It becomes Christian men to look this matter fairly in the face, and not be deluded by cant and prejudice. Let them manfully examine facts and probabilities, before they commit themselves to unreasoning clamour. Neither the cause of religion nor of truth will gain by allowing common sense to be overborne by invective and exaggeration. The Sabbatarians themselves will admit that the people who are likely to crown the heights of Norwood are not those who would otherwise frequent a place of worship; but, for the most part, overworked artisans and labourers, with their families, who systematically spend the Sabbath at the tea-garden or ale-house—who, if they were not at Sydenham would perhaps be at Gravesend—who, if they could not enjoy the beauties of Sydenham, and restore their wasted energies amidst its health-inspiring breezes, would probably kill the time by the indulgence of depraved appetites in a poisoned atmosphere. The recreations of Sydenham are as elevating, refining, and harmless, as at any other place of Sunday resort—probably more so. At the same time, they are more attractive. Is it, then, so very irrational to suppose that, under the circumstances of the case, the change will be a gain? Surely it is not Quixotic, though opposed to the Sabbatarian view, to conclude, that the facilities offered to the working classes by means of steam for recruiting their strength and improving their tastes by country excursions, and, in particular, the superior attractions and judicious regulations of the new Crystal Palace Company, are, on the whole, calculated to promote the health, temperance, and morality of the people.
It is not assuming too much to conclude that the “attractions” and “regulations” of Sydenham will be superior to those which obtain elsewhere, A visit to the tea-gardens of Chelsea or Camberwell on a Sunday afternoon or evening—accessible to all who purchase a ticket of “refreshment”—will satisfy any unprejudiced person on this head. The scenes he will there witness can scarcely fail to convince him that the cause of morality will gain from the transference of a portion of the crowds there assembled to the Norwood grounds and their stricter surveillance. Other things being equal, ought not the religions world to prefer that the working classes of London should enjoy the fresh air of the tea-garden to the drunkenness of the gin-palace—the temperance associated with the sylvan landscape of Sydenham, to the license of Cremorne?
No doubt there is another side to the picture. The event so much deprecated will unquestionably tend to induce many people to “break the Sabbath” who would not otherwise do so. This will especially be the case with the young, who will, to some extent, desert our Sunday-schools, as well as places of worship. But the anticipation of harm from this cause may be exaggerated. The attractions held out by the Crystal Palace do exist elsewhere, with others of a more baneful character, and you cannot suppress them but by a general act of legislation. If the number of pleasure-takers is increased, the influence for evil is diminished. The argument, too, is essentially vicious; for if its “superior attractions” is a reason for closing the Crystal Palace on Sunday, fine weather is to be deprecated on the same ground, and rain and fogs courted as the allies of church and school!
But the Crystal Palace Charter is menaced because it will rob the poor of their day of rest! If the poor were obliged to visit Sydenham on Sunday, there would be some force in the plea. But it is notoriously otherwise. Are not the hundreds and thousands who every Sunday crowd the outward-bound railway-carriage, steamboat, and omnibus, following their own inclination as much as the aristocracy who take their afternoon airing in Hyde Park, or the thousands who frequent their places of worship? What right, then, have the latter to dictate to the former how they shall spend the day of rest—or, unbidden, to constitute themselves the champions of the “poor man’s day?” May not the journals who hold such language be fairly called upon to produce their authority? If the working-classes object to the opening of the Crystal Palace, or to railway and steamboat travelling, on Sunday, they will refrain from using them; but so long as it is otherwise, nay, the reverse, religious men only injure the Christianity they profess, and assume the garb of hypocrites and intolerants, by pretending that the poor are thereby wronged, and calling upon the Crown to interfere for their protection.
Briefly to recapitulate the foregoing facts and arguments:—The Crystal Palace Company is a private speculation, not a public institution. They propose to open only their grounds and winter-garden on Sunday, and that but for half the day. This place of recreation, therefore, stands on much the same footing as Richmond or any other public park—being accessible to the masses by no other means than a conveyance—differing only in providing refreshment (exclusive of spirituous liquors) to its frequenters. It is untrue to assert that a Royal Charter will enable the Company to open their grounds—for the right exists independent of the Charter. Government, therefore, cannot be said to sanction “the desecration of the Sabbath”—being unable to prevent it. The State has no right to refuse a privilege on religious grounds, seeing that it is a purely civil institution, and bound to secure entire liberty of conscience; which is inconsistent with partiality to the views of any sect. To spend the Sabbath as a day of recreation does not clash with its definition as “a civil institution.” In exacting the shutting-up of the Sydenham grounds, Government would be acting inequitably, for other and worse pleasure-gardens are open on Sunday—inconsistently, for the grounds of Hampton Court Palace, which are national property, have been for some years accessible to the people with their express sanction. It would not, therefore, be a precedent for “the desecration of the Sabbath.” If the Crystal Palace is closed on that day by authority, all other places of recreation must be closed also—for you cannot have partial legislation on the subject. Such a general measure would be highly unjust and injurious, besides being impracticable. The much-deprecated event would not be likely to increase the irreligion or immorality of the people; for, although some few might be led to desert places of worship and neglect Sabbath privileges, by the superior attractions of the Sydenham Palace, many more would substitute its pleasures for those of a less elevating character, offered without restriction elsewhere; while the bulk of those who frequented it would not, in all probability, if it were entirely closed, “keep the Sabbath” in the sense of these alarmists. The day of rest can only be a period of spiritual profit to those who value it for that purpose. To impose its religious observances upon those who do not, is to promote hypocrisy, not piety. For the religious world, confessedly a minority, to seek to impose, by State interference, their notions of what constitutes a day of rest upon the bulk of their fellow-countrymen, is intolerant—an act of coercion at variance with the first principles of Christianity. There is good reason for believing that the cause of morality, and therefore of religion, will, with the present tendencies of the metropolitan working-classes, decidedly gain by the opening of the Sydenham pleasure-grounds. It will be no more harmful than free access to the Parks. It will not rob the poor of their “day of rest,” because it is quite optional with them to go there; and, while they act as free agents, it may be presumed, that they spend the day as best suits their inclinations.
