The Sun.
London, England, 1848-07-13 00:00:00

s--;1111t

LONDON, THURSDAY, JULY 13, 1848.

There really appears to be a kind of ultra-religious
epidemic. Every now and then Honourable Gentle-
men struggle up to the surface of Parliamentary
discussion, and strive, by the most spasmodic efforts,
to emulate the pious reputation of Sir ANDREW
AGNEW. To their imaginations the idea seems to be
feasible, rather than ridiculous, of making virtue
patent, and of enforcing the commandments of GOD
by Acts of Parliament. A sort of scriptural pro-
priety is the highest of their religious aspirations.
Mr. HINDLEY is anxious to be regarded as a rather
superior lover of morality, though, by the way, Mr.
PECKSNIFF in like manner was a decidedly moral
man. When shall there be an end of all this sancti-
monious twaddle—this flirtation with conscience—
this coquetry of Christianity ? Men are becoming
sick of it; they cry out against it as THOMAS CAR-
LYLE has recently called out against Ireland,
" Squelch it !—I say, by Heavens !--Squelch
it !" They begin to recognise in all this assumption of
sobriety a mere sham, hollow, egregious unreality.
They think, as the Hon. CRAVEN BERKELEY admi-
rably observed in the course of yesterday's debate,.
" that the observance of Sunday would be better
promoted by the force of a good example on the part

of the higher classes, and especially of the higher
classes of traders, than by anything that mere
measures of legislation could effect." Something
more of this, and the Hon. Members for Ashton-under-
Lyne and Salford will certainly have their abilities,
and their amiabilities together, eclipsed by a sort of
political extinguisher.
Although the trumpery pretence of piety, called the
Sunday Trading Bill, has advanced so far as to have
been committed pro forma, there is scarcely the shadow
of a chance that it will pass into an Act of Parlia-
ment during the session of 1848 ; and this, notwith-
standing the majority of 28 which in a House of 122
rejected the amendment, that the said Bill be read that
day six months. The House of Commons has not
leisure to expend its energies upon such frivolous in-
novations. There is something more serious to be
done just now than to distinguish the hours when
sprats are to be vended, or when, without a decided
dereliction of duty, a man may imbibe a cup of cho-
colate. It is argued, however, by Mr. HINDLET and
Mr. BROTHERTON, that in compliance with the ordi-
nances of the DEITY, the Sabbath should be kept
holy by a Christian nation. Doubtless. We grant
it. As an axiom of ethics we take the matter
as wholly undeniable. But surely the maintenance
of the sanctity of the Sunday—not the Sabbath, for
that is Saturday—should be a voluntary act on the
part of the community. Otherwise the merit of it
would, in the vast majority of cases, be annulled. If
men went to church through fear of the stocks or the
horsepond—where would be the merit of the church-
going ? If a man passing down a certain road be
compelled by law to give sixpence towards the poor
of the parish under penalty of being fined to the tune
of ten shillings, is there any merit in the alms think
you ? No, the practice of the faith of the Naza-
rene degenerates from the awe of OMNIPOTENCE
into a terror of the magistracy so soon as
the will of Parliament dares to arrogate
to itself the right to corroborate by its puny voice
the tremendous revelations of the DIVINITY. " /ni-
tium sapientice timor Domini," says the Royal Pro-
phet—" timor Magistri," says the representative of
Ashton-under-Lyne. Away with such pragmatic
interpolations in Holy Writ ! They are blasphemies
against that Genius of Christianity, whose authority
is traceable to more august records than the pages of
Hansard, and whose edicts are emanations from a
holier region than a drawing-room in Dartmouth-
street, Westminster. Besides this : we put it to any
sane man, does there not appear to be something im-
pious in the notion of enforcing the mandate
of the GOD of Christendom with the feeble La Reine
le veute of a creature of dust ? The mere idea
is abhorrent to right reason, not to say
to faith and to conscience. No : if the preservation
of a peculiar quietude and sanctity on the Sunday is
among the injunctions of Revelation, that ought
surely to be enough to prevent the Houses of Par-
liament from transforming a moral obligation into an
act of civil obedience to the Legislature.
Another absurdity in the Bill introduced by Mr.
HINDLET is that of rendering its clauses applicable
in a very stringent manner to the poorer classes, and
exempting the richer classes as much as possible
from the penalties of its infringement. Look at
the position of matters as they are at this

