diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/63753-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/63753-0.txt | 1087 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 1087 deletions
diff --git a/old/63753-0.txt b/old/63753-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 88ee268..0000000 --- a/old/63753-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,1087 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook, A Second Letter on the late Post Office -Agitation, by Charles John Vaughan - - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - - - - -Title: A Second Letter on the late Post Office Agitation - - -Author: Charles John Vaughan - - - -Release Date: November 14, 2020 [eBook #63753] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - - -***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A SECOND LETTER ON THE LATE POST -OFFICE AGITATION*** - - -Transcribed from the 1850 John Murray edition by David Price - - - - - - A - SECOND LETTER - ON THE LATE - POST OFFICE AGITATION. - - - BY - - CHARLES JOHN VAUGHAN, D.D. - - HEAD MASTER OF HARROW SCHOOL, AND LATE FELLOW OF - TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE. - - * * * * * - - LONDON: - JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET: - CROSSLEY, HARROW. - - MDCCCL. - - * * * * * - - LONDON: PRINTED BY W. NICOL, SHAKSPEARE PRESS, PALL MALL. - - * * * * * - - - - -A SECOND LETTER, &c. - - -MY DEAR SIR, {1} - -It has been satisfactory to me to receive, from many excellent and -well-informed persons, assurances of their entire concurrence in the -sentiments of my former Letter. I am neither surprised nor alarmed to -find myself assailed, in other quarters, by loud and severe -animadversions. You, Sir, have occupied an intermediate ground. You are -too well aware of the particular circumstances which occasioned my -letter, to accuse me of a gratuitous interference in a wearisome and -unthankful controversy. Your strictures, therefore, are confined to some -particular points in my argument, which you regard as requiring further -elucidation. And you urge me, not so much for your own satisfaction as -for that of others, to take the same opportunity of clearing away some -misapprehensions to which, in the judgment of persons unacquainted with -my opinions, my former Letter may have been exposed. - -Half, and more than half, the arguments of my Reviewers would have been -felt by themselves to be irrelevant, if they had taken the trouble to -observe the circumstances under which my Letter was written. It was not -to the general question of the observance of the Sunday, nor even of the -extent to which it may be right that the Post Office should observe it, -that my remarks were directed. The question before me was this. I am -urged, as an act of religious duty, to protest against a particular Order -of the Government. I am told, in the most sacred place, that a -particular Regulation of the London Post Office is to be regarded no less -as an affront to religion, and a violation of the rights of conscience, -than as an infraction of the liberties of England. An examination of the -question leads me to an opposite conclusion. I believe that the measure -thus stigmatized will, so far as it extends, promote rather than impede -the interests of religion, will, on the whole, facilitate rather than -interfere with the attendance of that class which it concerns upon the -ordinances of worship, while it leaves untouched those wider and more -general considerations which would involve, if seriously and consistently -entertained, a revolution in the management of the whole department. I -refuse, therefore, to protest. I refuse to assert, what I see no reason -to believe, that the national observance of the Lord’s Day will suffer -from this particular modification of an existing system. I refuse to -assert, what I think it a most unchristian malignancy to suspect, that -the object of this new Regulation was that which is disavowed and -repudiated by its authors. I cannot discover in it an insidious but -resolute attack upon the holy ordinance of the Christian Sunday. It -would have been in me an act of ridiculous affectation to express an -alarm in which I did not participate; or to remonstrate against a measure -of detail, by way of expressing a principle which was not at issue. So -far, however, my duty was but negative. It was discharged by refusing my -signature. Nor was it until I heard that refusal (which had ultimately -proved sufficiently general to defeat the remonstrance altogether) -commented upon afterwards, from the pulpit, in terms, to say the least, -of grave disapprobation, that it ever occurred to me to vindicate myself -and others from a suspicion of indifference or of timidity, by a -statement of the real nature and object of the measure thus impugned. - -It was enough, therefore, for my own vindication, enough, I repeat, to -justify my refusal to protest, to show that the mere transmission