SECOND READING.

HC Deb 19 June 1867 vol 188 cc89-116

Order for Second Reading read.

VISCOUNT AMBERLEY

said, that in moving that this Bill be read a second time he wished to state the substance of a petition he had to present in its favour, to which the names of many eminent scientific and literary men were attached. The petition stated that they saw with pleasure in January, 1866, that St. Martin's Hall was opened on the Sunday evening for the delivery of lectures by gentlemen of eminence, and that they were appreciated, and that the Hall could not contain the thousands seeking admission. That certain parties interfered, and by threatening the lessee with a prosecution under an Act passed for a wholly opposite purpose, the 21 Geo. III., c. 49, succeeded in closing the doors, and had since failed to redeem the pledge given of testing the legality of the Sunday evening addresses. That in January, 1867, St. Martin's Hall was again opened for the same purpose, and with the same successful result; but was again closed by the interference of the same parties commencing proceedings under the said Act, 21 Geo. III., c. 49. Having closed the Hall, they now showed no desire to carry the question to an issue. That places of a questionable character were open on the Sunday, and they prayed that so much of the Act of Geo. III. as could be construed to prohibit the delivery of addresses on science and nature on the Sunday evening, toward the expenses of which the audience might contribute by payment for sittings, might be repealed. Having on a former occasion explained the circumstances under which he had introduced the Bill, he would only state the amendment it proposed to effect. The Act of Geo. III. was the work of Bishop Porteus, and it was recommended by him for two purposes—First, to put a stop to places where theological discussions were held; and, secondly, to suppress places of public amusement which were said to exist at that time, and which he considered to be injurious to public morals. The Act was for these two objects, and no doubt it was perfectly effectual in attaining those objects. It was enacted that no place where money was paid at the doors, or tickets sold for admission, should be open for the purpose of debate or entertainment on Sundays. But that Act was never intended to apply to such a case as that of scientific lectures on Sundays, and he thought that it had been put to a use in stopping those lectures which its authors never intended. Without questioning the motive with which the Act was passed, he was far from saying that the Act itself was a right one. He did not think that it was, because it interfered with religious liberty. Nevertheless, it had been made to cover cases of a wholly different character, and which it was by no means intended it should cover. The meetings which took place at St. Martin's Hall were not held either for the purpose of theological discussions or of amusement, but this Act was brought forward by certain religious societies for reasons which he had never been able to understand—namely, that these meetings were in some way injurious, and ought to be stopped; and they succeeded in putting a stop to them, though they did not try the legality of the question. The Bill which he had introduced would only affect the first part of the Act, which related to discussions on the Lord's Day. That part of the Act relating to places of public amusement was left untouched by the Bill. The Act, if the Bill passed, would be so far amended as to permit a lecture to be given and speeches to be delivered on Sundays at places where money was paid for admission or where tickets were sold. Since this subject had last been before the House, he had considered the suggestion of the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Beresford Hope) to refer the Bill to a Select Committee; and seeing that the subject was one with which hon. Members had not been made familiar by long previous debates, he was inclined to think that the suggestion was one which, if the House were disposed to accede to it, he ought not to resist. He could not help thinking that a Committee inquiring into all the circumstances, and listening to the evidence that would be adduced before them, would be disposed to think that the present Bill, instead of being too large, was rather too small—that it had been framed with a too cautious regard to what he might call the prejudices that existed upon this subject, and that a much more comprehensive measure might be safely introduced. There was one question which would engage the attention of that Committee, and that was the performance of sacred music on Sunday. He was unable to concive that there was anything in the performance of sacred music which could possibly be demoralising to the public, and which, therefore, it was necessary for that House to interfere to prevent. No provision was made in this Bill for the performance of sacred music, because it was thought that if such a provision were introduced it might be used as an argument by the opponents of the Bill, who would probably contend that the effect of the Bill would be to open on Sundays all places where musical entertainments took place. While he had no objection to the appointment of a Committee to inquire into this subject, he thought he was justified in asserting that the Reports of former Select Committees more than justified the introduction of this Bill, and that he might have founded upon their Reports a Bill of a much more extensive character. A Select Committee which satin 1863 on the scientific institutions of Dublin, after hearing a good deal of evidence as to the expediency of opening such places on Sunday, reported in favour of several museums being opened after Divine service, observing that the principle had been applied to the Botanical and Zoological Gardens with the best advantage. A Select Committee which sat in 1854 upon public-houses went at considerable length into the question of opening national institutions of various kinds on Sunday, upon which they heard a good deal of evidence. They called attention to the fact of how few places of rational enjoyment were open to the people on Sunday which were calculated to serve as a counter attraction to public-houses, and stated that they had it in evidence that wherever such opportunities had been provided they had been eagerly seized upon, which led to the decrease of intemperance. The Committee remarked upon the impolicy of suffering the continuance of a law which prevented the admission of the public to places of rational recreation, and stated that it was not reasonable that the National Gallery, the British Museum, and other places of public instruction, paid for by the nation, should be closed upon the only day that it was possible for the majority of the people to visit them without serious loss. The Committee proposed that places of rational recreation should be opened after two o'clock, and recommended that the law should be so far abated as to enable the Lord Chamberlain or some other competent authority to determine what places it was expedient to have opened. That was a recommendation deserving of more consideration than it had hitherto received from the House. The Chairman of that Committee was the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. C. P. Villiers), and the Secretary for War (Sir John Pakington) was a member. It had been shown by the evidence of Sir Joseph Paxton, given before that Committee, that Lord Derby had been in favour of opening the Crystal Palace on Sundays, and had granted a Charter for that purpose, but this obsolete Act of Parliament was brought forward to prevent that Charter being carried into effect. A difficulty arose with reference to the employment of the servants at the British Museum on the Sunday, and a suggestion that persons would volunteer for Sunday duty led to the introduction of a paragraph relating to the registry of such volunteers, which was carried by 5 against 2. The Secretary of State