It is some time since the Christian public has heard of any measure intended to be proposed to the Legislature in reference to the violation of the Sabbath, and it is time, as it appears to me, that those who have such a measure at heart should be awake, and setting about their great work in earnest. Whether the measure of which Sir Andrew Agnew gave notice in the last session, be the same as his last bill or not, is at present unknown; but I trust, if it be not the same, it will be founded on the same principle, and equally comprehensive in its provisions. It is true, that upon this subject, the opinions, even of good men, are much divided; and there are not a few individuals, of undoubted piety, who think that a legislative remedy should extend to a part only of the acknowledged mischiefs at _first_; whilst others prefer making the different provisions of the whole measure the subject of several bills, to be simultaneously brought forward. The advocates of the former plan insist, that there is no chance of carrying the whole measure at once, while the attempt to do so is calculated to produce hostility; improvements in this, as well as in other matters, requiring to be gradual:--that the sense of the majority of the population is against the measure as a _whole_, to which popular sense, deference must be paid:--and, that Sir Andrew's former bills were lost entirely from their being too sweeping and comprehensive. To the first objection, which is nearly identical with the third, it may be answered: Supposing it to be true, that there is no chance of _carrying_ the whole measure at once, this is no reason why the whole should not be _proposed_ at once. If of the whole measure so proposed only _a part_ should be carried, the carrying of that part would be a subject of thankfulness and rejoicing, just as much as if that part only had been proposed. Those members of the Legislature who would exhibit _hostility_ to the bill to the extent of rejecting it altogether, would doubtless exhibit _hostility_ to any portion of its provisions if brought forward as a distinct bill; because hostility to the whole of a measure acknowledged in _some part_ to be good and necessary, must arise from an evil principle. There is much difference between _hostility_ to the whole of the bill, and _opposition_ to some, nay, even the majority, of its provisions. Those who would be hostile to the whole of the bill, must necessarily be so to any detached part; whereas many might oppose even the _larger part_ of its provisions, who would approve the rest; and it is conceived such would vote for the bill going into Committee, where they might distinguish between the provisions they approved and those they condemned. That this would be the case appears from the experience of the last session, when members who were not prepared to support any clause of the bill, nevertheless voted for its second reading. It is true, that many who voted against it _alleged_ its