of -letters through the London Post Office on the Sunday, taken in connection -with its avowed object on the one hand, and with its concomitant measures -of relief on the other, was not that affront to religion, that -disparagement of Divine ordinances, which alone could necessitate the -interposition of a Christian nation for its discomfiture. This was the -object of my Letter. This object, steadily kept in view, necessarily -confined my argument within narrow limits, and excluded many topics of -discussion to which the opponents of the measure would gladly divert our -attention. - -For example, a Clerical antagonist, {5a} for whose character and evident -sincerity I entertain great respect,—and whose name, as he well knows, is -enough to secure for him at my hands a degree of forbearance and courtesy -which he would think it a dereliction of duty to reciprocate,—complains -that I have not enunciated in my Letter any positive opinions of my own -as to the grounds of the observance of the Lord’s Day. {5b} To supply -this deficiency, he has had recourse to my published Sermons; and, -selecting from a Sermon preached on a particular occasion an incidental -notice of the question, continues his complaint that there also my -language on this subject is vague and unsatisfactory. I can direct him, -if a time of unwonted leisure should ever permit him to avail himself of -the reference, to three consecutive Discourses on the Lord’s Day, -contained in a volume of Parochial Sermons, published four years ago, in -which I have entered fully into the discussion, and expressed myself in -language to which I still heartily subscribe. You, my dear Sir, will not -require to be informed, that there, as everywhere, I have spoken of the -Lord’s Day, as every Christian man must speak and think of it, with -veneration, with thankfulness, with an earnest and watchful jealousy for -its honour. The Author of the “Reply” would have expressed himself, -doubtless, in language more eloquent and more impressive, but he could -scarcely have used any more decisive as to his own convictions, than that -in which the national observance of the Sunday is there enforced. For -his information, not for yours, I quote the sentences which follow. {7} - - Finally, I would desire to press upon you the responsibility under - which the possession of such an ordinance places us, whether we will - hear or whether we will forbear. A responsibility to God—for which - we must, each and all of us, give account to Him that is ready to - judge the quick and the dead. But a responsibility also to our - country, and to generations yet perhaps to come. Other nations once - had this privilege of a Christian Sabbath; but they have almost or - utterly sinned it away. They neglected and abused it, till God took - away, by a just retribution, almost the very name of His day from - amongst them. There are countries in Christendom, in which Sunday is - known almost only as a day of amusement or of common business. - England too may one day be brought to this state, unless our - responsibilities are better remembered than they are now. Let us, at - all events, so honour this holy day ourselves, that our children may - inherit it from us as one of the most precious of all the gifts of - God. “If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.” - -If any later expression of my opinions be demanded by the anxious -vigilance of my inquisitor, let me add a short passage from a Sermon -preached to a more youthful congregation on the Sunday before my Letter -was written. {8a} - - And shall we, a later, but certainly not a holier generation, despise - and tread underfoot a gift so gracious? {8b} Shall we thanklessly - weigh and measure the amount of observance by which we may avoid - condemnation in the use of it? Shall we either count it a weekly - burden, a deprivation of one seventh part of life’s legitimate - enjoyments; or else turn it from a day of heavenly into one of - earthly pleasure, and, because we dare not openly secularize it, - presume to nullify it altogether? My brethren, be wiser: wiser as to - your own good, wiser as to your own happiness. Be assured that a - wasted Sunday is the precursor of a sinful or an unhappy week. Be - assured, on the other hand, that He whose gift it is—a gift of love - unspeakable, even of that love which laid down life for us—will make - it a happy as well as a profitable day, to all who accept it as His - gift, and use it for the purpose of growing in the knowledge and love - of its Giver. - -I have thus far followed the guidance of the Author of the Reply into a -field which I still maintain to be foreign to the subject. I owe it to -myself, and to the office with which I am entrusted, to leave no room for -doubt as to my opinions on so serious a question of duty, even at the -risk of embarrassing for the moment a discussion which lies properly in a -narrower compass. But the concession, so far as I am concerned, shall -end here. I assumed, throughout my Letter, that the national observance -of the Sunday is a solemn and sacred duty. But we may surely be allowed -to discuss the objects and probable results of a particular change in the -working of the London Post Office, without obtruding upon our readers the -enquiry whether the Lord’s Day is identical with the Jewish Sabbath, -whether the sanctity of the Christian Sunday is derived from the Law or -from the Gospel, from “the letter which killeth” or “the spirit that -giveth life.” If indeed I were one of those who believe every enactment -of the Mosaic Sabbath to be of rigid and perpetual authority, and who yet -do and exact on that day, without scruple or remorse, acts which, if so, -are worthy of death; or if, while admitting the lawfulness, on that day, -for an individual or for a family, of works neither of mercy, strictly -speaking, nor of necessity, but only of _extreme convenience_, (and what -more can be said in defence of many of those domestic arrangements with -which, I imagine, even the Author of the Reply, even on the Sunday, can -scarcely dispense?) I yet denied the possibility of a _nations_ having -any such household duties as even the arrival of the Lord’s Day must -rather modify than supersede; if I regarded it as a plain and obvious sin -for a nation, under any circumstances, to suffer any one of its officers -to do any portion of his common work on its holy day; if, in short, I -regarded the question as thus foreclosed, by a plain and unequivocal -revelation of the Divine will, excluding the consideration of motives, of -circumstances, of consequences, altogether;—then certainly, sharing my -opponent’s principles, I might have used, with more or less of his -severity, something at least of his language; though, even then, I trust -I might have possessed sufficient discernment to distinguish between a -question of principle, and a question of detail; sufficient respect for -the understandings, and regard for the consistency, of my neighbours, to -have invited them to a protest rather against the permission of any -Sunday work in any Post Office, than against a particular adjustment of -that burden to which some had always been subjected. - -There is another region, besides, into which I must resolutely refuse to -follow my opponent; the region of personalities. He is evidently an -adept in the occult science of _motives_. He speaks, with the irritation -of a baffled magician, of any one whose spirit he cannot discern. He -confesses that I have puzzled him. He is unwilling to suspect one -motive, unable to impute another. The question is left doubtful. {11a} -But it is otherwise with Mr. Rowland Hill. He lies helplessly open to -the dissecting knife of the operator. And with unflinching severity is -it applied. {11b} Hostility to the Sabbath, enmity against -religion—these are visibly his principles. All else is a veil, a cloke, -a mask. When he speaks of desiring rest on the Sunday for his -subordinates, he means labour. When he prefaces his Minute with the -profession of regard for the Sunday, he speaks but to deceive, and smiles -(_vainly_ smiles, says my Reviewer) at the easy credulity of his victims. -{12} When he not only promises, but effects, a measure of undeniable -relief,—the discontinuance, for example, of a second Sunday -delivery,—this is only to disguise his restless spirit of antichristian -malignity, that he may proceed, more covertly, but not less surely, to -his real object, the annihilation of an ordinance of God. - -I am not the apologist of Mr. Rowland Hill. I know him only, as all the -world knows him, as the originator and accomplisher of one of the boldest -and most beneficial of all the achievements of modern civilization. It -will require more than mere assertion, to attach to his name those odious -imputations which it is necessary for the impugners of the late change to -suggest and to foster. And what, after all, are the grounds on which -such imputations rest? Mr. Rowland Hill, says the _Record_, was a -Director of a Railway which refused Return tickets extending from -Saturday to Monday, and thus compelled its passengers to travel on the -Sunday. {13a} Mr. Rowland Hill, says the Author of the Reply, is an -officer of that department of the Government, which is notorious above -all others for its desecration of the Sabbath: {13b} a department of the -Government, we may add, so beyond all others unfortunate, that to it -alone is denied the possibility of self-reformation, and every effort -after amendment is branded by anticipation as hypocrisy and imposture. - -My antagonist is fond of recurring to first principles. When he was -engaged, some years ago, in what he now denominates “the easy and -pleasant task” {13c} of a somewhat similar controversy with a very -different Correspondent, {13d} he constructed for that Gentleman, in a -catechetical form, a sort of _Rudimenta Minora_ of Theology, {13e} -adapted to what he