for War voted with the majority in that division. In 1855 and 1856 it was proposed to open the British Museum and the National Gallery on Sunday afternoon, and these Motions were supported by the noble Lord who was now Foreign Secretary (Lord Stanley) in speeches of great power and ability. In February, 1856, the noble Lord said— Any attempt to force our own views upon others was in reality not to strengthen but to destroy their consciences. He dwelt on this, because half the social injustice committed, half the misery endured on earth, arose out of the manner in which a large proportion of mankind, in all ages and countries, had reasoned on this subject. They argued thus—'I think this or that act wrong; therefore my neighbour ought to think it wrong. I cannot control his thoughts, but I can and will control his acts, and I will make him act as though he agreed with me.' What were the fruits of that principle? Oppression on the part of the strong, hypocrisy in the timid, persecution undergone by the bold and honest, discredit brought on the name of religion itself. He had some right to expect that, seeing the willingness of Lord Derby to open the Crystal Palace on Sunday, remembering also that the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary had supported a more extensive measure than this was, and that the Secretary for War was a party to the Report of the Committee of 1854, the Government would not take any concerted action against this Bill, whatever individual opinions they might think proper to express. It was a singular fact that the Government themselves took money for the opening of certain places on the Sunday. They took a fee of 2d. from each person in the chapel at Greenwich, and he understood that they also took fees on Sundays at the Chapel Royal. [Mr. KINNAIRD said, that was not so with regard to the Chapel Royal.] There was a broad distinction between the recommendations of the Committee of 1854 and the present Bill. It might be said that those recommendations would involve a considerable amount of Sunday labour. He would not enter into the question whether that argument was conclusive, but it was one of considerable weight. The Committee, however, suggested a mode by which they considered that difficulty might be overcome. But that objection could not apply to his Bill, for if it became law it would not lead to the employment of any Sunday labour except such as would be performed voluntarily. It would lead to no servant or person employed in a public place being compelled to work on the Sunday. The argument against the payment of money at any place whatever on Sundays seemed to be the main point in dispute between the opponents and the supporters of the Bill. The former contended that no places should be opened on Sundays where money was paid for admission. He was unable to see any difference in principle between a payment made on one particular evening for a seat in some public room, and a payment made quarterly or half-yearly for seats in a place of worship. If hon. Gentlemen objected to the character of the places that would be opened, that was a totally distinct objection. He held in his hand a Petition from the Sabbath Alliance of Scotland against this Bill, in which the Petitioners expressed their opinion that it was both sinful and dangerous for the Legislature to sanction any proceedings tending to secularise the Sunday, and stated their belief that the tendency of the Bill, if enacted, would be to encourage the holding of meetings by parties who did not hesitate to avow their contempt for religion, and for the purpose of promulgating principles touching morality as well as religion, which would prove most injurious to the temporal and spiritual welfare of those likely to attend them. He rejoiced to have obtained from the opponents of the Bill so candid an avowal of the ground upon which they opposed it. The argument amounted to this. They say—"We have in force an Act which we consider to be an exceedingly convenient instrument for the purpose of suppressing the utterance of views which we do not like, and because we are afraid that those views may be more freely and more fully uttered if that Act is altered, we oppose this Bill, and ask the House not to pass it into law." Such language showed that the maintenance of the Act of Geo, III. was not consistent with religious liberty. He denied their right to dictate to people what opinions they should listen to, and what views were inconsistent or not with the moral and spiritual welfare of the people. The cry was always raised against a Bill of this character that it involved a "desecration of the Sabbath." This constant employment of the word "Sabbath" was calculated to mislead those who heard it, and to give them an erroneous impression of the nature of this day. There was a very common theory that in some manner not explained, and at some time totally unknown, the obligations which belonged to the Jewish Sabbath were transferred from the seventh day of the week to the first. He believed that theory to be totally destitute of historical foundation, and he had never heard any real argument in support of it. There was no Sabbath, and never had been, except the seventh day, and if hon. Members wished to observe it, that was the day on which they ought to keep it. He did not know whether any hon. Gentleman held the extreme theory that the whole of the Sunday ought to be spent in public and divine worship. If he did, he (Viscount Amberley) would ask him, whether it was at all probable that such a theory would ever be carried into practice by the great body of the people? Was it wise, under such circumstances, to help to maintain a system under which no place of a social character was opened on Sundays, except the public-house? The present state of the law gave facilities for spending a great portion of the day in public-houses; but if the law were altered, it would be more usefully and beneficially employed. Was it wise to keep open no other places than public-houses—to confer on them a monopoly in providing entertainment for the people, and thus give to Sunday drinking what might be almost called the sanction of the law? Then it was said that this was "the thin end of the wedge," and that the Bill was promoted by men who were anxious for something much more extensive. If he thought that the Bill would lead to a general custom of Sunday work, he should not move the second reading. But neither Sunday labour nor the general opening of places of amusement on Sunday was involved in the Bill. These were points which might be considered by the Select Committee. He had received a letter from Scotland, asking him whether this Bill would legalize the opening of theatres on Sundays. No one had a greater respect than he had for the people of Scotland. But there was a portion of them who, when their fears were aroused on the subject of Sabbath observance, sank into a mental condition rather resembling the credulity of infants than the shrewed common sense that generally characterized the nation. Some of them thought the promoters of the Bill were engaged in a dark conspiracy to deprive the people of their day of rest, and to introduce here a Continental Sunday. The Bill was about as likely to do that as it was to bring about the use of a foreign language. The observance of Sunday as a day of rest was founded on a general conviction among the people that a day of rest was desirable, and no danger need be apprehended from legislation on this score. Believing that this measure would have the effect of giving to a minority privileges which the majority wished to deny them, he moved the second reading of the Bill, submitting it to the House as a humble contribution to the great work of religious equality which was being so steadily accomplished, and which, when completed, would be one of the fairest and noblest achievements of the century in which we lived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read a second time."—(Viscount Amberley.)

