The Express.
London, England, 1860-06-29 00:00:00

1E be en) refso•

INWITITTFosirna
Winimil Tr "The Imam trouble
Tam be al Or NI" ie. ftrnammes. by Two
Wilma wa
its day

IIiTWW.

Tim Emma. THE OVEILLAND HOOT! Maas.
doh.. 4*.wart.43 It.gers. Buckdose, NM C. lialkows; lin. Zig:,
—IITES V YTILI 0/ FITIANTTEE HALL kr
boa kst,,or. —Aud THE ODDITIES OFT= me Declercoo.

riuscapm

TIMP tram. TR! Mali Willi or WINDSOR. Messrs.
o Melnik, llama, Shoos F.MMOtems. WlddlesseS •
RlD.rs r awl N Levlsms. Mrs. Maim. Mrs. Wlartaslsys—And
THRICE 3Lursitu. Mr. Meadow—Caeansace at 7.

•uwnrlA.

Tun ErierieL LA NUTI7O-N—Di7A7M: or. The Mires-
Setree..f a Cockney. Mews Creaked. Clair, eel Ferry Mrs L
TarsAt —KINGS LLAR AND HIS TAYTHLIUL rum&
Mr. IL Mier,. Misr Sok iihris.—AsS TUIL TI MM LIVEN,.

MOE WAIN" AT LONDON BRIDOZ.
Two Oat —Mrslse, AIWAwe, DAL Ma
ItroollaoW—NAAmiss Ilk Ws— Atiorsoos, OIL Oa

LONDON, FRIDAY, JUNE 29.

Wee is the anther and what is the end of Lord
"Sunday Trading and Hawking
" Bill'." Who has called for legislation on this
subject at this particular time 1 We are led to
oak these questions by observing the variety and
oppositeness of the classes by which it is resisted.
One day our columns relate that it excites the
indignation of the working classes of Finsbury as
a gems attack upon civil and religious liberty, and
next that it is denounced in meetings of the Evan-
gelical Clcri,7 as full of peril to the interests of
Chnstuunty. At a public meeting held on Wed-
nesday evening last at the British Institution,
Cowper-street, City.read, it was condemned
by resolution as injuriously affecting the
" poorest and most needy inhabitants of the
" metropolis ;" and yesterday, at a meeting of
clergymen held at Exeter-hall, it was denounced,
on the motion of Sir CULLINU Eaautxv, as COUD.
iettalllCilig a belief that the Leee's day need not be
kept holy. The placard calling the Finsbury
meeting combined both dames of objections in the
statement that Lord CRILIINFORD'R Bill" Legalises
" Sunday trading, and at the same time stereo
" the poor and needy." What motive can Par-
liament have for enacting a law which has not been
called for by any large class, which has no strong
support from any party, but which is obnoxious
alike to religious feeling and popular sentiment ? I
When first brought forward, Lord CHUMS-
I'..•I••• Bill received considerable support from the
E.: medical clergy under a misconception of its cha-
racter. As a measure apparently for limiting Sun-
day trailing many of them readily supported it ; but
that support they have since withdrawn on per.
ce.cuig that it fails to recognise the religious cha-
racter of the Christian day of rest—that it makes
mere 'Nejel convenience the highest end of
legislation for Sunday observance--that its prin-
ciples ate thus secular, and that their adoption
wesild N. an abandonment of that strong national
testimeny to the religious sanction of the
day, and the Divine authority for its ob-
servance, which all former Acts of Parliament
embody. In au " Appeal," which has been ex-
tensively circulated by the clergy of the Low
Church party in London, we find the tendencies
of the bill thus described :—" For the first time
" in the history of England since the Reformation,
" a retrogressive step will have been taken, and a
" law of relaxation introduced, instead of that re-
" deletion by which our legislation has ever pre-
" viowily been marked. We call it a law of re-
" taxation, because the stigma of an illegal act,
" which has hitherto been affixed 0 all Sunday
" trading, would be wholly removed by it. The Bill
"does out recognise by • single word the religious obli-
" gatien of the day, but absolutely ignores it. It
" treats Sunday trading as a question not of re-
" ligions duty, but of simple trading convenience.
" By the legalisation it proposes to give to trade
"em the leiee's day within certain stipulated
" hours, it practically declares that, in the opinion
" of the Legislature of this country, there is no
" moral ening in selling on the Sunday per me,
" but only in the unfair competition which one
" tradesman may thus manage to secure over
" another." Such are the objections taken to the
Bill from the religious point of view. We re-
produce theme because they are too important
to he overlooked in estimating the practical conse-
quences of the proposed measure ; and we ask
again whether a Bill, on the one hand so ,
opposed, and on the other unsupported by any
active symi•thy out of doors, is likely to work
satisfactorily. We cannot bring ourselves to be-
lieve that the respect paid in this country to the
litieu'e day as a religious institution is due, as the
authors of this " Appeal" would have us believe,
to the influence of Acts of Parliament in influencing
and !ding public opinion, or that it is at all
desirable to encourage limuan legislation in religious
matters. In that respect we consider the prin-
ciple of Lord Curtmsvoite's Bill quite sound, and,
notwithstanthug the hard things said against it,
infinitely more Christian than the principle of
applying civil penalties in support of systems and
instelitiens of ecclesiastical origin. It is so be..
cense it recognises the responsibility of every man
to his Maker only in religious matters. Hut as •
practical matter a" have toconsider what would really
he the effect of legislation. If on the one hand
it is true that a eational testimony to the religious
obligatiee of the ledie's day LII borne in the five-
web two my existing Acts on the subject, it is
equally true that public opinion regulates the ap-
plication of these lees. Attempts to apply them
to the injury of the poor are soon checked.
With the excepted' of Bailie carried on under
licenses, there is in fact scarcely any calling that
is not exercised at present on Sunday without
apprehension of serious legal consequences. If in
our great thoroughfares they are net so carried
on, it is because the particular public opinion,
which governs their inhabitants, condemns muse
cessary trading on Sunday. Why alter this
state of things, in which a national totinioity
to religion, low and limited indeed, but
which many value, i. reconciled with individual
and social liberty t The Christian Church is free
to influence public opinion to the utmostof its power,
awl it it's • iiitliience it, but by means exclusively