moment under the old law based on the

Act of ChARLES IL, the law prohibiting the
sale of all wares or merchandise on Sundays, with the
exceptions of milk and mackerel. Look at the evid-
ence taken before a Committee of the House of Com-
mons, the statement of a witness named Boggis, men-
tioned before Parliament yesterday by the Hon. CRA-
VEN BERKELEY. "The witness stated," said the Hon.
Member for Cheltenham, " that on the day in question
(viz., a certain Sunday when he was passing near the
brewery of Messrs. TRUEDIAN, HANBURY, BURTON
and Company, situated in Brick-lane, Spitalfields), a
boy was passing along carrying a basket of dry figs;
that the boy was taken up and carried off by the po-
lice merely for the offence of crying and selling a few
figs, by the profits on which to obtain a morsel of food.
That the same witness on the same day, about three
o'clock, passing the brewhouse of the Hon. Member
opposite, heard the clanking of chains in the brew-
house, heard the noise of heavy operations, and wit-
nessed the escape of a great quantity of steam, from
which the inference was obvious that there, at all
events, there was no rest or repose on the Sunday ;
but the poor boy was taken into custody because he
sold a few figs to procure himself a crust, while a
great company carried on the trade of brewing with
impunity, and he doubted not that it was so in all
breweries." Now, although the Hon. Representative

of South Essex, who is a member of the firm in question,
endeavoured to explain that the Sunday work at the
brewery was as little as possible, he by no means
gainsayed the accuracy of the statement made before
the Committee and quoted by the Hon. Member for
Cheltenham. So that it becomes manifest that under
the existing law the grievances are intolerable to
the very poor, and nothing whatever to the very
rich ; and the modification of the law, according to
the plan proposed by Mr. EINDLEY, would only ren-
der that atrocious class-legislation more grievous
and conspicuous. The fishmonger of the West-end
could find a market for his ice and his sturgeon on
Sundays without any fear of the consequence, and
the wretched costermonger of Brick-lane or the
New-cut would be walked off to the police-station
for trying to earn a few pence for his Sunday's
dinner by selling half-a-dozen apples cr a handful of
dried figs. Such is the justice resulting from the
interference of pious Legislatures and Pecksniffian
Politicians.

We have repeatedly alluded to the defective man-
ner in which what ought to be public prosecutions
are conducted in this country. According to the
constitutional theory, when a criminal action is
committed, the private wrong is merged in the injury
to the general body, and, nominally at least, the
complaint is preferred in the name of the SOVEREIGN
as chief magistrate of this mighty empire. The
offence is declared to have been committed against
the peace of our Sovereign Lady the QUEEN, her
crown and dignity, and it is for the preservation
of the general tranquillity, for the assertion of the
supreme majesty of the law, which has been outraged
by the violation of its precepts, and in discharge of
the protection which is due to every subject, in ex-
change for his allegiance, and his contribution to the
exigencies of the State, that it should be so.
It is perfectly manifest that few private individuals
have at their disposal means sufficient to enable them
to carry on heavy prosecutions with vigour and effi-
ciency. It may require considerable expense and
labour to get up the body of evidence sufficient to
expose a well-planned conspiracy, or to investigate
the truth where the circumstances are involved in
doubt and obscurity. Even if the party injured
should be possessed of such ample pecuniary resources
that he can, without difficulty or inconvenience,
obtain professional assistance, and advance the funds
necessary for the investigation, it is most improbable
that the details of the case could be managed with the
same skill and judgment that would be exhibited by
a public department, under the direction of persons
whose entire energies were devoted to that par-
ticular branch of the profession, and who were
accustomed to trace out crime through its various ra-
mifications and subterfuges. The man possessed of
sufficient wealth to enable him to disregard the ex-
penses of such a prosecution has, most probably, a fa-
mily solicitor. We will concede that he may be a
man of ability and integrity, although it is at least
possible that he may be found wanting in these most
essential particulars. It is not, however, for his skill
or experience in criminal law that he has been se-
lected, but because be has given evidence of ability
of a very different character. The prosecution,
however, as a matter of course, is confided to his
care, although he may be better qualified to
trace out the intricacies of a title to real estate, or to
discover a concealed flaw therein, than to lay bare
and expose the machinations of artful offenders
against the law of the land. The charge, however
well grounded in point of fact, might therefore fail
through his inefficiency or want of experience,
although he was actuated by a sincere desire to dis-
charge the duty he had undertaken to the best of
his ability and
judgment. Again, such a person
may employ a counsel from motives of private friend-
-hip who had not made the criminal law his peculiar
study, and who, however skilled in the technicalities
of special pleading, might not be competent
to prepare an indictment that would bear strict,
investigation, such as another of perhaps inferior