conceived to be the extent of his religious -attainments. Starting from the immortality of the soul, he descended, by -stages judiciously graduated, to a humbler and more practical -question—the Sunday labours of the Bath Post Office. For me, a somewhat -more advanced pupil, he has drawn up a series—indeed two series {14}—of -rather less elementary propositions, ending with this revolting (though -certainly unquestionable) truism, “That it is better for sixty thousand -letters to be burned, unopened, than for one Post Office Clerk to perish -in hell for ever.” Now, if I might be permitted to assume for a moment -an office which my opponent appears to regard as peculiarly his own, that -of a theological preceptor of adults, I would start, like him, from some -elementary axiom, such as the authority of Revelation, or the Inspiration -of the Bible, and, leading him, by an easy train of reasoning, through a -few brief truisms on the properties of Christian charity, I should not -despair of gaining his acquiescence at last in this singularly startling -paradox, That it is the duty of every Christian to believe his -neighbour’s word until it is proved to be false, and to put upon his -conduct, not the least but the most favourable construction of which it -is reasonably capable. Tried by this test, the personalities of this -question would be scattered to the winds. It might remain to be -considered, whether in the measure of the Government there had been -anything of mistake or miscalculation; whether their hopes had been too -sanguine, or their assertions too positive; but for imputations of -malignant design, of intentional deception, no place whatever could have -been found. - -When the opponents of a measure turn aside from the consideration of its -inherent merits, to that of the secret motives and intentions of its -author, the attempt injures their cause far more than the success of the -attempt could aid it. No man would resort to such an argument, till all -else had been exhausted. And if unhappily such outrages upon common -honour and morality be excused, as here, by the plea of zeal for -religion, it is well if the cause of religion itself do not suffer by its -association with practices so unworthy. - -But even upon the merits of the case my Reviewers are ready to join -issue. I am accused of the grossest ignorance of the facts involved in -the discussion. The _Record_, refraining with an unwonted tenderness -from the imputation of a more corrupt motive, or unwilling to expend upon -a less formidable enemy any portion of that artillery which must be -reserved entire for the devoted head of Mr. Rowland Hill, is contented to -represent me as “a respectable man, occupied for the last three months in -reading nothing but the _Times_,” and an instructive example of the -pernicious influence of its “suppressions.” {16} Now, if the burden of -this charge is a preference of the _Times_ to the _Record_ as a channel -of political information, I must plead guilty. But, if it be intended, -as the context implies, that I borrowed from that or any other Newspaper -the statements of facts contained in my Letter, I can only reply that the -charge is false. Not one assertion is there made, which was not obtained -by explicit information from what every candid enquirer would regard as -the most authentic source. I do not for one moment hesitate to confess -that I regard an official Government return as better evidence on a -question of fact than the irresponsible publications of a “Lord’s Day -Society.” If the latter informs me that “the new Sabbath labour already -employs a considerably larger number of men on the Sabbath than was -professed by Mr. Hill’s Minute;” and if I learn from what I must regard -as higher authority that the amount of extra-work to be done on Sundays -in the London Office will, in all probability, be very shortly reduced to -the employment of _six_ persons, and may ultimately be accomplished even -without _any_ such addition, nay, with an actual _diminution_ of the -original number; while, at the same time, more than one hundred and -ninety persons, who have hitherto performed regular work on Sundays, are -set entirely free, within the London District itself; can I hesitate -which to follow? - -But, on other points, the conflict of evidence is less real than nominal. -The Society for Promoting the Observance of the Lord’s Day has forwarded -to me a table of returns from its Secretaries and Correspondents, showing -the hours of labour in seventy-three Country Post Offices, both before -and since the recent Order. It is there stated, that, “putting together -all these seventy-three Post Towns, the aggregate number of additional -hours for which the Post Offices are now closed, does not exceed one -hundred and ten hours, being on an average one hour and a half for each -place.” Even in that document are contained the names of several Towns -in which the relief thus afforded has amounted to four