_To the Editor of the Baptist Magazine._
It is some time since the Christian public has heard of any measure
intended to be proposed to the Legislature in reference to the
violation of the Sabbath, and it is time, as it appears to me, that
those who have such a measure at heart should be awake, and setting
about their great work in earnest. Whether the measure of which Sir
Andrew Agnew gave notice in the last session, be the same as his last
bill or not, is at present unknown; but I trust, if it be not the same,
it will be founded on the same principle, and equally comprehensive in
its provisions. It is true, that upon this subject, the opinions, even
of good men, are much divided; and there are not a few individuals, of
undoubted piety, who think that a legislative remedy should extend to a
part only of the acknowledged mischiefs at _first_; whilst others prefer
making the different provisions of the whole measure the subject of
several bills, to be simultaneously brought forward.
The advocates of the former plan insist, that there is no chance of
carrying the whole measure at once, while the attempt to do so is
calculated to produce hostility; improvements in this, as well as in
other matters, requiring to be gradual:--that the sense of the majority
of the population is against the measure as a _whole_, to which popular
sense, deference must be paid:--and, that Sir Andrew's former bills were
lost entirely from their being too sweeping and comprehensive.
To the first objection, which is nearly identical with the third, it
may be answered: Supposing it to be true, that there is no chance of
_carrying_ the whole measure at once, this is no reason why the whole
should not be _proposed_ at once. If of the whole measure so proposed
only _a part_ should be carried, the carrying of that part would be a
subject of thankfulness and rejoicing, just as much as if that part only
had been proposed. Those members of the Legislature who would exhibit
_hostility_ to the bill to the extent of rejecting it altogether, would
doubtless exhibit _hostility_ to any portion of its provisions if
brought forward as a distinct bill; because hostility to the whole of a
measure acknowledged in _some part_ to be good and necessary, must arise
from an evil principle. There is much difference between _hostility_ to
the whole of the bill, and _opposition_ to some, nay, even the majority,
of its provisions. Those who would be hostile to the whole of the bill,
must necessarily be so to any detached part; whereas many might oppose
even the _larger part_ of its provisions, who would approve the rest;
and it is conceived such would vote for the bill going into Committee,
where they might distinguish between the provisions they approved and
those they condemned. That this would be the case appears from the
experience of the last session, when members who were not prepared to
support any clause of the bill, nevertheless voted for its second
reading. It is true, that many who voted against it _alleged_ its
comprehensiveness as the ground of their opposition; but when actually
limited measures were brought forward, they were either crushed at once
by the very same persons, or first reduced to nothing--and, indeed made
worse than nothing, by repealing the provisions of existing statutes
for protection of the Sabbath, substituting nothing for them--and then
ignominiously rejected. This answer may also be given to the allegation,
that Sir Andrew's bills were lost from their comprehensiveness.
As to the second allegation, that the sense of the majority of the
population is against the measure brought forward by Sir Andrew's Bill
as a whole, it may be replied:
In the first place, that this is an assertion which is incapable of
proof.
In the second place, it is not merely a _numerical_ majority of the
whole population of the country to which the advocates of the measure
ought to defer; but it is to a majority of that class of persons who are
well informed upon, and have wisely considered, the whole subject, in
connexion with all its consequences and results.
In the third place, it is apprehended, that if the sense of the majority
of such class were taken upon the several provisions of the bill,
although it may be within the limits of possibility that the majority
might be against the bill as a _whole_, yet there is scarcely a
provision in it which the majority of such class would be found to
reject; for in point of fact there is not one single clause in the bill
which has not been the subject of petitions numerously signed in its
favour.
But even attaching some degree of weight to the above objections, which
are, I believe, the whole that have been brought forward by those whose
opinions are worth regarding, it is to be considered, whether there may
not be set against these objections considerations which will operate so
as greatly to turn the scale in favour of bringing in the whole measure
at once, such as the following:--
1. It recognizes one simple principle, on which every measure proposed
to Government for the remedy of existing abuses, in reference to the
observance of the Lord's day, must be based; and therefore, judging from
the way in which the provisions of the bill have been already met, in
and out of parliament, it is clear, that if _one_ part only out of the
system of measures were brought forward at first, the objection would
be, that the propounder of the measure, to be consistent with himself,
should have extended it to other matters within its principle, and
directed it against other evils requiring to be remedied by it. For
instance, were a bill brought forward to restrain what is usually called
trade in the necessaries of life, it might be urged that it would be
inconsistent, while that which is equally a trade, the supplying of
post horses, should be permitted: just as it has been insisted, in a
determined spirit of hostility to the bill, that it was unfair to
restrain labour in the field and permit it in the house; to prohibit the
day-labourer from prosecuting his calling, and to allow the domestic
servant to pursue hers. Now an argument, which imputes inconsistency and
unfairness to the propounder of a prohibitory measure, is one which it
would be exceedingly difficult, and perhaps impossible, satisfactorily
to answer.
2. The whole of the grievances, pertaining to every part of the subject,
were fully entered into, in that comprehensive inquiry which took place
in the Select Committee of the House of Commons, previously to the
introduction of Sir Andrew Agnew's first bill, which elicited so much
and such important and valuable information; and it follows as a
consequence, that every mischief which was within the scope of the
inquiry, should be within the scope of the enactment to be grounded
upon the result of such inquiry.
3. It is difficult to guard against the inference to be drawn from the
prohibition of one evil, and the leaving another unprohibited, that such
latter evil is intended to be tolerated and sanctioned.
4. It is extremely probable, that if, under existing circumstances, the
advocates of the proposed measure were to bring forward one of limited
extent, it would be considered that they had no ulterior object, and
that the limited measure, if conceded, should be taken in full of every
thing to be expected from the Legislature. This would be disingenuous.
It is the most fair and honest mode of dealing, on the part of those who
are of opinion that the exigency of the case calls for a comprehensive
measure, to declare _at once_ what is the utmost extent of the objects
they have in view, and what is the exact amount of the measure with
which they would be satisfied; and it is considered that such a course
is the most likely to attract the approbation and good opinion of
right-thinking individuals, and, which is an infinitely higher
consideration, to draw down the blessing of Almighty God.
5. The different provisions of the measure are so connected, that it is
very difficult to separate them. For instance, how could the provisions
against trade be separated from the provisions against travelling, when
travelling necessarily supposes the exercise of a species of trade?
6. With respect to the suggestion, that the whole measure should be the
subject of several and distinct bills, the simple answer is, that every
such bill must, in passing through the necessary stages, be exposed to a
distinct ordeal, and that the difficulty of working the bill (to use a
technical expression) would be at least multiplied to the extent of the
number of bills proposed to be substituted for one simple and
comprehensive enactment.
THEOSIBES.
_London, Dec. 10th, 1834._