The Sun.
London, England, 1856-02-22 00:00:00

(Prom the Morning Post.)

We cannot rank ourselves with the one party, who main-
tain that all the breakers of the law fill the courts of the
police-offices on Monday mornings are the victims of Puri-
tanical Sabbath observances ; or with the other party, who
would have us believe that, if recreation upon the Sunday be
placed within the view and the reach of the people, the
churches will be loft desolate, and the schools of religion un-
attended. We do not agree quite with the other party. Both
would do mischief if they were allowed to have their own way;
and both misapprehend, as it seems to us, the true uses of
the Sunday and the intention of its institution. But we con-
fess we are far more widely at issue with those who seek, by
restriction carried to extrentity, to produce in this country an
observance of the Sunday in spirit and character such as that
which distinguished the Sabbath of the Jews, than with the
party who originated the motion brought before the
house last night by Sir Joshua Walmsley. Nothing
can bo more unwise—we had almost said nothing can be more
insane—than to imagine that real devotional feeling, or true
reverence for the Sunday of the Chi istian Church, can be
created by taking violently from the people all means of re-
creation, by closing the gates of parks of locking the doors of
railway stations. In fact, the carriage of such modes of in-
fluence to their legitimate and perfect conclusions would in-
volve the confinement of everybody to their homes, if not to
their beds, for the day.
Entertaining these opinions with regard to the views and
policy of the League, who have their head-quarters in Exeter-
Hall, it may be expected, perhaps, that we should lend our
aid to the promotion of the objects aimed at by Sir Joshua
Walmsley, and those allied with him. Os mature considera-
tion, however, we find ourselves compelled—differing, never-
theless, in general views, with a great portion of those who
composed the enormous majority of last night—to range our-
selves among the opponents of the proposition submitted to
the House for throwing open the doors of the British Museum
had
er
ahis,etos
imposed
eadat
ri,ol,l,ooyni n,tv
hioeipe
fihposingeileeciwo ma tnhodfe
unaccustomedn
e
vfsoreie.des yer
ci
jntoityorenods-
by the people upon Sunday. We opposed those bills because
theyignored the habits of the people, and disregarded cus-
toms long established and sanctioned by time. For the very
seine reason we are equally opposed to the proposition of Sir
Joshua Walmsley. What he asks for is not simply ab-
stinence from. restriction, or even the mere removal of an oh-
s!aclo found in a particular direction to the legitimate enjoy-
ment of established and existing habits. Did his proposition
involve only that much we might be (mind on his side; but
even at sresent it goes further, and unquestionably in the
development which would ultimately be inevitable, would
lead us, without power of resistance, beyond the boundary
which we deem it right in principle to maintain as a limit to
man's use of the Lord's-Day. At present there is a line of
Snisind may,ay seek recrea-
tion in the parks of the metropolis, or the green fields afar
Sundays, without in-
fringement demarcation fixed by a combination of law and custom, which
marks in a manner sufficiently intelligible the extent of
amusement and character of recreation permissible upon the
Sunday.gern; nlt is
rreelcioggionliisseodbtshearvt
anaellespoene7
from it, which railways place within our roach. We rejoice
that it is so. We believe that, taking people for even half a
day iu a week out of the bustle, the noise, and the excite-
ment inseparable fiu • m the aggregations of multitudes within
the walls of a trading city exercises a beneficial influence on
the'r minds, and we have had brought under our notice many,
very many,
turned to religious considerations by such circumstances.
Nor would we on any account have the Legislature interfere
by forcible means to restrict th 3 liberty which, in that re-
spect, our urban population now enjoy; but there is estab-
lished and has for a long time existed in this country a broad
lino of separation between this use of Sunday and that
which would be involved in the opening of public places of
amusement. Sir Joshua Walmsley now asks Parliament to
move this line further in advance, and to bring within its de-
marcation certain institutions established for the amusement,
recreation, and instruction of the nation. Sir Joshua Walms-
ley assured the house that then he should stop, his line should
slide no farther; and he proposed rigidly to keep on the
other side of it all institutions marked by the characteristics
of s trading or commercial enterprise. Such may be, and we
will do Sir Joshua Walmsley the justice to believe that such is
his intention ; but, however earnest may bo his intention to
take and hold that position, we are p-sitive that he would be
driven beyond it before two sessions of Parliament passed over
his head, and we cannot doubt that, had it given way last
night, the Legislature would, ere long, have been forced again
to advance the boundary line in order to bring within it the
Crystal Palace, the Royal Academy, the Panopticon, the
Polytechnic, the Panormtis, and dozens of other institutions