MR. KINNAIRD

said, he must deny the statement that any charge was made for admission to the Chapel Royal. He regretted that one so prominent and able as the noble Lord should advocate a question which would assuredly separate him from a large majority of the people of this country. In quoting the speech of the Foreign Secretary in 1856, the noble Lord would have done well to state that it was most ably answered by the hon. and learned Member (Sir Roundell Palmer), and that a very large majority of the House pronounced against his views. It was said that in the present instance there had been a gross infringement of religious liberty. What were the facts? Certain persons took St. Martin's Hall for Sunday lectures. No one interfered with them. He himself went, and he found paid singers dressed in evening costume, the proceedings having much more of the character of a theatrical representation than of a scientific lecture. This entertainment, too, was accompanied by a more flagrant violation of the law, inasmuch as it became a commercial speculation. There was an endeavour to make it pay, and money was taken at the doors. There was no ill-feeling on the part of the Lord's Day Observance Society. The proprietor of the Hall was told that he had rendered himself liable to heavy penalties, but that if these performances ceased, the case would not be proceeded with. As so much had been said of the course pursued by the Association to which he had referred, it might be well to road one or two extracts from the statement they had issued. Referring to the persons who had provided the Sunday entertainments at St. Martin's Hall, they said— As a voluntary and unregistered body, these persons may hold such meetings as they wish, hold them when and where they please, conduct them according to any order which they prefer, appoint any persons as lecturers and debaters, and meet the expenses attending them by voluntary collection. They may also announce such meetings in newspapers as an article of news. Two things only they may not do. They may not make a charge for admission, nor announce the meetings by paid advertisements. If they have confidence in the views they hold, and believe the statements they make as to the extensive support they command among the masses of this country, they may rest in that confidence, and cast themselves on the voluntary support of the people, and thus escape from the operation of the Act in question. Or, if it so please them, they may, by registration of themselves as Protestant Dissenters, obtain all the liberty which the Act of Toleration affords to Non-conformists. Where, then, was the invasion of religious liberty? Was it not rather that a pecuniary privilege was sought under this Bill? If the principle was once admitted, where could you stop? Every theatre would be just as much entitled to open its doors as would the places where these entertainments were given. If music was to be allowed, why not dancing? He thanked the noble Lord for the phrase, "the thin end of the wedge." In the course of a conversation he had held with the promoters of the measure, they frankly admitted that they wished that there should be no law upon the subject. That would be the ultimate result of the Bill. It was the first step towards carrying out the Report of the Committee of 1854. The question now at issue had been over and over again discussed in the House, and he deprecated therefore any proposal to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. The simplest and shortest way was that the House should give a direct vote on the question. It was matter of great regret to him that he should have to take this course in the case of one for whom hereditarily he felt great respect, but he felt compelled to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Kinnaird.)

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

said, that the two speeches just delivered were the best evidence of the crude and immature state of the question now before the House. The noble Lord had very ably and fully made out a case against his own Bill; while the speech of the hon. Member led him to think that there was something more in the Bill than one at first supposed. Clearly there was a question to be solved—a state of things which ought to be carefully dealt with. He did not think that the Porteous Act had dealt with it in the most satisfactory manner. The relations then existing between Church and State admitted of far greater restrictions than would now be tolerable or even right, and so the Carlisle House grievance was met by a measure intended exclusively to render the actual scandal impossible. As to the point now to be discussed, the noble Lord's grievance divided itself into two distinct heads—the general question of Sunday observance, and the particular question raised by the Bill. The House must not be trapped into any opinion on the former wide and difficult question. There are three distinct methods of keeping Sunday. There was a Scotch, an English, and a French system of Sunday observance, and, speaking broadly, he was a believer in the English system, equally rejecting the French féte, and the Scotch Sabbath alike upon religious and upon social; grounds. This was enough to go upon for the present. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Kinnaird), who had visited these entertainments, found no fault with them till there came to be a question of money payments, by which the law was violated, and so the society represented by Mr. Baxter prosecuted their promoters. But that was an incomplete and unsatisfactory issue to raise. These Sunday evening meetings might have been light or wrong, but if they were wrong when tickets were sold at the doors, they must have been questionable before. The whole matter ought to rest on the character and tendency of what took place rather than on the form by which persons were admitted. Suppose a clergyman thought he could stir up the dormant religious feeling of his parish by Sunday afternoon meetings for the purpose of discussing religious and social questions; but that with a view to the more orderly conduct of these gatherings, he sold tickets of admission at a nominal price. Suppose, on the other hand, that an apostle of free-love, an infidel, or a Mormon were to begin free lectures—or suppose that Mr. Murphy, preaching ruffianism, murder, and arson, under the pretence of religious zeal, were to lecture, free of cost, assisted, say, by some musical Member of this House, then these persons would be within the letter of the law; but the poor clergyman, whose object was to save the souls of his flock, would be liable to a prosecution. Let our churches be free, as tiny ought to be; he did not say unappropriated, but free first to every parishioner, and then to every non-parishioner, and then this question of selling tickets might be left to the consciences of people who saw no harm in making the religious observances which they afforded a matter of commerce. If they were to allow free discussion on Sundays, not necessarily confined to theological subjects, the question could not be dealt, with by such petty and one-sided legislation as this Bill proposed; but they must have a wide scheme of general supervision and police regulation in connection both with the buildings and what might go on within them. The difficulty had been raised as to any relaxation of the law in Sunday theatrical entertainments. It was obvious that this case might be met by a clause in the licence of every theatre prohibiting its being opened under any pretext on Sunday. To be sure this would prevent the excitement of those Sunday preachings in theatres of which they had heard a good deal a few years since, though these seemed now to have got rather stale. But, for his own part, he did not see so much harm in the prohibition of a very questionable experiment in public worship, which would check the scandal of a Sunday mabille rising in London. It was with these views that he had put on the Paper a notice for a Select Committee. Until he had heard the speech of the noble Lord he had not made up his mind to oppose the second reading, because he thought the question fairly demanded investigation; but having heard that speech, he should feel bound to vote against the second reading. If it were carried he would then move to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. In any case his advice to the noble Lord was while dropping the matter for the present year, to move for a Select Committee on the whole Sunday question for the forthcoming year.

