The Sun.
London, England, 1856-05-26 00:00:00

THE TYRANNY OF CANT.

In answer to a question by Mr. Otway, Lord
Palmerston gave the following account of his rea-
sons for discontinuing the performance of bands in
the parks on Sunday evenings :

"I received last week a letter from the Archbishop of
Canterbury stating upon his own part, and upon the
part of his episcopal brethren, reasons why be conceived
that, in deference to the religious feelings of a large part of
the community, it would be desirable that the bands playing
on a Sunday evening should cease. To that letter I re•
plied that I had originally concurred in the arrangement
that bands should play in Kensington-gardens and Hyde-
park on a Sunday ; that my opinion has been and still
was—for I had heard nothing to alter my views—that
such an arrangement would afford an innocent recrea•
tion, combined with fresh air and healthy exercise, to
the inhabitants of the metropolis ; but I said that, con-
sidering the feeling which had been expressed by himself
as the head of the church, and having also had represen-
tations made to me that that feeling was shared by va-
rious other persons, I had to ask myself whether the
advantage which would arise from the continuance of
those bands on a Sunday would compensate for the evil
which might arise from running counter to the religious
feelings of a large portion of the community, and to that
question I was compelled to reply that it would not. I
therefore took immediate steps to discontinue the play-
ing of those bands in the parks on a Sunday, but that
prohibition does not apply to other towns."
The reason thus assigned for the concession is in
the very teeth of the principle to bo maintained,
which is that in the domain of conscience no one has
a right to dictate to another, saying, Do this because
Ido it, or do it not because Ido it not. Lord Pal-
merson remains of opinion that music is au innocent
recreation which may with great advantage be ex-
tended to the working classes in lieu of coarse and
pernicious pleasures. But the Pharisees and Puri-
tans are of opinion that the working man needs no
relaxation, that he should toil for six days and pray
the seventh, and so toil and pray and toil aud pray to
the end of his dreary days. They could not tolerate
the music in the parks, it troubled their peace, as
Mordecai in the king's gate poisoned the existence of
Haman; and Lord Palmerston is of opinion that no
advantage which the working people or the public
generally could derive from time recreation in
question could counterbalance the evil of
opposing the opinions and dictation of that
portion of the community which dubs
itself serious. The determination is thus not
on the merits, nor in obedience to a majority, or in
respect of numbers, but it is a yielding to the mere
veto of.asceticism. The noes have it absolutely.
Upon the same rule, if the Archbishop of Canter-
bury should disapprove of the running of railways,
or the plying of steam-boats on the Sunday, and
his feeling should be shared in by some other per-
sons, Lord Palmerston would, in consistency with
his present concession, be bound to yield. Ho has
allowed the claim of one part of the community to
a tyranny over the other. The Pharisees who say
they are better than others are to have their own
way with thew, and the lovers of gloom are to
make gloom the order of the day. As one man's
meat is another's poison, so one man's pleasure is
another's pain, and the discontent of the Maw-
worms or Paulites (of the Bank of Faith) is allowed
to prevail against the health and profitable enjoy-
ment of their neighbours. A large part of the
public is to be denied a good, not because it hurts
any other part, but because it does not square with
the practice and opinions of Judaic Sabbatarians.
Turn the question the other way. What if the
anti-Puritanical partof the public were to find it re-
pugnant to their feelings that anymembers of the com-
munity should deny themselves enjoyments of a
refined nature after the discharge of the religious
duties, and should proscribe such nonconformity as
antisocial, and also as tending to continue the ha-
bits of the grosser sensual indulgences. Drunken-
ness is the curse of this country. It is the main
source of sin and crime. Whatever serves to detach
the people from this master vice contributes to the
cause of religion and morality, and whatever tends
the other way has the opposite effect. Now, pre-
cisely in proportion to the austere observance of
the Sabbath is found the prevalence of inebrity.
The Scotch are more addicted to drink than the
English, and the town in Scotland where the obser-
vance of the Sabbath is the most rigorous is also
the foulest stye of intoxication. The people there
wallow in drink from Saturday night to Tuesday
morning. They have nothing else to do. No
steam-boat moves on the Sunday, no train runs,
no omnibus plies, everything is at a stand except
the bottle. As Edinburgh is the capital of the
Scottish nation, so Glasgow is that of the Sottish
people.
And the Archbishop of Canterbury and his fol-
lowers would make another Glasgow of this huge
metropolis if they had their way. No matter what
their object may be, they are in effect the allies of
the publicans and dram-shops. They stand between
the people and all attempts to wean them from their
1 habits of drink to innocent pleasures tending to re-
finement. If intolerance ever could be justified it
would be intolerance of the religious feelings which
have taken a turn so counter to the best interests
of society • and when Lord Palmerston had to con-
sider whether he should or should not, in deference
to a Puritanic clamour, discontinue a means of
diverting the people from the pothouse aud dram-
shop, he should have asked, instead of the question
above quoted, whether any advantage arising from
such a concession would compensate the evil of
running counter to the moral improvement of a
large part of the community,74mninere - -