The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-01-19 00:00:00

pon the company, at

.idly closed during

xtost early and prosperous years, and it was clear

gulatiou could not have had its origin (as might be
e:1) in any spirit of bigotry or illiberality, for on the
is founders and promoters they found the respected
oe, Dr. Currie, Dr. Shepherd, the
Train, William Rathbone, Thomas
incla host of others, whom thatmeet-
bigotry or illiberality. It

of Will

now made was no innova-
currenca to old and sound English Kin-
by other similar institutions, whilst they

roved that the prop,

from them, and perhaps taking a lesson
.;hbours. The opening of the gardens
ivays to the higher classes held out a dangerous example
ewer, and offered grounds fur a plausible argument in
' throwing open to the public not only the doors of
institutions. It the Botanic
should the Zoolo-

Heir French neL4

n, it would b
If these tw

sible on Su'

f Commons

through the

to the balls and tt

mth. He thought

istent ground from

to be found by retracin

He shouli

r closing the gardens upon the

) the existing re-
Tre compelled to

t the year

tors wt

,re justified in thus depriving
of hallowing the Sabbath, by

eligious instruction of their fa•

he thought we had a right to make variations, but no
further, and the commandment, as to the substance of it,
of setting apart one day out of the seven for the especial wor-
ship of God, for the furtherance of our own improvement and
advancement in virtue, and for preparation for another and a
better world, admitted no alteration—the separation, he said,

.
of one day out of the seven for the advancement of the cause
of religion, appeared to be the substance of God's command-
ment, and that which it was our duty in this age, and the duty
of all in every age to fulfil. He could imagine a question to
be proposed in this form—" Where can be the harm of taking
a walk in the Botanic Garden on Sunday, end admiring the

