Popish countries they were indeed permitted, though even there they were condemned by many serious men; for a friend of mine, Dr. Lort, in the year 1768, saw an injunction or admonition of the Archbishop of Mechlin, in one of the towns under his jurisdiction, in which he complained heavily of the liberties taken by the people on Sundays, and spoke in high terms of the conduct of the Heretics, that is, the Protestants, in that respect. But, however these indulgences might suit the spirit of Popery, they did not accord with the temper of Protestantism. They were contrary to the spirit of our constitution; contrary to the spirit of our laws and our religion. They were new invasions of the sanctity of the Lord's Day, and had never been heard of in this country till within these The different method of

few years.

observing

observing Sunday in England and in foreign countries, was one great mark of distinction between the Church of England and the Church of Rome, and it was a distinction which I hoped never to see abolished. It was not my wish to go to the Church of Rome to know in what manner Sunday ought to be observed in England. I was therefore for resisting these dangerous innovations in the very beginning. If they were not crushed at their very outset, it was impossible to say how far they might go. If the Legislature suffered them to pass at first without notice, their Lordships

must not imagine the

stop where it now is.

mischief would

The places of

entertainment lately opened for the Sunday evening, were only the beginnings of a regular plan to introduce Sunday diversions into this kingdom; they are only

trials and experiments to feel the way, and to see how the Government will bear such violations of decency; and if the proprietors of these places find that they are perfectly secure, they will very soon take care to have fresh amusements for every hour of the Sunday, even for those which ought to be spent in the celebration of divine worship. Unless therefore their Lordships were prepared to say, that public diversions ought to be allowed in this country, they must resist this artful attempt to introduce them under the specious name of a Promenade, and the sacred plea of religion.

"It has been said, indeed, that this Bill is a restraint upon religious liberty. It is no such thing. It restrains no one from professing that mode of religion, and joining in that form of public worship, which his conscience best approves.

It restrains no one from speaking, conversing, or writing upon religious subjects. It imposes no other restraint than this, which is surely no very great hardship, that no one shall either pay or be paid for talking blasphemy or profaneness in a public room on the Lord's Day. It takes away, in short, no other liberty, but the liberty of burlesquing Scripture, and making religion a public amusement, and a public trade, which I was inclined to think their Lordships would not consider essential marks of religious freedom."

A division then took place on the commitment of the Bill, which was carried by a majority of 26; and it afterwards passed without further opposition.

In this manner did the Bishop, by his own energy and perseverance, carry through Parliament an Act, which by its judicious

judicious provisions effectually checked a most wicked and licentious system, calculated to produce the worst consequences to religion and to public morals. There were many difficulties in the way, which would have staggered, as in fact they did stagger, ordinary minds. But his was not of that stamp. He saw them all, and surmounted them. He stood alone against a crying evil, and succeeded. It was the opinion indeed of Lord Mansfield at the time, that the Bill, though in itself a good one, would soon be evaded. But contrary to the sentiments of that great lawyer the very reverse has been the case. It has completely answered its object; and from the period of its passing into a law no attempts have been made, in the same way at least, to profane and desecrate the Christian Sabbath.