MR. J. STUART MILL

There is much good sense and good feeling in the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Beresford Hope). I agree that it is desirable that this question and others should be dealt with in a much broader way than they usually are by the House. But whose fault is it that they are not? Not my noble Friend's. If I may be permitted to say so, it is the fault of the House, which never will look at any subject except by fractions, and will not consent to legislate otherwise than bit by bit. If it would, there would be many things different in our laws and in our discussions. My noble Friend professes wider views on the subject than correspond with the breadth of the measure he has proposed. In his Bill he has dealt with a small portion, a corner of the subject upon which he thinks it hardly possible that there can be a difference of opinion among reasonable persons. He gives the House credit for being capable of stopping where it likes, and deciding how far it will or will not go. He thinks that wherever the line ought to be drawn, it ought not to be drawn where it is now; and that there is something to be done in the way of promoting useful and instructive amusements, to call them nothing more, on a Sunday, in place of mere sensualities. I am not going to say anything, although much might be said, about the value of the instruction and recreation which these lectures afford. I am going to put it on the lowest ground, and ask whether you will have these or the public-house. It is true that the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. J. A. Smith) has proposed, and probably will receive much support in proposing, to take away even this from the working man, and leave him nothing whatever to do on Sunday but to go to church, if he should be so disposed. But there is no incompatibility between going to church and going to these lectures also. If you are not able to make the churches so attractive to the class of persons who are most in need of moralizing influences as to induce them to go there, you will, if you induce them not to go to the public-house, be doing some good. I refer to the question of closing the public-houses on Sunday, because that is a remedy which probably many gentlemen would propose. They would say, "You have not to choose between scientific lectures and the public-house, because you may close the public-house, and shut up the working people in their homes," such as those are. There are two ways of keeping people out of what is considered to be mischief. One is to exclude them from what is regarded as hurtful indulgence, without giving them any other. The other is to facilitate their obtaining indulgences, amusements, recreations, to use no higher term, which if possible may be beneficial, and which certainly cannot be noxious. The latter plan appears to me the better, not only for the interests of society, but for the interests of religion itself. If you prevent any but a strictly religious employment of the Sunday, the only leisure day which is possessed by the mass of working men, what happens? You compel mankind, made as they are of flesh and blood, and needing a great deal which is not provided for by the church service—you compel them to look to the church service, and to their religious observances, not merely for spiritual instruction or spiritual edification, but also for all their excitement, and even for all their amusement. And this has two consequences equally serious and equally mischievous, and certainly equally undesirable in the eyes of religious people, One is to make the churches places of display, places of amusement and levity. The other is to make them places of boundless fanaticism. Both the love of lighter and the love of serious and grave excitement seek their gratification in this way, when others are denied them. The consequence is, that you are very likely to have, under cover of religious observances, all sorts of worldly feelings and worldly excitement, or else bigotry and fanaticism raised to their highest point. Speaking, therefore, in the interests of religion, it is not desirable that all places but churches should be closed on the only day of leisure which the mass of the community enjoy. Then as to the mode in which Sunday is to be employed, I would ask any reasonable religions person whether, if he cannot have all that he would think best, he ought not to desire to have what is next best—and which he thinks nearest to religion: science, or sensuality? With regard to the question of taking money at the doors for admission to these exhibitions, services, or whatever they are called, I understood my hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird) to say that those who are anxious to give interesting instruction to the people may do it if they choose to defray the expenses themselves; but that it shall not be allowed that those who seek it shall themselves pay the expenses. That may be very well for once, twice, or thrice, but can it be expected to last? Is it to be desired that this instruction should be denied to the working classes unless others are willing to do what they themselves are not allowed to do—namely, to keep up a constant succession of these lectures, at the expense of others, and not at the expense of those who are able and willing to pay for them? Surely that is not what would be thought just and desirable in any other case. But perhaps my hon. Friend is of the opinion which seemed to be entertained by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) on another occasion, when, with a degree of irascibility which I have not seen him exhibit upon any other subject, he spoke of "miserable philosophers" who are never willing to sacrifice anything for their opinions; not perhaps sufficiently considering that "miserable philosophers" have not always the means of making great endowments, and that there seems to be no very strong reason why the promulgation of opinions should be left exclusively to those who are able to provide such endowments. As to the evil consequences which my hon. Friend expects to follow if money is taken at the door on these occasions, which, he appears to think, would necessarily lead to the licensing of all sorts of amusements on Sunday, he does not appear to have sufficient confidence in the legislative capacity of the House, or to believe that it is capable of defining what shall be permitted and what shall not. I may, however, observe to my hon. Friend that this Bill actually does draw a line. My hon. Friend says that he once attended these lectures, and that the great attraction was the sacred music. But the Bill of my noble Friend does not include music. He has purposely excluded it, and therefore, also, the paid singers. With regard to that invidious expression, "paid singers," are not the singers at our cathedrals paid? Is there anything necessarily unedifying in sacred music, because those who even thus humbly minister to the altar live by the altar? With reference to my hon. Friend's fear that if music were allowed dancing must be allowed also, he cannot be indifferent to, or unaware of, the difference between sacred and other music. Is it not the distinctive characteristic of sacred music that its effect upon the mind is at the same time calming and elevating? and therefore I suppose the best preparation for any desirable and good form of religious sentiment. I am not aware that there is any such thing as sacred dancing, at least according to our notions, although there is according to the ideas of other nations. Therefore there is no ground for the apprehensions of my hon. Friend. I apprehend that in this matter it is perfectly possible to draw a line of distinction if we choose to do so; to say what modes of amusement—if we put it only upon that ground—we consider to be, if not absolutely edifying, not inconsistent with edification, and what we think it desirable to put under restraint for one reason or another. As to these reasons, and the extent to which they would carry restraint, probably no two persons in this House are agreed. There is therefore—not that I apprehend there could be any reasonable objection to passing my noble Friend's Bill—ground for assenting to the proposal of the hon. Member for Stoke, and referring the question to a Select Committee. I concur with him as to the desirability of considering these questions in the broadest possible way, and deciding what are the modes of amusement to which there is no objection, and what are those which, from their more suspicious and more dangerous character, require restraint. It is probable that if a Select Committee be appointed, it will extend rather than restrict the scope of my noble Friend's Bill, and will find that on no broad principle that can be laid down will it be necessary to restrict the measure so much as my noble Friend has done. If the Bill is read a second time I shall be willing, as I presume from what he said my noble Friend will be, to consent to its being referred to a Select Committee, which will probably receive a great deal of valuable evidence—throw some light upon the subject, and I hope remove some prejudices.

