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 matter