding Jews. The Lord of the Sabbath sent the Jews of Jeremiah’s day into captivity, while Jeremiah was favoured. The Lord changes not as to jealousy for His own glory. Let men beware! The debate was poorly attended by Members of Parliament. One speaker said that this had been the poorest attended debate on Sabbath affairs in his memory and he had been a Member of the House for twenty years. In the light of this remark, it would be a pertinent question for electors to ask their respective Members of Parliament if they attended this debate.
The Government are now to take into consideration the views expressed by Members of the House to assist them in coming to decisions as to whether the recommendations of the Crathorne Committee are to be accepted or not, having in view new legislation anent Sabbath Observance. We strongly dissent from the view held by even some evangelical Christians that, by Acts of Parliament, men and the Nation cannot be made to observe God’s law and thus are not interested in conserving such Acts on the Statute Book. But by Acts of Parliament men can be prevented from outwardly acting in certain spheres contrary to the law of the Sabbath and involving others in conduct prejudicial thereto. If, for example, the law of the land forbade the opening of shops of any kind on Sabbath, then not only masters who would open, but employees who would prefer not to work on Sabbath, are prevented from encouraging buying and selling, outwith the category of “works of necessity and mercy,” in our cities, towns and villages. We understand that the Lord’s Day Observance Society has been very active in informing all Members of Parliament of the nature and claims of the Lord’s Day as applicable to the Government and the Nation.
The Government and all sections of our Nation have immediate need to turn to the Word of God and ponder seriously over what it has to declare, as in the following verses:—”If thou turn thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, not finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: Then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it” (Isaiah, chapter lviii: v. 13-14).