The Press.
London, England, 1856-02-23 00:00:00

THE PRESS.

that the operatives were not absolutely at the mercy of
their employers? But let them look at Loudon. No man
who knew anything of the state of London could fail to
perceive the progress that had been made by the early-
closing movement. ( Hear, hear.) 1/id the success that
had attended that movement show that there was either
the power or the will in the employers to invade the liberty
or encroach on the enjoyment of the persons in their
employment ? There was no obligation of law, nu custom
of social life, no observance of religion which compelled
men to close their shops at a stated hour; yet it had been
done in deference to the feelings and wishes of the em-
ployed, and by means of the good sense and humanity of
the employer.
In conclusion, the noble lord asserted that the
question now pending did not relate merely to the
concession of new privileges, but to the retention of
those that already existed. If the present proposi-
tion were negatived, there would be no consistent
grounds for continuing to allow railway trains, steam-
boats, or public vehicles to run, or the public
parks to be opened, on the Sabbath. By persisting
in the system of restrictive legislation, religion would
be disparaged, education thwarted, and sincere
satisfaction given to none but the distiller and the
publican.
Mr. NAI'IER warned the house that if the step
recommended in the resolution were once taken it
never could be retraced, and Parliament might put
in peril one of our most venerable and most valued
institutions. This was only a small beginning, but
by slow degrees the poison would be infused; and,
however plausible the resolution might appear, taken
by itself, it must be considered with relation to its
circumstances and consequences. The Sunday was
said to be a day of rest; but the rest was to be
means to an end—namely, the spiritual and religious
welfare of man :

Substitutes had been tried, the only effect of which had
been to prove that any weakening of its religious basis
must encourage and facilitate its desecration. (Hear.)
What, then, was the reason why they were now asked to
put such sacred interests in peril? It was answered,
" the requirements of the population." The advocates of
this motion drew their arguments from our neglect of the
week-day condition of the labouring classes. (Hear.)
Those classes were overworked. Who, looking at the
waste of human life in tender childhood, as well as in its
vigour and prime, continually going on in our manufac-
turing districts, could believe that those classes enjoyed all
the advantages to which modern improvements in ma-
chinery and in our social arrangements entitled them ?
Who did not know that, instead of the spirit of social
amelioration interposing benignly to relieve them from the
grinding burden of their incessant toil, they and their
children had no room left them for recreation and self-
improvement, and hence this plausible demand for a por-
tion of the Lord's Day, to which if they imprudently
yielded the whole of that greatest blessing ever granted to
man would be gradually undermined and swept away. Let
the Legislature, then, endeavour to promote the sanitary
improvement, the Christian education, and the rational
week-day relaxation of the people, providing, as far as
possible, for each family the decencies and the comforts
of Christian, civilised life, and then, with the Divine bless-
ing, they might expect to have a happy and a devout
population, forming a nation's true strength. This would
afford a legitimate sphere for the energetic activity and the
laudable ambition of a Christian senate, instead of their
seeking to encroach, by measures like the present, upon
the sanctity of the blessed Sabbath. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. HEYWOOD considered that Sunday should be
kept as a day of rejoicing.
Mr. CAIRNS thought that if the principle of opening
public places of amusement was once recognised it
must be extended to private places of amusement, and
from that to places of trade. He wished to see the
seventh day preserved as an interval of rest, and not
converted, under the pretext of pleasure, into a day
of toil and weariness.

Lord EBRINGTON pointed out the necessity of
legislating for men, not as they ought to be, but as
they are. When two millions of individuals dwelt
within the pestilential atmosphere of an overgrown
city their condition became exceptional, and must be
treated in an exceptional manner. in the abstract it
might not be the best mode of spending Sunday to
devote it to country excursions, or galleries of art,
but practically speaking such enjoyments wero far
better than the customary occupations wherein the
hours of that day were wasted by the great mass of
the metropolitan population.
Mr. R. l'Aixen maintained that no sacrifice would
be too great which enabled us to preserve in all its
sanctity the institution of the Sabbath. The bene-
fits, moral, physical, and economical, that could be
traced on this institution were, he argued, beyond all
price. He would avoid anything that tended to
secularise the day, and on that ground he rested his
objection to the opening of public galleries and
museums of art.

Mr. BALL looked upon the observance of the
seventh day as a matter of obligation on every
Christian. It was enjoined by a commandment
which should be obeyed as stnctly as any other
number of the decalogue.
Mr. WiwiAid regretted to notice the prolonged
silence which the Government had preserved while
so important a subject was under discussion.

SATURDAY,

Lord PALMERSTON expressed his intention to oppose
the motion, but feared that his reason would as little
satisfy one party as his vote would please the other.
He did not believe that to open a few museums and
galleries would constitute a desecration of the Sab.
bath, nor that by keeping them closed any consider.
able addition would be made to the numbers who
attended church. Still, he considered the proposed
step so insignificant in itself, and promising at the
best so minute a degree of benefit—limited solely to
the inhabitants of the metropolis—that he could net
consent to run counter to the avowed feeling of the
country at large. It was also, he believed, highly
inexpedient to create an impression that the religious
feeling of Parliament was less earnest than that of
the general public. Observing that the amendment
which had been proposed tended to limit the discre-
tion of the trustees of the British Museum, the
noble lord suggested that it should be withdrawn,
and a simple negative to the original resolution sub.
stituted.

Mr. MUNTZ opposed the resolution, because he
feared that otherwise the masters would steal the day
of rest from their workmen.

The amendment having been withdrawn, after a
reply front Sir J. WAIDISLEY, the huuse divided
upon the original motion, which was negatived by
376 to 4S.