MR. HENLEY

said, that the reasons why he was opposed to the Bill were few and simple. If the noble Lord were consistent he ought to have moved to repeal the Act of Charles II. That would be the plain and intelligible course, and everybody would know what was meant. So far as he could gather the opinions of the hon. Member for Westminster from his speech, he seemed to think they were driven to a choice between evils. He said, "You must do this in order to keep people out of public-houses." That was the whole gist of the hon. Gentleman's argument. Looking to the four coiners of the Bill, theatres might be opened under it; and why not theatres as well as halls for political discussion, which he supposed was meant by debates as contradistinguished from lectures? If the question turned solely upon finding amusement for the people, why should they be shut out from circuses, which would be more attractive to the million and more likely to keep them out of public-houses than lectures or debates? There was not the slightest limit in the Bill. The most exciting topics might be on for discussion, even the question of female suffrage, which would no doubt be highly interesting, the ladies advocating one side, the gentlemen the other, but still these matters would not draw people from public-houses half so much as Punch, or the circus, or many other things of a similar description. Our forefathers were wiser in their generation than we were. They knew that the great body of the people of this country valued the Sabbath as a day of rest, and were conscious that if it were once broken in upon, Mammon would come in, and they would have to work seven days instead of six. His hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Beresford Hope) wanted to have this subject approached in a different style, and would, if the second reading were passed, have the Bill referred to a Select Committee. But in the opposite direction they had the Bill of the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Hughes) defining works of necessity, and seeking to prevent unnecessary trading on the Sunday. Those who had legislated upon this subject had seen that you could draw no line but that of the forbidding of money making. They said that no one should on the Sabbath do anything to make money except in cases of necessity and charity. The object of the hon. Member (Mr. Hughes') Bill was to define more clearly the line as to what were and what were not works of necessity and charity; but it certainly was not a work of necessity or charity, to listen to a lecture or take part in a discussion on the Sabbath. He did not believe that any of these halls would be opened except for the purpose of making money. That was what it would come to. The law very properly said, "If you take money either at the door or by tickets you are breaking the Sabbath;" and if they were to give up that principle he did not see why they should not open all the shops. The law rested upon the plain and intelligible ground that these entertainments, or whatever they were called, harmless in themselves as some might be, others probably mischievous, should not be carried on on a Sunday for the purpose of making money. That law the noble Lord proposed to repeal with regard to a certain class of entertainments. He thought that it would be a great mistake to consent to that repeal, and therefore he should cordially support the Amendment. What were the main arguments for these amusements? They all knew that a great deal was done on the Sabbath that had better not be done. He was not one of those who desired to see an over strict observance of the day. He did not regard singing or whistling on the Sabbath as wrong; but he did not think that because they could not prevent all they would like to prevent, therefore they ought not to prevent that which was clearly wrong, and between which and any other commercial dealing they could not draw a line. The opening of the British Museum on the Sunday, and other places, not for money, had often been before the House, and had been resisted on the ground that it would be necessary in that case to employ the persons who were in charge of them. But how much further in that direction would this Bill go? They were told they must keep the people out of public-houses. Let that be done by setting an example to the humbler classes. He had lived to see a great deal of improvement take place in that way. People now exercised a great restraint over the sensual inclinations which we all had in common. He did not think it necessary, then, to hold out fictitious aids of this kind to enable people to do their duty, which he believed they would do year by year in a better manner. He believed that the publichouses would be less and less frequented. He did not pretend that all the evil in the world would cease, nor would it do so if theatres and lecture-halls were open all Sunday, We did not find that in countries in which theatres and places of amusement were open on the Sabbath, the lower public-houses were without plenty of occupants. He did not think that even with the assistance of a Select Committee his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Beresford Hope) could find a better line than the prohibiting of money making, and therefore he was prepared to support the simple rejection of this Bill.

