To the Editor of the Baptist Magazine.

It is some time since the Christian public has heard of any measure intended to be proposed to the Legislature in reference to the violation of the Sabbath, and it is time, as it appears to me, that those who have such a measure at heart should be awake, and setting about their great work in earnest. Whether the measure of which Sir Andrew Agnew gave notice in the last session, be the same as his last bill or not, is at present unknown; but I trust, if it be not the same, it will be founded on the same principle, and equally comprehensive in its provisions. It is true, that upon this subject, the opinions, even of good men, are much divided; and there are not a few individuals, of undoubted piety, who think that a legislative remedy should extend to a part only of the acknowledged mischiefs at first; whilst others prefer making the different provisions of the whole measure the subject of several bills, to be simultaneously brought forward.

The advocates of the former plan insist, that there is no chance of carrying the whole measure at once, while the attempt to do so is calculated to produce hostility; improvements in this, as well as in other matters, requiring to be gradual:—that the sense of the majority of the population is against the measure as a whole, to which popular sense, deference must be paid:—and, that Sir Andrew’s former bills were lost entirely from their being too sweeping and comprehensive.

To the first objection, which is nearly identical with the third, it may be answered: Supposing it to be true, that there is no chance of carrying the whole measure at once, this is no reason why the whole should not be proposed at once. If of the whole measure so proposed only a part should be carried, the carrying of that part would be a subject of thankfulness and rejoicing, just as much as if that part only had been proposed. Those members of the Legislature who would exhibit hostility to the bill to the extent of rejecting it altogether, would doubtless exhibit hostility to any portion of its provisions if brought forward as a distinct bill; because hostility to the whole of a measure acknowledged in some part to be good and necessary, must arise from an evil principle. There is much difference between hostility to the whole of the bill, and opposition to some, nay, even the majority, of its provisions. Those who would be hostile to the whole of the bill, must necessarily be so to any detached part; whereas many might oppose even the larger part of its provisions, who would approve the rest; and it is conceived such would vote for the bill going into Committee, where they might distinguish between the provisions they approved and those they condemned. That this would be the case appears from the experience of the last session, when members who were not prepared to support any clause of the bill, nevertheless voted for its second reading. It is true, that many who voted against it alleged its comprehensiveness as the ground of their opposition; but when actually limited measures were brought forward, they were either crushed at once by the very same persons, or first reduced to nothing—and, indeed made worse than nothing, by repealing the provisions of existing statutes for protection of the Sabbath, substituting nothing for them—and then ignominiously rejected. This answer may also be given to the allegation, that Sir Andrew’s bills were lost from their comprehensiveness.

As to the second allegation, that the sense of the majority of the population is against the measure brought forward by Sir Andrew’s Bill as a whole, it may be replied:

In the first place, that this is an assertion which is incapable of proof.

In the second place, it is not merely a numerical majority of the whole population of the country to which the advocates of the measure ought to defer; but it is to a majority of that class of persons who are well informed upon, and have wisely considered, the whole subject, in connexion with all its consequences and results.

In the third place, it is apprehended, that if the sense of the majority of such class were taken upon the several provisions of the bill, although it may be within the limits of possibility that the majority might be against the bill as a whole, yet there is scarcely a provision in it which the majority of such class would be found to reject; for in point of fact there is not one single clause in the bill which has not been the subject of petitions numerously signed in its favour.

But even attaching some degree of weight to the above objections, which are, I believe, the whole that have been brought forward by those whose opinions are worth regarding, it is to be considered, whether there may not be set against these objections considerations which will operate so as greatly to turn the scale in favour of bringing in the whole measure at once, such as the following:—

1. It recognizes one simple principle, on which every measure proposed to Government for the remedy of existing abuses, in reference to the observance of the Lord’s day, must be based; and therefore, judging from the way in which the provisions of the bill have been already met, in and out of parliament, it is clear, that if one part only out of the system of measures were brought forward at first, the objection would be, that the propounder of the measure, to be consistent with himself, should have extended it to other matters within its principle, and directed it against other evils requiring to be remedied by it. For instance, were a bill brought forward to restrain what is usually called trade in the necessaries of life, it might be urged that it would be inconsistent, while that which is equally a trade, the supplying of post horses, should be permitted: just as it has been insisted, in a determined spirit of hostility to the bill, that it was unfair to restrain labour in the field and permit it in the house; to prohibit the day-labourer from prosecuting his calling, and to allow the domestic servant to pursue hers. Now an argument, which imputes inconsistency and unfairness to the propounder of a prohibitory measure, is one which it would be exceedingly difficult, and perhaps impossible, satisfactorily to answer.

2. The whole of the grievances, pertaining to every part of the subject, were fully entered into, in that comprehensive inquiry which took place in the Select Committee of the House of Commons, previously to the introduction of Sir Andrew Agnew’s first bill, which elicited so much and such important and valuable information; and it follows as a consequence, that every mischief which was within the scope of the inquiry, should be within the scope of the enactment to be grounded upon the result of such inquiry.

3. It is difficult to guard against the inference to be drawn from the prohibition of one evil, and the leaving another unprohibited, that such latter evil is intended to be tolerated and sanctioned.

4. It is extremely probable, that if, under existing circumstances, the advocates of the proposed measure were to bring forward one of limited extent, it would be considered that they had no ulterior object, and that the limited measure, if conceded, should be taken in full of every thing to be expected from the Legislature. This would be disingenuous. It is the most fair and honest mode of dealing, on the part of those who are of opinion that the exigency of the case calls for a comprehensive measure, to declare at once what is the utmost extent of the objects they have in view, and what is the exact amount of the measure with which they would be satisfied; and it is considered that such a course is the most likely to attract the approbation and good opinion of right-thinking individuals, and, which is an infinitely higher consideration, to draw down the blessing of Almighty God.

5. The different provisions of the measure are so connected, that it is very difficult to separate them. For instance, how could the provisions against trade be separated from the provisions against travelling, when travelling necessarily supposes the exercise of a species of trade?

6. With respect to the suggestion, that the whole measure should be the subject of several and distinct bills, the simple answer is, that every such bill must, in passing through the necessary stages, be exposed to a distinct ordeal, and that the difficulty of working the bill (to use a technical expression) would be at least multiplied to the extent of the number of bills proposed to be substituted for one simple and comprehensive enactment.

Theosibes.
London, Dec. 10th, 1834.