and difficulty started there as an unanswerable argument against religion, and would go home absolute sceptics, if not confirmed unbelievers. Thus, as the Promenade tended to destroy every moral sentiment, the Theological Assemblies were calculated to extinguish every religious principle; and both together threatened the worst consequences to public morals. "It was therefore highly necessary to put a speedy and effectual stop to such alarming evils. I mentioned it early in the winter to several persons of rank and authority, and waited a considerable time in the hope, that some one of more weight and influence than myself would have stood forth on this occasion. But the Session being now far advanced, and finding no one inclined to take the matter up, it became absolutely necessary to do something; something; and I therefore resolved to try what my own exertions would do. I first consulted several eminent lawyers, as well as the principal acting magistrates in Westminster, in order to know, whether either the statute or the common law, as they now stood, was sufficient to check this evil. They all assured me that both were insufficient, and that nothing but an Act of Parliament, framed on purpose, could effectually suppress it. In consequence of this opinion, I applied to, a legal friend, and with his assistance got a proper Bill sketched out, which I afterwards shewed to Lord Bathurst, President of the Council, and to Sir John Skinner, Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer; and it was afterwards communicated to the Lord Chancellor Thurlow, and Lord Mansfield. After it had received their approbation, I applied to the Soli citor General, Mr. Mansfield, who undertook to move it in the House of Commons; and Sir William Dolben agreed to second it. This they did on the 3d of May 1781, and the Bill was intitled, 'An Act for preventing certain Abuses ' and Profanations on the Lord's Day, commonly called Sunday.' It was violently opposed in its different stages through the House by several members, particularly Mr. Wilkes; but it passed without a division. On the second reading of the Bill in the House of Lords, it was opposed principally by the Duke of Manchester, who thought that there were not sufficient proofs of the mischievous tendency of the Sunday evening amusements. The subjects of this kingdom,’ he said, should be left at perfect liberty to confer upon religious subjects without control: and he did not believe that there there was any thing improper either in the Promenade or the Societies. In his apprehension they were perfectly innocent: but, even if the fact were otherwise, there were laws already in force sufficient to restrain them; and there was no necessity to add to the number of our penal statutes, already sufficiently nu merous.' "In answer to this, I observed, that although there was no evidence at the bar, to prove the allegations of the preamble, which in a public Bill, and in a matter of such notoriety, I conceived was seldom, if ever required; yet there were the very best grounds for believing the pernicious tendency of the Sunday evening amusements to be much greater than the preamble stated. I had conversed with many persons, who had themselves been present in these places, and was was perfectly satisfied that they were highly dangerous in every point of view. But, even without entering into their interior constitution and consequences, I could not but think that the very external appearance of them on the Lord's Day, was an offence against common decency, and the most antient and venerable customs of this country. They were places of public amusement opened on a Sunday. They were publicly advertised; were in a public room; money was publicly taken at the door, and that for the avowed purpose of public amusement. This, I apprehended, was the very definition of a public diversion; and it was notorious, that public diversions had never been permitted by the laws of the land in this kingdom, from the time of the Reformation to the present moment, and I hoped they never would. In |