MR. BRIGHT

I think the tone of discussion on this Bill has been eminently satisfactory. It is not understood, I think, by the House that those who are disposed to support this Bill in any of its stages are less anxious to meet the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke, who expressed his strong feeling as to the moderate observance of the Sabbath. I entirely agree with him in the observations he made on that point. I recollect in some verses of George Herbert, he describes the Sabbath thus— The week were dark, but for thy light: Thy torch doth show the way, I agree very much with that sentiment, I should be very sorry here, or elsewhere, to make man think less of the value and of the immeasurable advantage which the day of rest is to the human race. Therefore, my observations will be offered to the House with the understanding that we all accept this—that none of us wish to disturb the day as a day of rest and a day of religious improvement. The difference resolves itself into this—whether, as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) who had just spoken very clearly on the subject said, we are to draw the line by prohibiting a money payment or not. My hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird) has, in private, rather criticized me because he thought I was in favour of allowing everything of evil to go free. Coming into the House I asked an hon. Member how he would vote, and he said, "I shall vote against the Bill because there are a lot of infidels at the bottom of it." I am not disposed to view it in this light. There have been many who have been infidels—who have professed to be infidels—who have made very good suggestions for the advantage of mankind A hall may be open for everybody who may come in, in which any man may speak on any religious topic—of faith and of no faith. This very hall out of which this Bill has sprung might be opened by the persons who are in the habit of lecturing—if they would advertise that the people might come in gratis. They could give lectures of science or no science, of faith or no faith, and the law could not meddle with them in the least. I suppose if they formed themselves into a Committee, and sufficient funds were raised so that the hull could be opened regularly throughout the year on every Sunday evening, any person might come to the hall and enjoy the music or lecture, and the law could not interfere with it. The objection to the Bill is this, as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) thinks, that it allows that those who come should be made to pay. Those who support the Bill say that if those who come are allowed to pay, that arrangement can be continued more easily than if they did not pay, and some committee were to open the ball free to the public. I was lately speaking to a gentleman, who told me that at Cheltenham and Leamington, in going into the churches of these towns, where he did not live, he was charged a sixpence or a shilling for a seat in the church, and in one of the churches two shillings, where the person paying it was put into a more advantageous position than if he only paid a shilling or sixpence. That must be contrary to law if these meetings on Sundays are contrary to law. Yet nobody interferes with that arrangement, which is probably found to be advantageous on the whole. Let me put the question to the House in this way. The working men — for the case applies to them particularly—have six days in the week on which they labour. They have one day in the week for rest and religious instruction, or for recreation. We, who sit in this House, and others like us throughout the country — a large class mostly pretty well off in the world—have seven days in the week, on any of which, often on many of which, in many cases on nil of which, we can take our rest, we can take our instruction, or we can take our recreation. Therefore, when we discuss a question of this kind, I think we ought to look narrowly at the condition of these and of other large classes for whom this Bill is supposed to possess some advantages. My own impression is, the question has in it a great deal of difficulty. There is a large class in this country who are anxious there should be no opportunity for the employment of the Sunday except in religious exercises. There is another large class which would like that there should be some relaxation of the law on this subject. I did not hear the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Nottingham, but I am sure it was a speech of thought and ability. I take the Bill as it stands. It might, I think, be objected to on good grounds as to some portions of it. The 3rd clause, for instance, imposes a heavy penalty upon any person who shall sell refreshments to be eaten or drunk in a room connected with any hall that might be used for lectures on Sunday under this Act. It is clearly an infringement of liberty to inflict a fine of £50 for the sale of anything to eat or drink in connection with a hall legally open to the public. Looking at the Bill as a whole, my view of the difficulty of the case is rather strengthened than otherwise. The hon. Member for Stoke made a good suggestion when he proposed—not that the Bill should be read a second time—for I do not believe he is going to vote for the second reading—but that it should be sent to a Select Committee, with a view, if possible, to make some relaxation advantageous not merely for the recreation, but for the instruction of the people, without rudely violating those religious feelings, feelings which exist to a large extent, and for which feelings I have a great regard. If I vote for the second reading it is not because I would like to vote for the third reading as the Bill stands, for I think it is open to great objection, and that the law as it stands is open to great objection. The question is one which will come before the House year after year until we come to some decision upon it. My own opinion is, it is well to read the Bill a second time, without its being understood that we are bound to accept its principles or clauses, but for the honest object of taking it before a fair tribunal in the hope that something may be brought out of it which will be advantageous to the country, which will extend a liberty which may be harmless, and which will not offend the susceptibilities which I would be the last man to disregard. I believe the stability and character of our country as well as the advancement of our race, depend very much on the mode in which the Day of Rest appointed for mankind may be observed and used among men.

SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE

said, that he thought the hon. Member for Birmingham had somewhat misunderstood the argument of the hon. Member for Stoke. The hon. Member for Stoke said he would on the whole be disposed to vote against the Bill, but that if the second reading were carried he should move that it be referred to a Select Committee. The important part of the observations of the hon. Member for Stoke, and which had not been noticed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, was, that the former advised the noble Lord the Member for Nottingham to let the subject alone this Session, and to move at the commencement of next Session for a Committee to inquire into the whole matter before introducing any measure. He (Sir William Heathcote) was not disposed to agree with those extreme religious people who thought that the Sabbath should be observed with all the strictness of the Jewish Sabbath, nor, on the other hand, was he inclined to sympathise with the opposite extreme. He was exceedingly afraid of letting in the class of amusements which prevailed in certain Continental cities. He could see no way in which the line could be drawn and the objects tested so well as by the money payment. He wished to point out to the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Beresford Hope) the difficulty into which he would be led if he proposed to allow money to be taken, and did not insist on that as the simple test, but substituted for it some regulation of the objects. The money payment was a tangible test, on which no question of religious liberty could arise. If questions as to the objects and the subjects dealt with were entered into, they could not avoid raising questions of religious liberty. The noble Lord who had brought forward the Bill had said a good deal about religious liberty, as though religious liberty was involved in this question. But the fact was there was nothing to prevent religious subjects from being discussed, if, as had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Birmingham, those who desired those discussions provided a hall for themselves, and managed it by a committee. The value of the money test was that it stopped those theatrical and other amusements which were resorted to only for the purpose of money making, and not for the purpose of improving the people. It would be following a bad precedent were the House to read the Bill a second time without intending to affirm its principle. He had himself incurred inconvenience by consenting to such a course in other cases. He should vote against the second reading of the Bill, but would not oppose the noble Lord next Session in moving for a Select Committee to consider the subject.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

said, that he did not understand the money test doctrine laid down by the right hon. Baronet (Sir William Heathcote). If the moral and intellectual lectures referred to were good things in themselves why should difficulties be thrown in the way? Why should the right hon. Baronet desire to impose a money test upon moral and intellectual instruction and refuse to apply the same test to religious instruction? Those who legislated upon this subject ought not to overlook the-fact that they were in a totally different position from the class for whom they legislated, that those who belonged to that class were restricted to the one day of the seven as the only one on which they could obtain anything like recreation, amusement, or cultivation of mind. He did not think that that Day of Rest was best spent by devoting it solely to attendance at places of worship. With reference to the argument, that if the Bill were passed a certain number of persons would be employed in waiting upon those who attended the lectures provided for their instruction and recreation, if the lectures were good in themselves, the result would only be that the interest and advantage of the few would, as in the case of railway travelling, be to a certain extent sacrificed to the many, and that was far better than sacrificing the many to the few. He could not see why, if this simple concession were made to our poorer fellow-countrymen, Parliament would be committed to any larger measure, nor why any difficulty need be found in drawing a line as to what should and what should not be allowed. He should be happy to vote for the second reading of the Bill, either on its own merits, or in order that it might be referred to a Select Committee.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