hours of -additional rest on the Sunday. But I will allow, for argument’s sake, -the entire correctness of their calculations. In seventy-three Country -Post Offices the average of relief amounts but to one hour and a half. -The Government, in the meantime, has received returns, not from -seventy-three, but from upwards of four hundred and eighty Towns, in -which the amount of relief has varied from one half-hour to seven hours -on the Sunday, and the average has amounted to between three and four -hours. Where is the real inconsistency of these statements? The Lord’s -Day Society, on a much smaller induction, and with materials (it may be) -carefully selected, arrives at one result; the Government, on larger and -less partial information, presents another. But in this case again, I -ask, can I doubt for one moment which to follow? - -You express some hesitation as to the justice of one statement contained -in my Letter, that the new Regulation involves no change of principle. -{19a} You consider that the attendance on Sunday in the London Post -Office, whatever its extent, has been hitherto private and unnoticed, -whereas in future it will be public and notorious. Nor can I deny that -the publicity which has been given to the subject by the recent agitation -has attracted to the proceedings of the Post Office a degree of public -attention to which they were never before exposed. But the distinction -you draw, though I understand it, seems to me somewhat arbitrary. The -attendance of the twenty-six {19b} will _henceforth_, at all events, be -as notorious as that of the twenty-five, {20a} or the six. {20b} -Henceforth, at all events, the two objects of Sunday attendance will be -separated by no such line of distinction. If the one does not involve -publicity, does not constitute what can fairly be called an opening of -the London Post Office, neither will the other. The Public will have no -admission. The London Public will be unaffected by the change. As far -as London is concerned, the Office will still be closed. If the former -attendance was not enough to open it, the present Regulation, when the -tumult of this agitation has once subsided, will work no less privately. -If it is otherwise now, whose fault is it? - -The Author of the Reply, with singular inconsistency, has thus disposed -of this part of the question. “The Office in London has been considered -as uniformly at rest, and always spoken of as such by both parties, the -slight exceptions being not of a nature to be cited honestly against that -position.” {20c} Slight exceptions! Is this the same hand which penned -the ninth axiom? {21a} Twenty-six Post Office clerks, involved in perils -such as he has painted, a slight exception, not of a nature to be cited -honestly! Why then the twenty-five, or the six, or the gradually -vanishing number, of _additional_ clerks required by the new measure? - -Again, you can see no obvious connection between the additional Sunday -labour in London and the additional Sunday rest in the country Offices. -Is it fair, you ask, to append to a measure of relief a condition of an -opposite kind? You would be the last man in the world, I well know, to -impute to me (even as “an elegant close to a period” {21b}) the horrid -and impious crime of “striking a balance with Jehovah” by “offering Him a -lesser sin instead of a greater.” {21c} You would not call it a sin in -one member of a family to endeavour to lighten the Sunday labour of -another by the sacrifice of a portion of his own Sunday leisure. You -would not call it a violation of the consciences of others, or an -exchange of sin for sin, if the Master of a family proposed to his -servants such an equalization of their Sunday employments. And on the -same principle, if there be any connection between Sunday work in London -and Sunday relief in the country, I cannot admit for one moment that it -is a sin to propose to a clerk in the London Post Office the discharge of -a duty which shall lighten the work elsewhere, not of one, but of tens -and perhaps hundreds, of his fellow-servants; and this, without -forfeiting for himself the opportunity of attending Divine service twice -on the Lord’s Day, with all comfort and quietness, and with leisure, -besides, for reflection and repose. {22a} Are domestic servants, to -speak generally, even in Christian families, in a more favourable -position than this for their religious welfare? The Author of the Reply -objects to these “national” views of the question. With him, “national” -is the opposite of “scriptural” and “spiritual.” {22b} He can see -nothing but the individual; the “one Post Office clerk.” He would deny -the applicability to a nation of the command to “bear one another’s -burdens.” What in a family would be virtues, in a wider sphere are sins. - -Your view, I am persuaded, is not thus microscopic. You will grant the -conclusion, if the premises are established. Your only doubt is as to -the effect of the labour