•

moral. Again, secular libartyhaewared by the action
of the ante agent. If a man wallet° sharpen hh mind
upon The Penny Debater on a Sunday morning, or
a servant-maid to whom "no follower is allowed"
wishes to beguile her imprisonment in the after-
noon with the Family Herald, they have only to
step round the corner, and they will find the shops
open. The sale is not legal, but it is allowed.
Lord CIILLIVIIPORD would legalise it, except be-
tween the hours of ten in the morning and one
in the afternoon ; thus we lose sight of all principle,
and get lost among anomalies. Under the law
proposed it would be lawful to buy The Reasoner,
and illegal to sell a Bible, on the Sunday.
We believe that the conviction is every day
becoming more general that these subjects are
beyond the province of effective legislation. We
leave to others the exact appreciation of the value
to religion of the testimony of laws to which the
nation refuses to lend force ; but there can be no
doubt of the worth of the spontaneous respect
which the English public willingly and habitually
pays to the LORD'S day. That respect, we
believe, is destined to extend and become
more profound as it becomes more intel-
ligent. The great body of the nation is thoroughly
convinced of the importance of maintaining the
sacredness of the day, as conducive to the temporal
welfare of all, and especially to that of the wo,k-
ing man. We have just said it is not the business
of human legislators to regulate religious obser-
vances ; bat neither is it their business actively to
exert their power to break them down. But this
is what Lord CURL/1870RD% Bill would do. It
would be, if pemed, a declaration of opinion that
the LORD'S day may lawfully be cut down by man's
authority. At present our practice is imperfect
and loose because it is human ; but our standard
exists divine and eternal in the Scriptures of truth.
Let Lord CRRIJUIFORD leave us to them, and not
try to degrade a religious ordinance adopted by
the nation for the sake of a few traders who value
their Sunday enough to petition Parliament, but
not enough to forego the little profit that may be
made on Sunday morning before church-time.