Sir, I agree entirely in the tone of the admirable speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, and if I come to a different conclusion to that he arrived at, it is with no disrespect for the arguments he has employed. The principle of the Bill under discussion is to get rid of that which is at the present moment the main protection against the establishment of halls for amusement on Sunday evenings. I cannot see that there is any interference with the rights of conscience or the religious opinions of others on the part of those who oppose the Bill. If the world were in the excellent state which seemed to be hinted at by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, the question might be more easily solved. He has assumed that the whole of the lectures are to be good and moral, and none of them bad, and he founded his support of the measure upon that supposition. But if the right hon. Gentleman will fake the trouble to inquire throughout London, he will find that that assumption is not altogether correct, and that if the Bill is passed in its present shape, it will not only open the doors of halls for the delivery of moral and intellectual lectures, as in St. Martin's Hall on Sunday evenings, but it will also throw open places which have been shut for want of money to carry them on — places in which infidel lectures of all kinds would be delivered, which are not attractive in themselves, but which may, by the expenditure of money, and thus, by means of money payments, be made attractive. Again, with regard to cases like that of the late Mr. Albert Smith. His lectures, if so they might be called, were as moral as those that have been referred to, although they were entirely devoted to amusement. If you were to allow that lectures such as those of the late Mr. Albeit Smith should be listened to on Sunday evenings, by the payment of money at the doors of the hall, let me ask which of the persons who at present entertain the people of the metropolis by amusements that are not exactly theatrical could be prevented from giving entertainments on a Sunday? It would be impossible to draw a line except by the establishment of a censorship of some kind. If this is done the principle must be extended not merely to lecture-halls, but to churches and chapels, and certain elaborate rules of moral and religious instruction would then have to be laid down which would be totally out of harmony with the existing religious institutions of the country. It is contended that there is a large number of persons who wish to attend these lectures on Sunday evenings, and that there is no harm in them. It is no doubt the case that many of the lectures which have been delivered at St. Martin's Hall, were not only harmless and entertaining, but afforded much valuable instruction; and there would have been nothing to prevent their continuance, had the expense been defrayed otherwise than by a charge for admission. But if the principle of the present Bill is sanctioned, and we are to admit people to lectures upon payment of money at the doors, I should like to know upon what grounds so admirable a play as Hamlet, or even the drama of George Barnwell, which at one time all the London apprentices were sent to see once a year, should not be acted on Sunday evenings? Why should not instruction be received in the form of dramatic dialogue as well as in the shape of lectures if money is to be taken? And then we should have Sunday lectures and amusements turned into a trade, which the Act of Geo. III. was passed to prevent. The real question is, whether you are to allow the parties who get up these lectures on Sunday to make a trade of them. Allusion has been made to the case of churches, but they do not come under the operation of the Act. I do not approve of persons being compelled to pay for a seat in a church, but I think it is perfectly legitimate where churches have sprung up at watering places that there should be boxes at the door for collections. Everybody, however, should get a seat whether they pay or not. My main reason for objecting to this Bill is that it does away with an Act which has been effective in preventing immoral lectures and amusements that are not in consonance with the general feeling of the country. I believe that if you pass this Bill you will open the door to amusements, which, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham has said, in a tone so creditable to himself, will be opposed to the general feeling and sense of the country.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, he hoped that after the discussion that had taken place the noble Lord who had moved the second reading of the Bill would not press for a division. It was impossible not to see that there was great difficulty in legislating upon this subject. He should, however, be sorry, by voting against the Bill, to imply that he thought the law upon the subject was in a satisfactory state, or that it was not desirable to provide the means of innocent recreation for the great masses of the people on Sundays. In the latter object he entirely concurred, and he was a member of a Committee some years ago which recommended that facilities should be given for providing such recreation. He understood the hon. Member for Birmingham — whose speech he had heard with satisfaction—was not prepared to support the principle of the Bill, but wished to assent to the second reading for the purpose of having it referred to a Select Committee. It was clear that the House was not prepared to affirm the principle of the Bill now under discussion without further inquiry, and he would recommend his noble Friend to withdraw the Motion for its second reading, and to move for a Committee of Inquiry next Session.

VISCOUNT AMBERLEY

said, he declined to withdraw the Bill. The only principle which the House would affirm by giving it a second reading was that payment might be made at certain entertainments. The details might be settled by a Select Committee, He did not think the Bill would encourage theatrical entertainments or that special class of amusements to which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) had referred.

MR. P. WYKEHAM MARTIN

said, that he had lived in Leamington fifteen years, and, as that place had been alluded to, he begged to say that ministers of all religious denominations were anxious to welcome people to their churches and chapels. The only thing they were asked to do was to drop such an offering as they could afford into boxes provided for the purpose.

MR. M'LAREN

said, that the noble Lord who introduced the Bill had laid great stress upon a petition from Scotland. He (Mr. M'Laren) was asked to present that petition, and would say a few words respecting it. The noble Lord said the petition might be held to embody the main objections entertained to the Bill, and quoted from the petition, referring at the same time to the Calvinistic doctrines it contained. The noble Lord thought he had thus made out a case for his Bill. But even if the noble Lord had thus succeeded in demolishing the arguments in the petition—which he had not—it was still incumbent upon him to prove the evils that now exist, and then to prove that his Bill was a remedy for those evils. The noble Lord did not prove either the one or the other. Three petitions had been presented against the Bill. One was from the Wesleyan Methodist Conference of England — who did not hold those high Calvinistic doctrines at all. Why did not the noble Lord refer to their doctrines? He could not consider the Wesleyan Methodists an insignificant body. The noble Lord said he had received, with amazement, letters from Scotland asking whether the Bill would legalize theatrical representations? He (Mr. M'Laren) was amazed that the noble Lord should be amazed at such a question. The principle of the Bill did legalize them as it appeared to him. There was no legal objection now to scientific lectures, but there was an objection to making money by amusements on Sundays. If there was to be singing and other amusements, where were they to stop? He had seen cases reported from the police offices where the magistrates had to decide whether these musical entertainments came within the limits of theatrical entertainments, and the magistrates had decided that they did. It there fore seemed only natural to ask the question whether this Bill would legalize theatrical performances on the Sunday. That principle was by implication embodied in it, and therefore he (Mr. M'Laren) disapproved of the Bill. It was urged that there was nothing wrong in taking money, but it must be remembered that those who took it were carrying on a trade just as other tradespeople were doing. If parties were allowed to make money on Sundays by providing amusements in public halls, they should be allowed to carry on other trades on the Sabbath; but no other class was allowed to do so. The subject was not at all connected with the question of religious liberty, and he entirely disapproved of the second reading of the Bill.