here upon the labour there. The Government have -coupled the burden and the relief; but is there any real and natural -connection? It was the object of my Letter to indicate, chiefly by -references to Mr. Hill’s Minute, the existence of this connection. I -will not repeat now the obvious statement that the cessation of the -Sunday detention of letters in London will obviate at once those -circuitous methods of communication by which the detention was formerly -evaded, and Sunday labour, in various ways, materially increased. {23} I -will rather select the point to which you particularly direct my -attention. And I would show you, as briefly as possible, the operation -of the new Order in diminishing the amount of letters delivered and read, -written and posted, in the country on the Sunday. {24} - -Under the old system, the average number of letters passing through the -London Office was greater by six per cent. on Saturday than on other -days. Why? Because it was known that the following was a blank post. -If not transmitted before Sunday, they must wait in London throughout -that day. Now the augmentation of letters passing through London on -Saturday caused an augmentation of letters delivered and read in the -country on Sunday. The effect of the new Regulation is at least to -obviate this _excess_, and to reduce the Sunday morning delivery in the -country to the measure of an ordinary day. The labours of sorting and of -distribution will be diminished obviously to a proportionate extent. - -Again, the average number of letters passing through London on Monday was -greater, not by six, but by twenty-five per cent., than on other days. -Such letters must have been posted in the country either on Saturday -evening or on Sunday. But Saturday evening, under the old system, was in -most Towns a blank post time. Sunday, therefore, was the day to which -the excess was to be attributed. The knowledge that letters posted on -Saturday evening would lie in London till the Monday, led to a very -general habit of either writing, or at least posting, letters on the -Sunday. The latter habit, equally with the former, involved a -corresponding increase of the Sunday labours of the country Offices. -Under the present system, the temptation to prefer Sunday for either -purpose is removed. Saturday now offers equal advantages with any other -day for sending letters from the country through London. In the same -degree, the burdens of the country Offices on Sunday are lightened: the -_excess_, at least, of those burdens, a marked and heavy excess, above -those of common days, is effectually removed. And, beyond this, the -religious feeling which leads so many to shrink from such an employment -of the Lord’s Day cannot but operate in diminishing the Sunday -occupations (in this respect) of the country Offices even _below_ those -of other days. Of the actual result, the relief actually experienced in -the provincial Offices, I have before spoken. {26} And it is the -cessation of the Sunday detention—in other words, the introduction of a -Sunday transmission through London—to which, as you have seen, the -result, whatever it be, is strictly and wholly due. - -I believe that a similar examination of other details would establish -with equal certainty this connection of cause and effect between the -Regulation itself and the beneficial result. But, were it otherwise, is -it a reasonable demand that the connection between the different sections -of the new Order should be, in every point, capable of mathematical -demonstration? Is every complex measure to be stigmatized as a fraud, -because its component parts, however perfect their harmony, do not arise -out of each other by a logical sequence? Might not even an apparently -extraneous appendage (though I am far from regarding this as a just -description of any part of the present Regulation) be accepted as at -least an indication of the spirit and object of the framer? - -There is yet another point, which has left on your mind, as on that of -others, an unfavourable impression. The attendance of the additional -Clerks on Sunday in the London Post Office is voluntary. In other words, -a man whose conscience forbids him to attend on the Sunday shall not -forfeit his situation by refusal. Does this imply, on the part of the -Government, any mis-giving as to the lawfulness of the duties proposed? -It merely recognizes the possibility of such scruples, and extends to -them the amplest toleration. That there _are_ men who would think such -attendance wrong, is a matter of fact: the Government tolerates, though -it does not share, the opinion, and would prevent its operating harshly -upon the fortunes of the conscientious recusant. How loud an outcry, -from the very same quarters, would have followed a system of -_compulsion_, may be inferred from the strange contradiction which -“closes a period” in the “Reply.” “He must be a very prejudiced man who -calls the poor clerk a voluntary