Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Proclamation of 1830


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Proclamation For the Encouragement of Piety and Virtue. Concerns about the nominated article being purely a source text have been addressed by what is effectively a rewrite at a better title. Both the nominator and Agradman agree that this is an alternative name for this subject, even if it is not the most descriptive, a point that argues for a redirect that no-one else counters. If other 1830 proclamations appear that need disambiguation, then the redirect can be expanded into a disambiguation article in the usual manner. All in all, pushing the delete button seems to be entirely superfluous. For future reference, Agradman: You could have just renamed this article to the better title and rewritten it during the AFD discussion, rather than creating a second article. Uncle G (talk) 09:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Royal Proclamation of 1830

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

non notable proclamation (I'd even question whether the title is accurate, there were a fair number of proclamations that year, since William came to the throne then). This seems to be one of a series of urgings to piety that British monarchs would issue on the question of Sunday work, see (George III, 1787), and here (Victoria, 1837.   If you look at the London Gazette for the issues after William took the throne, there's a whole lot of proclamations.  This one excited no comment that I can see, and isn't notable.Wehwalt (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with Blue laws. Bearian (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge what? The whole article is the text of the proclamation!  Plus the statement, derived from the proclamation, that it was read in church.  There's nothing to salvage.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

)
 * Delete as nominator.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a repository of primary sources. Drawn Some (talk) 01:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Obscure but notable. We could make it a disambiguation page to the various proclamations that year (here), with a further recognition that the text was reused on various occasions --  .  See also the editorial commentary following the 1820 proclamation, reprinted in "The Republican" -- ((as alluded to, here is the version given by queen Anne:

It may not be amiss to make a few observations on this reproduction; we are aware that it is a subject, that would call down the vengeance of the Attorney General if we were to do it justice, but to pass it over in silence would be a total want of principle, and a neglect of duty. This proclamation is now considered, both by its deliverer and receiver, as a mere usual and common place document. Those who have been present at the opening of an assize, must have perceived that the clerk of the court yawns over it two or three times whilst reading it; and it ever puts the priests to the blush, when they find it necessary to read it; but this is very seldom, and is a subject worth the attention of the informer, who may recover a penalty on the neglect thereof. It is worthy of notice, that, this was made a legal document during the reign of Queen Aune, and that no less a person than the secretary Lord Bolingbroke was the instrument of introducing it into the House of Commons; a man, the tenour of whose whole life was in avowed opposition to it. There was a time when proclamations of this kind, and in fact of every kind, produced a considerable effect in this country, they were considered almost tantamount to a law: but that day is gone by, and they are now thought as much of as the king's bill of fare for dinner. They are now almost out of fashion, and we doubt whether the reign of George the Fourth will ever produce half a dozen of them or not. The circular of a secretary of state is thought much more of, and paid more attention to than a royal proclamation. We could say much on the various recommendations contained in this proclamation, but for the sake of our venders we durst not; suffice it, that we say, " Example is better than precept."

We believe that, according to the laws and admitted maxims of this Country, adultery might be considered to embrace all the offences denounced in this proclamation; it is a fashionable vice, has a most immoral tendency, and is the result of debauchery. Now we cannot help thinking that the name which is attached to this document is not altogether free from what the Jate Lord Ellenborough called this venial offence. It is generally believed at the West End of the Town, that this obscrvaiion of the law lord, gave rise to a very ludicrous toast in the presence of both the then Chief Justice and nominal Chief Magistrate, being no less than, " The venial delights of crim con." It has been understood to have been introduced by the one at the expence of a joke on the other.

Another vice, which becomes more speedily fatal aud disastrous to families, which is denounced in this proclamation, is that of gaming. We believe that Carlton House has not been altogether free from this vice; and it is satisfactorily known, that one of the king's brothers has suffered severely by it. We really hope that the example as well as the precept will issue from the right quarter, for there are a certain race of beings, who look to this spot as the origin of fashion, and are ready to catch at a royal and fashionable vice in preference to a royal virtue. It may be, that tliey are so much more accustomed to the former than the latter; but we hope that, in unison with the head of this article, and the proclamation, that a radical reform will begin in the right quarter. We hope that his most sacred Majesty will unite with the less wealthy radicals, and strictly adhere ta an abstinence from all spirituous liquors and other destructive and heavily excised articles. A passion for gaming is in our opinion more criminal than suicide: the former is the continual cause of pain, the latter is generally resorted to as a relief from pail): the one is the cause, the other the effect only. It is currently reported, that a son who took 10,0001. a year to look after his father, immediately pawned (lie whole for 25,0001. down, and lost it immediately at the gaming table. Gaming is the most hideous vice known: it leads to more misery than any other vice whatever, it is a kind of irremediable vice, which reform nor repentance cannot renovate the health and comfort it destroys. It is equally pernicious to the prince and the peasant, to him who plays for a thousand, a pound, or a penny. It is the most fatal of all passions, and should be discouraged by pains and penalties. Its devotees, whether rich or poor, are almost sure to terminate in robbers or desperate assassins.

Agradman talk/contribs 18:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge the first two paragraphs into Blue laws, in a new section United Kingdom. The text of the proclamation itself should be deleted; or alternatively, placed in Wikisource. TJRC (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikisource, where this belongs, without prejudice to creating an article about the Royal Proclamation. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * comment I just want to confirm that there really isn't any controversy that we're going to delete the primary-source text at the bottom of the article; the question is whether we're going to keep the stub text at the top. In fact I'm going to delete that text now and replace it with a hyperlink.  (I'm new to AfD discussions so please correct me if this I'm not supposed to do this.)Agradman talk/contribs 22:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

---
 * Move to "Royal proclamation for the encouragement of piety and virtue, and for preventing and punishing of vice, profaneness, and immorality". We already have some content on this:
 * It was made a legal document during the reign of Queen Anne,--it was "Given at our court at St. James" on 25 February 1702-3 by Queen Anne in the first year of her reign -- and secretary Lord Bolingbroke was "the instrument of introducing it into the House of Commons";
 * William Wilberforce obtained one of these (?) from King George III in 1787
 * This version issued by King George III was to be read four times a year in churches, was still being published by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge in ?1818.
 * include wikilinks at Society_for_Suppression_of_Vice and Royal Proclamation
 * We can itemize the various occasions (dates and places) when royalty re-issued the proclamation
 * an editorialist writing in 1820 commented that:
 * "There was a time when proclamations of this kind, and in fact of every kind, produced a considerable effect in this country, they were considered almost tantamount to a law: but that day is gone by, and they are now thought as much of as the king's bill of fare for dinner. They are now almost out of fashion, and we doubt whether the reign of George the Fourth will ever produce half a dozen of them or not."
 * "This proclamation is now considered, both by its deliverer and receiver, as a mere usual and common place document. Those who have been present at the opening of an assize, must have perceived that the clerk of the court yawns over it two or three times whilst reading it; and it ever puts the priests to the blush, when they find it necessary to read it;"

Agradman talk/contribs 22:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC) - ---
 * Transwiki the primary source text to Wikisource, rename and expand the stub per Agradman. Thryduulf (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I've created the article Proclamation For the Encouragement of Piety and Virtue, meaning you can delete this version if you'd like. I confess that it's not a particularly high-quality article -- it's barely enough to survive AfD itself, I'm afraid -- but my ability to write it was handicapped by the fact that I really have no interest in this topic. :(  Agradman talk/contribs 23:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Agradman. That new article looks very suitable. DGG (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.