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.
LIQUIDATION OF DEBTS ON CHAPELS.
To the Editor of the Baptist Magazine.