The Express.
London, England, 1855-06-27 00:00:00

THE PRICE OF THE SUNDAY TRADING

IT was Queen CAROLINE, we think, who asked Sir
Ronan WALPOLE what it would cost to inclose St.
James's-perk, with a view to exclude the public from
it. " Madam," the Premier is said to have replied,
"only a Crown." It were to be wished that our present
Premier had the courage to give a similar hint to
Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR and his lordly abettors in
Sabbath legislation. But Lord Pauteitsrox, though
he gave a curt enough reply to the poor Presbyterian
clergymen of Scotland when they petitioned him for a
feet, does not venture to speak in the same strain to

aristocratical masters of boroughs.
Yet the shoals on which the section of the
aristocracy, represented by the promoter of the
Sunday Trading Bill, is bent upon driving us, are
quite as dangerous as those towards which Queen
CAROLINE would have steered but for the warning 1
voice of a sagacious Minister. These men propose
nothing less than to compel by Act of Parliament the
great majority of the people of England to change the
habits of life which have provaili.d among them for many
generations. If Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR bud ever
returned from Richmond by water, on a Sunday sum-
mer evening—we beg his pardon for the monstrous
supposition—he would have seen the banks on either
side covered, the whole way, with family parties,
arrayed in their beat attire, walking or seated
in tea-gardens and before taverns. It is ten
to one that in the course of his peeve
he would not have witnessed one unseemly
gesture or heard one angry word. Had lee
lingered at Hungerford-stairs, he would have wit.'
I
mused one steam boat after another disemboguing its I
living cargo, and have convinced himself that all
were sober—hilarious indeed, but conversing io
under-tones, betokening a decent restraint imposed
upon themselves out of respect for the day. Let us
farther suppose that Lord ROBERT, before proceeding
to Richmond, bad taken a walk through the streets
of London about the time that morning service in
our churches and chapels ends. He would have seen
numbers of men, women, and children issuing from
the bakers' ahem carrying little roasts of meat with
potatoes baked beneath, or from the beershops with
pots of ale or porter. Had be followed any of
the parties so burdened, he might have seen
families who rarely have a moment for social
converse during the week, assembled round
their humble boards, cultivating the domestic affec-
t dons. On inquiry he would have learned that the
attendance of a couple of baker's lads and a couple of
tapmen enabled some twenty or thirty families to enjoy
this Sunday dinner without the trouble of cooking it.
The labour of three or tour men for a few hours enabled
a hundred or a hundred and fifty persons to rest on
the Sabbath. The individuals thus released from
eare and labour may not have need their rarely re
earring leisure exactly in the way Lord ROBERT
would approve of; but at least they had an oppor-
tunity of doing so which otherwise they could
sot have bad. It is, moreover, highly probable
that Lord ROBERT, in the houses he visited,
would have seen newspapers lying about that
had been purchased that morning. Now, we
are not going to ask Lord ROBERT to admit
that all these things are right and proper ; but we
maintain that they cause no public scandal, lead to no
breach of the peace, are not inconsistent with honesty,
sobriety, and well regulated labour. The people
who act as we have described have done so all their
lives, and their fathers and grandfathers before them.
They see no harm in it ; few of them have even
heard it alleged that it is wrong. It is their drop of
honey in their bitter draught of life. And all of a
sudden they find themselves debarred from such simple
enjoyments under vexatious penalties, by the instru-
mentality of men who enjoy a monopoly of political
power. Does Lord ROBERT expect that such an
attempt to revolutionise the habits which have
been striking root in a people through long
generations can be endured with patience?
Does be think that no inquiries will be made
as to whether the class to which he belongs solemnise
the Sabbath in the same ascetic fashion that he would
compel the less wealthy classes to do? Let last Sun-
day's assemblage in Hyde-park answer him. Eng-
lishmen of all ranks, so far from disliking persons of
gentle birth, are but too apt to be deferential to them
in excess. This holds good of all classes : even the
Chartist movement suffered because the working
classes preferred gentlemen, like FEAROUS O'CONNOR
and Dr. JOHN TAYLOR, for leaders, to men of their
own class, like LOVETT and CoLures. The humblest
artisan among us, if left quietly to enjoy himself in
his own way, grudges no man his carriage, horns,
grooms, fine pictures, or sumptuous fare. But
ear recent Sabbath legislation has stirred up thou-
sands of this good-natured, lord-admiring people to
desert their usual Sunday haunts and pursuits
ter the sole purpose of jeering and insulting
the aristocracy. This opposition to his lordly will
bee only made Lord ROBERT more intent upon
carrying his Sunday Trading Bill. Against national
conviction a and habits laws are inoperative. He and his
abettors had better take warning in time. To inclose
St. James's-park would have cast a dynasty its
crown ; to condemn our tradesmen and artisans to
fasting and moping on Sundays may cost our peers
their coronets.
We know our aristocracy too well to believe them
capable of desisting from what they think to be
eight out of personal fear; but though they are too
proud to shrink from danger to themselves, there is
no shame in their being reluctant to expose others
to danger. A storm of popular exasperation,
which should sweep them from their places,
would not pass harmless over humbler heeds ;
and if they will reflect they cannot bat
perceive the unreasonableness of the course they
are pursuing. They haws an undeniable right to net
upon their own convictions—they have a right (we
might say it is their duty) to endeavour to
persuade others to act in the way they believe
to be proper; but they have no right to compel
those who do not think as they do to ant as if they
did. Even on the assumption that their views of
religion are the true ones, they ought to know that
only the voluntary mace is acceptable in the eyes
of GOD. Human laws and penalties cannot make
men religious; they can only make them hypocrites
or malcontents—that is all.—Daily News.