Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

9 articles on this Page





OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. THE HOUSE OF LORDS ON RITUALISM. We think that, on the whole, the House of Lords has taken a sound view of the Ritualist question. The e peers, spiritual as well as temporal, have come to the reasonable conclusion that before Parliament declares I the law it should know what the law is. This discovery, it is fair to assume", will be made by the Royal Com- mission, and a clear majority of. the Upper House has determined that dignity and propriety alike require an adjournment of the debate until the Crown shall lay the report of the Commissioners before Parliament. Hasty legislation, on ex parte allegations and individual researches into ecclesiastical history, will never secure the end in view, which is the harmony of the Church and the prevention of abuses by the adoption of measures based on the broadest and most certain ground. A few months more or less of license or liberty to the Ritual- ists can do small harm, in comparison with the mischief that might spring from the enactment of an impulsive and imperfect" bill. To legislate pending inquiry is opposed to our practice, and there is less evil in allow- ing a grievance to wait for a remedy than in violating a rule of sound policy and fair play.-Telegraph. Whether, however, this I control of influence at Oxford and Cambridge be practicable or not, there is one remark made by the Bishop of London with which we cordially agree. 'I do not believe,' he said, that mere Acts of Parliament, however carefully prepared, can cure the evil.' Again 'My knowledge of young men leads me to suppose that an Act of Parliament will never control their opinions.' This being so, we are rather surprised that his lordship supported Lord Shaftesbury's measure. As a fact, young men, at that period of life when the intellect is unsettled by every new enthusiasm, are likely to be confirmed in any extravagance which takes possession of them by Acts of Parliament, or other strong measures. Rigorous legis- lation would appear tyrannical, would embitter the minds of those with whom it interfered, and might very possibly send over to the Church of Rome a whole batta- lion of young curates whom another lustvum will trans- form into sensible members of the Church of England. Hence we hold that the House of Lords has wisely de- cided to postpone the consideration of this ditlicult topic. Meanwhile, a Royal Commission will issue: and Lord Derby is doubtless right in saying that, from the calm deliberations of such a body we are more likely to obtain a settlement of the limits of the law, than if Lord Shaftesbury's Bill were to be sent down to the House of Commons, there to form the subject of exciting debate. The Obybe. SUNDAY TRADING BILL. We cannot but agree, moreover, with Mr. Walpole, who "feels very little confidence in any legislation upon the subject of Sunday trading." So long as the demand exists, any law on the subject will be more or less evaded.; It is to be feared, in fact, that if a law be really necessary to repress Sunday trading it must prove ineffectual. The custom of the people in these social matters is neither made nor altered by legislation, but the custom of observing the Sunday as a day of rest was certainly never more firmly established. As was observed yesterday, the Saturday half-holiday is be- coming universal, and the poor obtain every year more facilities for resting on Sunday. it, is evident from the debate that every one is anxious to support the obser- vance of Sunday as a day of rest, for the sake of its advantages as a secular institution but whether for this purpose legislation be necessary, and, if necessary, what form it ought to take, are questions of considerable difficulty. This bill will obviously be very roughly handled in committee, and even then the House will do well to be cautious before they finally adopt it.-The Times. The chief objections which may be taken to the mea- sure will probably be based on its exceptional character, and on its pressure on a particular class. The upper and the middle classes do not shop on Sunday, and it will not make a pin's point difference to them whether the bill becomes law or not. It is the lower—and, we may add, the lowest-classes which will be exclusively affected. We have already noticed one of the specific objections which will be raised, and which will rest on the indisputable fact that Sunday is not only the most convenient day for them to shop, but almost the only day on which they have money to shop with. It might, therefore, be worthy of consideration whether, in excep- tional cases, the sale of non-perishable articles should be permitted until nine o'clock on Sunday morning. With- in the metropolitan districts there are nearly 100,000 persons engaged in Sunday trading, and the majority of these desire the passing of such a bill as the present one. A deputation waited on Mr. Walpole, on Tuesday, with a memorial signed by 20,000 tradesmen, praying the Government to give their support to the measure. But, in truth, such manifestations are unnecessary, because so far as regards those who under the existing system are kept in constant employment literally from week's end to week's end, they must necessarily desire to be liberated from their present thraldom. The only question is, whether there is any necessity for permitting trading on Sunday as at present openly carried on. There can be no doubt that no such necessity exists, and we therefore hope that Mr. Hughes may succeed in carrying his bill through its final stages.—Morning Post-,


[No title]



[No title]