SUNDAY WORK.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume XII, Issue 514, 3 October 1867, Page 2

SUNDAY WORK.

To the Editor of the Hawke’s Bay Times. SIR, —I have lately seen in the New Zealand ttewsgjapcrs a report of a debate in our Colonial Parliament on the propriety of legalizing Sunday amusement and wort—in other words, of desecrating the Sabbath, as far as New Zealand legisuuiic act ton cu'uiu uo if t he Calchword used bang duck-shooting. I address you, sir, to ask for admittance for my communication into your columns, because I believe that if not worthy of a place you will cast it away with your other waste paper, and not disgrace your own paper in attempting to disgrace me, vy tucinmuions of pointless pretensions Wit, Of thc\ use of low language, contemptible and beneath all notice. If I advance erroneous or foolish assertions or observations, I am justly worthy of reprehension or correction, without the smallest show of favor or affection ,- but for the. credit of free, full, and -manly discussion, let U be carried on in the language of men—ef gentlemen—and not in that of the back-slums or nobbler-shops. In this advocacy of all the pleaders for the legal | throwing open cf the Sabbath to the vnresfriciedi use of idle and ill-regulated people, there ap-\ pears to be a grievous mistake made in hauling into the argument the pretence ikai so. doing would be \

beneficial to the interests of the laboring population. On the contrary, it would be their nreoieif- enerse. I beg to say in passing, that in pleading for the reasonable retaining of the sanctity of the Sunday, I propose to make use of few or none of the arguments in its favor derived from its religious use, but merely some of the various points, in which such sanctity preserved is beneficial to the animal i.e., the material welfare of man. None of the advocates for duck-shooting or desecration in our parliament rose any higher, and scarcely approached even to that.

Now, Sir, in devising rules for the directionof laborers generally, by which they should be guided in their necessary endeavor so to husband , their labor as on the a verage to obtain the greatest •j returns therefrom, consistent with the vressrvaiion |of health and strength : the first question would be. Shall continuous daily exertion be made, or shall there be periods for rest at certain recurring times or days ? This point appears to have been raised before the time of Moses, and the ancient Egyp. • tians are said to have rested on the tenth day, and on the same principle—that rest is required at intervals for the laborer to recruit his strength. In Hie Divine laws delivered to Moses at Sinai, the seventh day was ordained to be a day of rest and this rule has been universally adopted by civilized nations. Its uninterrupted prevalence for more than 3,300 years sufficiently attests its wisdom. Every maxi who has had to do with labor or laborers knows that more work is performed by this means than could he performed by every day's continuous working. Working men who really do work, will tell you the same. The farmer, even in harvest time, will tell you that his crops will be housed better and more surely by the man having the weekly day of rest, than they would if they continued the four or five weeks without this cessation. It is the same with the horses employed, which notwithstanding their Sunday restings must occasionally, if in full employment, have days and weeks of extra rest, and be tujrned out for a lime. But this periodical day of rest ts of infinite value to the poor or laboring man who has a wife and family. It is the only time that he has to enjoy the comfort of home and to luxuriate in the exquisite pleasures of the company of his wife andfamily. On this day he can know his children. On this day he can truly educate them, and inculcate in their minds and souls the necessity of truth and honesty and trust in themselves ; hut above all in God. The teaching of children at school is necessary, but 01 how far beneath the leaching and example of (he honest, sober, truthful, industrious, and virtuous parents. Bui all these things are beneath the attention of your New Zealand parliament ; according to their notions the plunging about in a swamp up to their middles on the Sunday to pick up wounded fowls, rewarded by some pay and many nohhlers, would be one portion of the duckhunter's task, and more to their purpose. But one is driven to ask, Whence come the people who require these alterations of the laws. Certainly not from our laboring classes. I see it asserted that men are hanging about our nobbler-shops on Sundays, and (hat duck-shooting would employ them belter and remove the nuisance. How thoroughly destitute of an argument must a man be when he is driven to talk thus. Duck-shooting can last but a few weeks in the year, and it is necessary to have a gun and to be a pretty good shot before it is worth a mans while to attempt to shoot for himself. Nor do I believe that we hace these about our public-houses on Sundays, though there are too many Sunday drinkers. Bid one most sapient argument appears to be, as people boil eggs on Sunday, and thus kill embryo chickens, therefore, in defiance of law, public opinion, and everything else, ducks must be shot on Sundays. This is not, howeever, altogether the deepest plunge taken in the hog of absurdity, for one honorable member, admitted that large classes of the community objected to Sunday desecration, yet considered this was a reason why the restriction should be removed, I will go no further, for what was said about Christmas Day and Good Friday was so utterly nonsensical as not io be worth exposure or refutation.—l am, fc., A Z Ist October, 1867.