The Crystal Palace Company are well able to take care of themselves, nor does it form part of the plan of these pages to defend their cause. But the wholesale abuse which is heaped upon them is positively nauseating to the impartial observer, considering how far they have gone in attempting to meet religious scruples and prejudices.[15] The mingled rant and cant issuing from these professedly religious newspapers is extremely injurious to that Christianity in whose name they profess to speak. Sad would it be for religion if its holy claims were really associated with the untruthfulness these organs have uttered—and the more reason why those, who are jealous for the honour of their faith, should protest against its name being mixed up with the effusions of intemperate alarmists. From their spirit it might be thought that the Company had set the religious world at defiance, instead of shutting up for half the Sunday, closing the manufacturing and commercial portions of the building, and forbidding the sale of intoxicating drinks. If they are to blame, it is for conceding too much to prejudice. Nothing is gained by closing the grounds up to one o’clock—not even the good will of opponents. The principle which would allow them to be thrown open for half, would be equally valid to keep them open all, the day. At present, the arrangement is a mischievous compromise between devotion and recreation, and stamps the Sabbath on high authority with a continental character. It gives a wrong notion of godliness, bringing it into apparent antagonism to secular enjoyment—making one portion of the day a counterpoise to the other—fostering the delusion that religion is simply the observances of certain duties and attendance in a place of worship.
If there be any truth in this plain statement of facts and arguments, it follows that the agitation, being got up professedly to prevent the Crown from sanctioning the opening of the Crystal Palace on Sunday, is really directed against all places of recreation accessible to the public on that day. This, indeed, is the main drift of the declamatory appeals of its promoters. They are either agitating on false pretences, or covertly aiming at an object injurious to the liberties and welfare of the country. If that object were openly avowed, many timid friends of religious freedom who indulge certain vague fears of the increase of “Sabbath desecration,” would shrink from supporting it. In either case, the leaders prove their unfitness to be the guides of opinion. Want of candour, fairness, and truthfulness, are doubly worthy of exposure and condemnation when exhibited in connexion with the name of Christianity. Religion suffers enough from open foes, without the need for injuries from professed friends. Hence, because they are jealous of its true character, because anxious to vindicate its purity and self-sustaining efficiency, it becomes the followers of Christ to protest against this movement. The very fact that they agree to a great extent in the religious views of the agitators in question, and sincerely desire to see the Sabbath valued by all men as an opportunity for spiritual culture and enjoyment, is an additional reason why they should repudiate the sentiments uttered, and the course pursued, under the banner of their faith. The alarmists may rely upon it, that there are many more followers of Christian truth than the writer of these pages, who have no sympathy with that intolerance which would coerce others into their convictions and their method of “keeping” the Sabbath, and who observe, with pain and indignation, the attempt of misguided, though perhaps conscientious, men, to originate a crusade against the Sunday recreations of the people.
It is scarcely possible to discuss this particular topic without the mind being directed to the general question—of which it is only an offshoot— the position assumed by religious men in relation to the world at large, especially to the masses. A few considerations on this momentous subject may appropriately and usefully be thrown out in connexion with the foregoing arguments.
It may be at once stated, that there is no intention of entering into any argument with the believers in the efficacy of a State-appointed religion and priesthood. Those who encourage this practical infidelity to the truths of Christianity—whose principles would have obliged Christ to exclaim, “My kingdom is of this world”—are, doubtless, doing no violence to their views in calling upon Government to insist upon “the bitter observance of the Sabbath,” and to enforce upon Jews, Infidels, and Mahomedans, outward conformity to the State religion.
But it does so happen that many who are in bondage to this intolerant principle, do, nevertheless, somehow or other, acknowledge the transforming influence of Christian truth upon the individual heart, and are at one, in their religious convictions, with the open adherents of the voluntary principle. To this united body of what are usually designated “Evangelical Christians,” the question may fairly be put—whether they are pursuing that line of policy towards the world which is best adapted to bring the world over to their views?