works of nature, or, more properly, the works of the God of
nature, any more than there is in a gentleman walking in his
own garden ; for surely you would not deny him the right of
so doing?" In reply to this inquiry, he should. say, it the
contemplation of the works of nature was designed as a reli-
gious exerese—if the special object and purpose in view was
that of promoting our own personal growth in the knowledge
and in the grace of God—he would not say there was any
harm in viewing the works of nature. Ile would not say,
moreover, if friends were walking together in the garden, and
conversing upon those things which belonged to their eternal
peace—which belonged to the advancement of religion and
virtue in society—or which related to the advancement of
Christian benevolence and charity—he would not say. he said,
that there could be, in such a case, any breach of the Lord's
Day. But he felt satisfied that any who should advocate -
the desirableness of keeping open the Botanic Gardens,
or any other gardens, to the proprietors, on the Lord's
Day, would not take that ground ; he was satisfied that he
spoke to a number of gentlemen, every one of whom were
above all such subterfuge and evasion as to put forth any
such idea as that. f the Botanic Gardens were to be
opened at all, the opening of them would be advocated upon
the principle that it was necessary for the recreation of the
people, and that their benefit would be secured by so doing.
It was in that point of view that he thought it his duty to
say it was converting the Lord's Day into a purpose for
which the Sabbath was not intended. With respect to the
case of a gentleman walking in his own garden, he must
be permitted to say that if he went there for the pur-
pose of secular recreation, that he believed to be con-
trary to the will of God, and he denied its lawful-
ness. But in private matters we could not legislate foe
that which came within men's own domestic circles, with-
out violating those conventions by which human society was
kept together. We must leave such matters to every man's
own conscience. It was a matter between himself and God,
to whom one day he would have to account for the use he
had made of the Sabbath. But where a public institution
like this was held in common by a number of individuals,
every one entered it by a convention with those to whom with
himself it belonged ; and he conceived, therefore, that who-
ever for the purpose of recreation entered the Botanic Gar-
dens on the Lord's Day, did so by the connivance of all
those who did not, by one form or another, express
their disapprobation of so doing. He felt it to be
his duty, therefore, to express his disapprobation of it, in
the hope that it mi;;lit not be without sonic effect upon
the minds of candid hearers, and -who, he trusted; would
give him credit for doing what he believed to be his duty.
We knew very well, though such was not the case with all
the genttlemen whom he was addressing, that he was
speaking to sonic members of the church to which lie be-
longed. Those gents would permit him to put them in re-
membrance that they were met there on the day following the
Lord's Day, and that they at least ael.nowledgel that the
Sabbath was of perpetual obligation. No longer ago than
yesterday, when they heard the Word of God read, they
asked of God to pardon their past neglect, and to give them
grace to keep Ilis commandments in time to come ; when
the commandments were read, they united in the prayer
" Lord, have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep
this law." He begged leave to second this resolution.
Mr. &NEL said it appearad to him that a very extraor-
dinary course of proceeding was being taken if the parties
were anxious to increase the funds of the institution and to
interest all classes of the community in its success. He
should not attempt to make any observations in reply to the
remarks of the reverend gentleman who had seconded the
resolution. His (Dr. Tattershall'S) arguments had been such
that a layman might just as well leave them alone ; but he
(Mr. Side!) should not at all shrink from replying to the re-
marks of the mover, because, layman to layman, they were
on equal terms. It was said they were anxious to interest
all classes of the community in the success of the institution
and to increase its revenue. Now, it was very well known
to every man there, that there were very great differences
with regard to the mac of observing the Sabbath. Sonic of
the population of L4erpool held that the day now kept for
the Sabbath was not the day ordered by God, but that the
last day in the week ought to be kept ; these persons, of
course, could not respect that which they did not believe to
be correct. Others again believed, that, after the perfor-
mance of their religious duties on the Sabbath they might
pass the remainder of the day in recreation without offence;
these persons, of course, could not agree with the mover and
seconder. There were •others, also, who thought that all
days ought to be kept holy—that all were entitled to equal
respect. Any innovation upon their privileges in this respect
was what no man had a right to make, for they had as good
a right to enjoy their opinions as we had. He would, further,
instance the case of his own religion. The followers of it
thought they ought to abstain from eating meat on Fridays.
This was very well, but if he were to say that the mover and
seconder should do likewise, they would laugh at the notion.
Now he (Mr. Shell) held that it was perfectly right to take
his children out for a walk after the performance of their
religious duties, and he was prepared to-show that no one
had a right to prevent him. It was 26 years since the gar-
dens had been opened. It should be recollected that at that
period the proprietors purchased the right of walking in •
them on Sundays. It was therefore a matter of property,
and how could they be justly deprived of the right andpri-
vilege which they had so bought, by the vote of a meeting
like this? The proposer of the motion had used an argu-
ment which he (Mr. Sheil) had often heard, but which was
not a very sound one, namely, that if the gardens were
opened on the Sunday, the servants employed at then were
prevented from attending divine worship. This was made
into a very important point, as if it could not be easily ob-
viated. There were many people, easily •to he bad, who
could relieve the servants whilst they were at their worship :
in short, he would ask, what was the practice of gentlemen
present with their domestic servants? Was not one at least
left at home, whilst the others were at church ? He could
not see, therefore, upon what principle the public were to be
deprived of the enjoyment of what they conceived to be an
innocent privilege.
Sir J. WALMSLEY conceived that the gentlemen who had
btought forward the motion had taken the only course which
they could consistently adopt. Something had been said
about the Old Testament, and the command of Almighty
God to keep the sabbath day ; but it should be remembered,
that in the New Testament something was said about it—
. namely, that " the sabbath was made for man and not man
for the sabbath." if the question were considered fairly, it
would be found not to apply to the wealthy, or to those who
had gardens of their own in which they could amuse them-
selves. it might be very well for those gentlemen to abstain
from going into their own gardens on the sabbath, and to de-
vote it to the observance of their religious duties ; but it was
for them to consider whether they had a right to deprive the
poor of the privilege. They professed to admit the poor two
days a week, but that appeared to him to be nonsense. The
industrious classes could go there upon no day but Sunday;
and be apprehended that if the gentlemen who advocated
the motion would go into the loathsome cellars and garrets
of the poverty-stricken poor, who had no place where to
amuse themselves, and no time for it but Sunday, and see
them compelled to work hard six days in the week, from
morning.till evening, for a bare subsistence, they would not
refuse to give them some opportunity for recreation even on
the Sabbath day. When he said recreation of course he
meant innocent recreation. After they had attended on their
duties, they should have an opportunity of going to some
place for recreation, where the eyes of those in a superior sta-
tion would meet them ; they would have on opportunity of
observing not only the works of nature but of nature's
God. If the subject were considered in its proper light, it
would be found greatly to the interest of the community
to remove the poor from their noxious abodes, and giee them
an opportunity of spending a few hours on the Sabbath day,
under the eyes of those parties who would take an interest in
seeing that they conducted themselves properly. He believed
it would have a great effect in preventing drunkenness, and
be an inducement to good order and morals : he was of
opinion it would be an exceeding great advantage to the lower
classes if, instead of the gardens being closed, they were
opened to them.
The CHAIRMAN explained that the question now under
discussion was, not the closing of the gardens to the labouring
classes, but to the proprietors.
Sir J. WALMSLEY was quite aware of that. Mr. Parker
in proposing the motion read a letter, in which it was stated
that a Botanic Garden was crowded by the public on Sun-
days. That was the very strongest argument that could he
used in favour of opening the Liverpool Gardens. The
people could not be made religious by act of parliament. He
should vote againat closing the gardens on Sunday, not
against closing them to proprietors, but for the opening of
them to the poor.
Dr. REYNOLDS enquired whether the gardens were now
opened the whole of Sunday, or only part of the day ?
The CHAIRMAN replied that in the -winter they were
opened from two o'clock in the afternoon, and in summer
from five till dusk.
The Rev. J. MARTINEAU and Mr. MOLYNEUX opposed
the motion.
• Mr. PARKER replied. He admired the discretion of Mr.
Sheil in declining an encounter with such an antagonist as
the reverend gentleman who had so ably seconded his motion.
It was for the meeting to decide whether the argument he had
directed against a mere vulnerable opponent was not
" Telum imbelle sine ictu."