agent in the matter, when he is enticed -by a bribe, which his small salary makes an irresistible temptation, or -compelled by the fear of the loss of his only means of subsistence.” {28} -“The poor clerk” is not threatened with the loss of his subsistence: that -he is not, was urged just now against the authors of the measure as a -proof of conscious guilt or weakness. - -But is it not, you ask, too strong a temptation to a man of infirm -religious principles, to offer him a reward for Sunday labour? Can you -expect him to resist the “bribe?” And if afterwards this voluntary -labour should lie heavily on his conscience, how could you justify to -yourself your own share in his transgression? Now, if the act proposed -be in itself, and of necessity, a sin; if no consideration of motives or -circumstances can justify the occupation of any portion of the Sunday in -the most urgent of worldly concerns; he, certainly, is deeply guilty, who -proposes it, even with an alternative, to the choice of his neighbour. -But, if this be one of those questions on which God’s Word leaves scope, -within certain limits, for the exercise of an individual judgment; if, in -reducing to practical detail the admitted duty of a religious observance -of the Sunday, one man may conscientiously approve what another no less -conscientiously condemns, and it remains only that “every man be fully -persuaded in his own mind;” then the demand made by this Regulation upon -the candour and courage of those to whom it offers the work and the -wages, is no greater than that which must daily be encountered by all who -labour for their own bread, and would do so in the fear of God. To none -does it propose, as the Author of the Reply would lead us to imagine, the -surrender of religious instruction and worship, the abandonment of all -opportunity of serious meditation, or the devotion of the Lord’s Day to -the service of a “godless or thoughtless multitude.” {29a} On the -contrary, the possibility of such profanation, within the precincts to -which its authority extends, the Order in question expressly and -peremptorily precludes. {29b} - -There remains, however, on the minds of many, an impression, scarcely -affected by the most conclusive reply to individual objections, that the -result, if not the object, of the late alteration will be a delivery of -letters on the Sunday in London. Hitherto, it is said, the merchants of -London have enjoyed, and have thought themselves entitled to enjoy, an -advantage in this respect over the merchants of Bristol or of Liverpool. -Letters arriving in London on the Sunday were in their possession at a -far earlier hour on the Monday than that at which they could reach the -hands of their provincial rivals. Can it be expected that the loss of -this advantage will be borne with patience? Will not an irresistible -clamour demand some compensation? And what can this compensation be, but -a Sunday delivery of letters in London? Now let it be remembered, in the -first place, that the advantage lost by London is not given to the -country. No one pretends to say that by means of the Sunday transmission -through London the provincial merchant will receive his letters _earlier_ -than the metropolitan. The injury complained of is at last but equality. -The complaint rests only on the supposition that the London merchant has -a right to an _advantage_ over his provincial competitor. And, if this -advantage has been once lost; if the claim to superiority has once been -set aside; if the interests of every country merchant throughout England -are now concerned in preventing its restoration; may it not be expected -that the clamours of London for the reestablishment of inequality will be -balanced by the clamours of the provinces for the maintenance of -equality? But, again, from what quarter shall we expect the demand for a -Sunday delivery in London? The merchants of London have pledged -themselves, by the terms of their late remonstrances, to the principle of -Sunday observance. They have availed themselves of the _religious_ -argument in their recent agitation. They have urged the sacred right of -every Englishman to his seventh day of rest. Is it to be supposed, that -they who have resisted, on religious grounds, the slightest possible -interference with the completeness of the Sabbatical rest, are prepared -now to revenge their disappointment by clamouring for a wide and sweeping -desecration? If any examples of so lamentable an inconsistency should -unhappily be presented, nothing more can be required, as an exposure of -the _new_ agitation, than a reference to the recorded principles of the -old. - - * * * * * - -I have now discharged, however imperfectly, the task imposed upon me by -circumstances which I must still deplore. Earnestly, most earnestly, do -I desire the thankful and reverent observance of the Lord’s Day, with -which I believe our national as well as individual welfare to be closely, -inseparably