MR. LOCKE

said, he wished to remind the House that theatrical entertainments stood on a different footing from any other entertainment. At the present moment, without a license from the Lord Chamberlain it was utterly impossible to have any theatrical representation in the metropolis; and throughout the country the license of a magistrate must be obtained before any theatrical representation could take place. Such was the law under 6 & 7 Vict. A distinguished man—the late Mr. Joseph Hume—had been instrumental in opening Hampton Court Palace on Sundays. When a proposal was made respecting the reception of the bust of Mr. Hume by the House, the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird) seconded the Motion. Did the hon. Member for Perth approve of the views of Mr. Hume on this subject? Mr. Hume's proposal was, that at the time public-houses were open on Sundays, the British Museum, National Gallery, and other public places should be likewise open, and allowed to compete with the public-houses. It seemed to him (Mr. Locke) that as Sunday was the only day of leisure to the great body of the people inhabiting the metropolis, it would be of great advantage to them to enable them to improve their minds by attending places of instruction such as were contemplated in the Bill on Sunday evenings. He attached no weight to the argument that the privilege might be abused, because there was no institution in existence of which the same might not be said. Matters of this kind were regulated by public opinion, and the law was stringent enough if properly enforced to prevent anything that would militate against decorum or proper feeling. The House ought not to refuse to allow the Bill to go to a Select Committee. The question was one worthy of serious consideration. On the one hand there was a body of people who said there should be no recreation on a Sunday, but that everybody should go to chapel two or three times a day whether they liked it or not, while on the other hand there was a vast number of persons who considered not only that innocent recreation on the Sunday was harmless, but that it was extremely beneficial.

MR. THOMAS CHAMBERS

said, he considered that there were most decisive objections to this Bill. In the first place, as was very ably stated by the hon. Member for Birmingham, there was no grievance, and therefore no necessity for legislation. Language was never more grossly perverted than in that portion of the preamble of the Bill which stated that there was an infringement of religious liberty by the operation of the Act of George III. Religious liberty was a phrase which seemed to require defining anew, but as he understood it it was liberty for a man to believe according to his conscience and to worship according to his belief. If people's consciences were hurt by not being allowed to charge for admission at Sunday lectures, they might put in the same plea with regard to almost every other matter forbidden by Act of Parliament, where the objection did not agree in the policy of the prohibition. An eminent Judge declared Christianity to be part and parcel of the common law of the land, and the observance of the Lord's Day was part of the creed and practice of every Christian denomination. But the noble Lord, in the ground he had taken, stood apart from all the usages and traditions of Christendom, and had put the matter on a footing which it could never continue long to occupy in this country. If the Day of Rest was not divinely ordained, but was merely "an expedient custom," away went the Sabbath altogether; no power could preserve it to us for ten years. And why introduce a change. No law prevented these gentlemen from lecturing on Sunday evening to any audience that could be gathered together to hear them. He said, then, that there was no grievance. He objected to this Bill because it broke down the present simple and successful legislation in defence of the sacred day. The law of England did not, with certain exceptions of cases of necessity, allow trading on Sunday, or money to be earned on that day. It was therefore quite consistent with the spirit and policy of the law that these persons should not be allowed to open a lecture-room for purposes of profit on Sunday. He believed that the object of this Bill was to give facilities for saying many things which, in his opinion, ought not to be said, but he did not oppose it on that account. To restrain the utterance of such sentiments would be an infringement of civil and religious liberty. His great objection was that it violated an institution which was common to all Christians. He opposed the Bill, not only on account of its particular provisions, but on account of the general principles upon which it was founded. He further opposed it on the ground that the views of the noble Lord who moved the second reading were fraught with peril, because they went infinitely further than the provisions of the measure. An overwhelming majority of the people of this country were in favour of maintaining Sunday as a day of rest, and Parliament would wound them in their most sensitive feelings by passing such a measure as the present. Every one who stood up for six instead of seven days' labour, and who endeavoured to secure this object in the only effectual way—namely, by maintaining the inviolability of Sunday, was a true friend of the labouring man, and was so regarded by the great body of the working classes themselves, in whose name, and for whose professed advantage, this mischievous proposal was made.

MR. HOLDEN

protested against its going forth to the public that they legislated in this House on religious grounds. It was on broader grounds that the House ought to reject the Bill. Parliament was not called upon to prescribe the religious observances or opinions that any portion of the people should hold, but it was his conviction that the observance of a weekly day of rest was of the utmost importance to the people of England. He had in the course of his life resided a good deal abroad, and about thirty-five years ago he heard a distinguished Frenchman, not a religious man, but a doctrinaire, who expressed his conviction that England owed her success as an industrial and commercial country in great measure to the fact that she observed the first day of the week as a day of rest, and as a day affording facilities for domestic intercourse, for acquiring knowledge, and for relieving the mind by change of occupation. The present Emperor of the French issued a decree on this subject in 1852, and was doing all he could to limit the desecration of Sunday in France. He had succeeded to a great extent, and the French people were coming to hold the opinion that it was necessary for the prosperity of France and the well-being of the community that a day of rest should be observed. Twenty years ago there was scarcely any place of business closed in France on the Sabbath day, while now the places which were shut up on Sundays might be counted by thousands in Paris alone. He regarded it as a very happy omen that the popular feeling in England was in favour of a day of rest. The householders of England would not like to see their children going to places of amusement on the Sabbath Day. And when household suffrage came to be the law, it would be difficult for a candidate to secure his election who put forth different opinions. On these grounds he would oppose the second reading of the Bill of the noble Lord.

MR. POWELL

said, that if this measure passed there was reason to believe that, owing to the difficulty of a correct definition, there might be quasi-theatrical performances in these rooms on Sundays.

Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.

Words added.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Bill put off for six months.