The question before the meeting was not the admission of the
poor, but the exclusion of the proprietors. As to the vested
rights of the latter, surely the same authority which repealed
an original law was competent to re-enact it ; if the majority
was good for the one purpose, it was equally so for the other.
Mr. W. B. HODGSON next addressed the meeting in oppo-
sition to the motion. I object, he said, most strongly to this
attempt to hound the people into the church ; for 1 believe
if you were to darken the whole universe, and have the
churches only lighted, you would not get the people to go
there.
The meeting then divided, and the CHAIRMAN declar..td
the numbers to be—
For the motion 23
Against it

Majority

Some surprise having been expressed at the Rev. Rector
Brooks having kept his seat, and the CHAIRMAN having
stated that he had in consequence counted the rev. gentle-
man among the minority,

Mr. Baooks rose, and said this was a question upon which
he might not feel himself quite satisfied with giving a silent
vote. He had no hesitation in stating that he could see no
possible violation of the Sabbath in the proprietors going on
that day to the gardens : he did not think there was any
harm likely to accrue from it either to religion or to morality.
He did not wish, however, to enter into the whole argument
now ; but he would say that he did not agree with a great
portion of the argument used against the closing of the gar-
dens on the Sabbath. A great portion of it, hs thought, was
fallacious. He could draw a wide distinction between open-
ing the gardens to the public, and allowing the proprietors
themselves to see them. If he thought it was in the slight-
est degree a violation of the Sabbath to allow those gentle-
men who were proprietors to go there, he should be the last
man in the world to consent to it. But he did not believe
it to be a violation of the Sabbath, and upon that ground he
thought they were justified in claiming the right.
Major AXFORD thought the proprietors had a right to go
to the gardens if they pleased, on the Sabbath ; and upon
that principle he had remained neutral.
Mr. WILLAN said that as at a former meeting the poor
had been excluded from the gardens on Sunday, -he had now
voted to exclude the rich on that day.
The discussion then terminated,and the meeting separated.

It is said that during her Majesty's residence at Bucking-
ham Palace, one hundred and forty hogsheads of strong beer
are monthly forwarded from Church's brewery at Burbage,
Wiltshire

SPOTS ON int SuN.--For some time past, the spots on
the sun's disc have been numerous, and occasionally very
isa(;:biutasbt
about
its
large. At present there are two or three of considerable
size, besides some clusters of some ones. About a week
ago, one disappeared at the west limb, which had been ob-
served during two revolutions of the sun on,,,,ii;tssibbaulx:
saipzpeelaiaradnecoensidlevih-aebiliyfidrisati diminished
_ebde,twiteewna.istso
affinrads
nt
hao,anvddabiseefccooorsmmnede.
and its longest diameter about 27,000 miles
They may be distinctly seen with an
itepipmeuariaarn.ce,Tv6w- aos
f reducedthose
e to
presentl. l ,100
of the earth.
otnearly
i ey. telescope and dark glass. •

THURSDAY

this mornin
declined.

and Hudson
Mohawk 1, a

The Comn-

zreat el

Sn
Wrecked and col-

More in this

itry.l92

Lon
Ai Hart

20, 111,332
20, 18,051

80 465