linked. Deeply do I lament the condition of those weary and -comfortless labourers, who are cut off from the inestimable blessings to -be derived from its holy rest. It is because I believe that many of the -provincial officers of our national Post Office are involved in this -calamity, and that the present measure contemplates, and in part effects, -their emancipation, that I have condemned the blind hostility with which -it has been assailed, and laboured to expose the misrepresentations by -which that hostility has been fostered. - -While, however, the late alteration has been, in my opinion, a measure of -relief, for which many will have cause to be thankful, it is not a final -measure. The Government itself has not so regarded it. Other measures -of Sunday relief have followed and are following it in quick succession. -Already the order is given for the final closing (as a general rule) of -every country Post Office on the Sunday, at ten o’clock in the morning. -I have intimated in my former Letter the particular hopes which I -entertain of a still further reform. {33} I do not despair of the -arrival of a day when every Post Office throughout England and Wales -shall have followed yet more completely the example of the Post Office of -London; when the ordinary delivery of letters shall be totally suspended -every where on the Sunday, while at the same time, from a due regard to -the infinite necessities of a great country in an advanced stage of -civilization, the sanctity of the day of rest is not so interpreted as to -shorten practically by one the six days of labour. To this extent, at -least, my own hopes and wishes are carried. If it should prove that even -more than this can safely be attempted; that the transmission, as well as -the delivery, of letters may from the Saturday to the Monday be -suspended; far be it from me to raise a finger in hindrance of so -unexpected, yet theoretically so desirable, a result. Let me only -express a hope, that, if this demand be seriously urged upon the -attention of the Government and the Legislature, it may not be made in a -spirit which must rouse the just indignation of those to whom it is -addressed, while it alienates the sympathy of every candid and reasonable -mind. - - Believe me, my dear Sir, - - Yours very truly, - - C. J. VAUGHAN. - -LAPWORTH RECTORY, - _December_ 29, 1849. - - - - -_By the Same Author_. - - -SERMONS, chiefly Parochial. 8vo. 1845. - -SERMONS, preached in the Chapel of Harrow School. 8vo. 1847. - -NINE SERMONS, preached for the most part in the Chapel of Harrow School. -12mo. 1849. - - * * * * * - -AN EARNEST APPEAL to the Master and Seniors of Trinity College, -Cambridge, on the Revision of the Statutes. By TWO OF THE FELLOWS. 8vo. -1840. - - - - -FOOTNOTES. - - -{1} Lest another inference should possibly be drawn, it is right to -state that this Letter (like the former) is addressed to no one whose -name is known to the Public. - -{5a} Reply to Dr. Vaughan’s Letter on the late Post Office Agitation. -By the Rev. J. R. Pears, M.A., Master of the Bath Grammar School. - -{5b} Reply, page 10. - -{7} Parochial Sermons, page 291. - -{8a} MS. Sermon, preached in the Chapel of Harrow School, Nov. 11, 1849. - -{8b} The Lord’s Day. - -{11a} Reply, page 21. - -{11b} Reply, page 16, &c. - -{12} Reply, page 19. - -{13a} The _Record_, December 3, 1849. - -{13b} Reply, page 19. - -{13c} Reply, page 4. - -{13d} Letter to the Hon. Grantley F. Berkeley, on the Delivery of -Letters on the Lord’s Day. By the Rev. J. R. Pears, M.A. - -{13e} Ibid, page 10. - -{14} Reply, pages 12, 20. - -{16} The _Record_, as above. - -{19a} Letter I. page 8. - -{19b} Letter I. Note 7, page 8. - -{20a} Letter I. page 7. - -{20b} See above, page 17. - -{20c} Reply, page 18. - -{21a} See above, page 14. Reply, page 13. - -{21b} Reply, page 7. - -{21c} Reply, page 6. - -{22a} Letter I. pages 7, 8. - -{22b} Reply, page 8. - -{23} Letter I. note 8, page 10. - -{24} Letter I. note 10, pages 11, 12. - -{26} Letter I. page 13. See above, page 18. - -{28} Reply, page 19. - -{29a} Reply, pages 13, 14. - -{29b} Letter I. pages 7, 8. - -{33} Letter I. page 12. Nor is it perhaps altogether presumptuous to -express a hope that the unrestricted _transmission_ of letters on the -Sunday may eventually be followed by an equally general _suspension_ of -their _delivery_; by which London and the country would be placed, in -this respect, on a footing of perfect equality; the due observance of the -Sunday being alike in both secured, with no injurious consequences, in -either, to the business of the following day. - - - - -***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A SECOND LETTER ON THE LATE POST -OFFICE AGITATION*** - - -******* This file should be named 63753-0.txt or 63753-0.zip ******* - - -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: -http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/6/3/7/5/63753 - - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - |