OPENING OF NATIONAL MUSEUMS, &c. ON SUNDAYS.—RESOLUTION.

HC Deb 08 June 1877 vol 234 cc1494-536

MR. P. A. TAYLOR

Mr. Speaker, I rise to move the Resolution of which I have given Notice, namely— That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable to give greater facilities for the recreation and instruction of the people by opening for some hours on Sunday the National Museums and Galleries. Were it not for the peculiarity of this question, of which the House is of course sufficiently aware, I should have been disposed almost to doubt whether it is necessary to address grave arguments to the House in order to show that the people of this country, or those of them who desire to make use of the national institutions on the only leisure day in the week, have a good case to put before the British House of Commons. As to what conclusion the House of Commons will come to on the matter it is impossible for me to say. It was said 20 years ago that had the vote been taken by open Ballot the result would have been very different from what it was; but, however that may be, I hope the House will have no difficulty in distinguishing between the artizan class of the country and those Petitions we have seen, which are the happy result of the best work, but not the most scrupulous work, of various institutions in this country which have for their clientelle every Sunday-school scholar who can reach his head to the table. It is now three years since I touched this question in this House, and I should not have done so now, if I had not been asked by several Bodies, and been reminded that a great change has taken place in the opinion and feeling of the country on this question. The opinions and feelings of religious people and of the clergy have undergone and are undergoing great change. The observation of one rev. gentleman is— The clergy should occupy their proper position as leaders, and not merely spiritual relieving officers. It is high time beneficial reforms should be taken up by them, and not left to P. A. Taylor and Co. to inaugurate. I can assure the rev. gentleman and his colleagues, that I would with the greatest pleasure resign the leadership—if I may claim to have it—to them, and I am sure they would be within their position, as clergymen, in doing that which would be for the moral advantage of the people. The Press also shows a great change in this matter, notably the Press which supports the Government on the other side, and may be taken to express the opinions of right hon. Gentlemen on that side. I believe the question is now more important, from the experience the country has had in the last few years, through the opening in many towns of similar places with excellent results, and entirely unattended with any disadvantage whatever. On the occasion when I last troubled the House on this matter, I thought it right to enter to some extent on what is termed the religious part of the question. I do not propose to follow that course at all upon this occasion; amongst other reasons because the House is not fond of religious or theological discussions, and also because opinions such as those I profess no longer deal with the old Sabbatarian, or religious ground. The pretensions of Sabbatarians have been so closely examined, socially, politically, and historically, that those who oppose the opening of museums on Sundays no longer rely on the religious argument. Therefore I shall no longer try to show the House that be- cause 3,000 years ago the Jews were forbidden to work on the seventh day, Christians should be forbidden to recreate themselves on the first. But now and then Sabbatarianism will crop up. Of course, those who oppose me will say that they highly appreciate the advance of the people in the arts and sciences, and that their only objection is that these should be taught on Sunday. Can it be doubted that they permit it on six days, because they cannot object to it, because on the seventh day they set themselves against it? In a circular the other day the Sabbatarian party let out rather too much of their ancient spirit. They say that— If the free Sunday party had but faith in the Gospel, they would reap better harvests of holiness and beauty than by facilitating visits to collections of statuary and paintings, which are quite as likely to influence the passions as to purge the life. There [...]we have the true and ancient spirit of the Puritan Sabbatarian. I have said that we have not now to deal with the religious argument pure and simple, but with arguments of a social and political character. We are told that we wish to undermine the day of rest for the working-man — that we should, in fact, compel people to work on Sundays. The Sabbatarian thinks it wrong to do anything but sit quiet in one's house all day. Anything but that is regarded as undermining the day of rest. What evidence have the people of this country given of being content to give up the day of rest? What an absurdity to think we are urging them to give up the day of rest, when what we are attempting to do is to make the day of rest more agreeable and more improving. We are told that—"If you could take the spring out of the year, and youth out of life, you would not do a greater injury to the human race than if you took Sunday out of the week." We are told we are compelling people to work on Sunday. There again Sabbatarianism crops up. We are for a day of rest. These Sabbatarian people think nothing of a day of rest, unless it can be on a Sunday. These people who are compelled to work on Sunday are not cared for by the Sabbatarian party. It is we who would give them that rest it impossible to give them all on Sunday. In fact, as the rector of Bethnal Green said, in sending me a letter— My object all along is to approach the question from a religious point of view, and to discuss it on the Christian Church ground. Once get it there, and it is no longer the letter of a law to be kept as the Fourth Commandment, but the spirit of the law, the different interpretations, and different customs and liberty regarding it which have from time to time prevailed from 300 A.D. downward. Now, what work is done? There is something so factitious in the argument of the Sabbatarian. The Sabbatarian plumes himself on refraining from reading the newspaper on Sunday, yet he ought to know that work on Sunday is necessitated in order that he may have his newspaper on Monday morning. All sorts of work is necessitated on Sundays. Our servants work for us; public vehicles work for us; railways work for us; the machinists' department in many establishments work; blast furnaces are necessarily kept alive in order that men may not be kept out of work on other days. All sorts of work is essential. What should be our aim? To make the work as little as possible, and to organize a plan by which those who work on Sunday should have nothing to do on one other day. Is there any other branch on which so few people would be employed as those in the British Museum to accommodate the thousands who would go there? Of course our venerable friend, the Continental Sunday, will crop up again; but I would ask those who know anything of the dens and slums of our crowded cities, and who also know something of the Continental cities, whether, in making a comparison between the two, they have seen anything to make them certain that our course of action is so much wiser than that of the Continent? On that part of the question I would like to make these two quotations. The rev. Stopford Brooke says— As many people go to church on the Continent as in England and Scotland; and in Germany and France and Italy the Sunday afternoon and evening is by the greater number of people quietly and joyfully and decently spent. There is but little of the drunkenness that degrades our Sundays; there is but little of the coarse brawling that fills our streets; there is much more happy domestic life seen in the country walks, in the gardens, and among those who loiter through the galleries. All people are on their good behaviour on Sunday, and the true meaning of the day is better carried out on the Continent than it is here. Then, again, the rev. Dr. Guthrie wrote— We counted on one occasion (in Paris) 33 theatres and places of amusement open on the Sabbath day. Yet, although our avocation led us often through the worst parts of the City, and occasionally late in the evening, in that City, containing then a population six times larger than Edinburgh, we saw but one drunken man, and no drunken women. Well, we stepped from the steamer upon one of the London quays, and had not gone many paces when our national pride was humbled, and any Christianity we might have had was put to the blush, by the disgusting spectacle of drunkards reeling along the streets, and filling the air with horrid imprecations. In one hour we saw in London and Edinburgh, with all their churches and schools and piety, more drunkenness than we saw in five long months in guilty Paris. For those who object to that kind of Continental Sunday, I have really no argument. I have alluded to various kinds of work permitted on Sundays, and last year I road in the papers that the Queen, after a short stay at Lochnagar farm, continued her drive by way of Balnacroft, and remained for some time beside a field of oats belonging to Mr. Begg, where about 50 men and women were actively at work binding in stooks the grain which had been spread out on the Saturday. The grain was quite dry on Sunday, and the people in the district turned out with willing hands, and had the whole field bound and stooked by evening, part of the operations being conducted by moonlight. Before leaving Her Majesty signified to Mr. Begg her opinion that the work was one of necessity. I do not think there are many hon. Members in this House on either side who will deny that Her Majesty did a most gracious and rational thing in making that observation. All the villagers had turned out into the harvest field in order to obtain some little better results from the corn which was going to make bread to feed their bodies, and the Queen approved of what they did. Is it asking much more—is it asking any more—when we ask that a very few persons should be allowed to minister at the British Museum or the National Gallery, in order to garner in a richer harvest for the intellect and imagination of the masses? It is very curious to observe the course America has taken on this question. America is exceedingly like us in many respects, and, descended as she is from the Puritans who left this country 200 or 300 years ago, her regard for the Puritan Sabbath has been, perhaps, a more serious thing than it has been anywhere in this country south of the Tweed; but the lessons of experience, thought, and wisdom have taught them better things. I desire now, if the House will allow me, to read them a piece of evidence of what I may call the unconscious insincerity of the Sabbatarians in putting in the background their religious theory, and endeavouring to substitute for it social and political arguments which have no basis when removed from Sabbatarianism. That is going on in America as well as here. There was a great Convention at Boston last Autumn, at which Francis E. Abbott made these observations— It is true that in most of the States all these Sunday restrictions are put ostensibly on the ground of general secular utility, merely protecting a public day of rest, and securing the public quiet. That is the ostensible ground, and yet you and I know this, as well as that we are here to-day, that the real reason in the minds of that part of the people which sustains these statutes and keeps them on the books is a superstitious regard for the Sabbath, the 'Christian Sabbath,' and a wish to compel everybody to pay at least public homage to it. This is the fact of the case, and the disgraceful insincerity of these Sunday-Sabbath laws. They do not represent the secret, real views and opinions even of the orthodox community itself. The very men who would vote down time after time every proposition to repeal these statutes, go and do the very things which they thus formally prohibit, and break themselves the very laws which they lay as a heavy burden on the labourer, the Jew, the free-thinker. How many orthodox persons in this city and State always refrain from travelling on Sunday? How many of them always scrupulously obey these statutes? I think it is safe to say that the orthodox are just as disobedient to them as the average free-thinker. Now let me cap that with a few lines from a sermon by a rev. gentleman well-known in this country—the Rev. H. R. Haweis. In describing the difficulty we have in opening these institutions here, he says— Uninstructed public opinion—ignorant Sabbatarianism alone stops the way. Have nothing to do, I pray you, with the rowdyism of desecration which declares that Sunday is like any other day, and that we have no need of religious worship and rest. But remember there is another kind of rowdyism that is doing, if possible, more harm still, it is the religious rowdyism of the Sabbatarian ring. I would fain convert the ring, but if that is impossible, if its members will neither read the Bible, nor their history, and refuse persistently to study the will of God, or the interests of man in this matter—then, I say advisedly, we must act upon them through public opinion, and through Parliament; we must break up the Sabbatarian ring. I hope to deal a very small blow to-day towards breaking up that Sabbatarian- ism. No hon. Member can doubt that the proposition I make is at any rate a most moderate one. I have made it also most definite, in order if possible to meet the wishes of the hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope). He seemed, on the last occasion on which I brought the subject forward, half inclined to vote for me, but he complained of the indefiniteness of my Motion. He disclaimed the idea that he could have any Puritan sentiments, but he expressed a fear that a certain museum, owned by a Dr. Kahn, might be opened under cover of my Resolution. I need hardly say that it will be impossible for him to have any fear of that kind now, and I hope therefore he will vote with me. Whether I shall be told that my Motion is so small, that it is only inserting the thin end of the wedge; or whether I shall be told it is so wide and revolutionary, that religion and morality will shrink and shrivel under it, I do not know —probably, I shall be told both. In regard to the assertion that this is the thin end of the wedge, that argument is too late by at least a century. The thin end of the wedge has been put in many long years ago. We are told in the records of the Presbytery of Strathbogie, under June 6th, 1658, that the same day Alexander Cairnie, in Tilliochie, was delaitit for brak of Sabbath in bearing ane sheep upon his back from the pasture to his own house. The said Alexander compeirit and declar it that it was of necessitie for saving of the beast's life in tyme of storm. Was rebukit for the same and admonished not to do the lyke. Buckle however tells of worse than this —The Scotch clergy did not hesitate to teach the people that on that day (Sunday) it was sinful to save a vessel in distress, and that it was a proof of religion to leave ship and crew to perish. One of our more northern ministers, whose parish lies along the coast between Spey and Findhorn, made some fishermen do penance for Sabbath-breaking in going out to sea though purely with endeavour to save a vessel in distress by a storm. Cases of refusing to rescue vessels in danger because of the day being the Sabbath, have occurred more than once in quite recent times. Even in the nineteenth century we see the same spirit of Scotch ecclesiastical rage against fresh air on Sundays. In 1834 the General Assembly issued a pastoral admonition on the sanctification of the Sabbath, which was ordered to be read from every pulpit in the Church of Scotland. With deep concern," says the Assembly, "we have learned that multitudes, forgetful of their most sacred duties and immortal interests, have become accustomed to wander in the fields, to frequent scenes of recreation, &c. This is stigmatized as "an impious encroachment on the inalienable prerogative of the Lord God. Then follow threats of future judgments, worms that never die, unquenchable fire, et hoc genus omne. Who shall say, after that, that it is competent for me to insert the thin end of the wedge now? A curious story in illustration of the old Puritan Sabbatarianism is told by Miss Fanny Wright, in her book called The Views of Society. She says— An officer of the American Navy, a native of New England, told me that when a boy, he had sooner dared to pick a neighbour's pocket on a Saturday than to have smiled on a Sunday. I will go one step further, and will show not only that the thin end of the wedge theory is far too late, but that I am proposing no advance at all, but simply an extension of that which is already done in many towns to all. It is said that this would lead to the opening of theatres. Well, the time was when there was a close alliance between the theatre and religion, and had there been a Sabbatarian party in the Christian Church 600 years ago, which there was not, the probability is, that the one exception they would have made in regard to places that might be open on Sunday, would have been the theatres for the performance of sacred miracles. Since that time the distance between the drama and religion has grown very wide. Whether they will ever get nearer together again, it is not for me to say; but it is enough for me, as an answer on this occasion, to remark that nobody has asked for the theatres to be opened on Sundays, and that in those places where other places of amusement are already open, nobody has suggested that the theatres should be open too. It is a most dangerous principle, and one that has caused revolutions all the world over, to continually refuse to grant that which all hold to be sound, useful, and politic, lest as a result something which nobody desires should come into operation. That that is an unwise thing to do we all find, and acknowledge as an axiom in past history; but it is an astonishing thing that when we come to legislation on any matter under our own noses, we are continually repeating the blunder which our ancestors made. The wisdom would be to open this door just as wide as is demanded for that which all admit to be good, useful, and elevating, lest the time should come when through resisting that too much, the door will be thrown wide open by an overwhelming effort, and much will come through which is certainly equivocal, and which none of us desire. I must now say a word in regard to the places which are opened now on Sundays at home and abroad. In Protestant Germany and Denmark, as well as in France and other parts of the Continent, museums and galleries are open on Sunday. In Boston and other large towns in the United States of America, the public libraries also are open. Near London we have the Crystal Palace, the Albert Hall, and the Zoolological Gardens, which are open on Sundays—to shareholders only. I am informed that in Middlesborough the reading-room and library have lately been thrown open, from 9 till 9. I have a letter stating that the movement is thoroughly successful, and the Press of the North is unanimously in its favour. Then, we have open in the vicinity of London, Kew Gardens and Hampton Court. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Cross), who I am sorry not to see in his place, is understood to have done a great deal towards maintaining the power of the Brighton Aquarium to keep open. As a resident at Brighton, I beg to present him on my part, and on the part of my co-residents, with sincere thanks for what he has done. Some of us think he might have attempted to do it in a little more bold and obvious manner. If he had introduced a Bill for repealing an old Act passed really for other purposes, and under which no action can be taken now but what is mischievous — if he had done that, instead of merely framing a law enabling him to remit penalties after they had been inflicted, he would perhaps have been better and more completely meeting the conditions of the case. But let me remind the right hon. Gentleman and the House, that in attempting to keep open the Aquarium for the people of Brighton, he has gone a great deal beyond anything which I am now proposing, because in that case you have the evils such as they are, of payment at the door, and of there being a private company seeking to make profits by their Sunday exhibitions. Although, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman did what was quite right, and I thank him for it, yet he was going a very long way beyond what I am asking. Then, again, in Birmingham, the Free Library and Art Gallery are open. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) is here, and I trust he will tell the House his experience in the matter. The Botanical Gardens in Dublin are open on Sundays, and that under the threat that if they were not so opened, the Government allowance would be taken away. The Zoological Gardens in Dublin are also open. The hon. and gallant Member for Southwark (Colonel Beresford), is going to move an Amendment against me; and he is going to tell his constituents that it is not expedient that places of amusement should be thrown open to the public on Sundays. What does he mean by places of amusement? Some people regard the open fields as a place of amusement. Does he object to that? Some regard the streets as a place of amusement. Will he oppose their going into the streets? Some like the Parks with the bands playing. Would he prevent them from having that enjoyment which they have now had for many years, notwithstanding the vigorous opposition of those religious gentlemen who are now endeavouring to keep the museums closed? I will proceed to give a few facts as to the places already open, because facts are the most powerful arguments. Dr. Hooker wrote me the other day— Sunday is one of our fullest days, and it is impossible for people to behave better than they do on that day. As regards the museum visitors I do not remember an instance of anyone having to be turned out of any of the three museums since their establishment, now nearly 30 years ago, and they are so often densely crowded that it is difficult to move in them. On one day last year we had 68,000 visitors, and not a case of bad conduct. Now, it is a pleasant thing to notice not only how well these masses of people behave, but to observe that the very sight of the gardens as they enter seems to modify and refine the coarseness of their demeanour. Dr. Hooker says— Not a year passes without my being warned of the advent of large and rough bodies of visitors from the East and South of London, who certainly do arrive after a very disorderly fashion, but who on entering the grounds often, after a few exclamations of surprise, spontaneously assume a different demeanour, and are reported by the police and patrols as having been samples that certain Saturday visitors might well imitate. I cannot refrain from reading a few words from the Chairman of the Birmingham Free Library, because what he says is so precisely germane to the question on every point raised against me. He says— The members of the staff of attendants are allowed a day's holiday during the week in return for their six hours' duty on Sunday. The great opposition which at first existed to the Sunday opening has completely died out. … Indeed, I know for a fact that some who held strong and conscientious objections to the movement at its commencement are now willing to admit that the evils they feared have not happened, and that on the whole the result has been very beneficial to the town. A short time ago I was informed by a lady that the wife of a workman had just told her that she blessed the day the Free Libraries were opened on Sundays, as her husband who often used to spend his Sundays at the public-house was now a regular frequenter of the library, which he never quitted until it was closed. The Secretary of the Royal Zoological Society, Dublin, writes— Without in any way offering an opinion as to the general effect of opening museums, &c., on Sundays, I can only give my individual opinion that the opening of our Zoological Gardens at a nominal price has had a most civilizing effect, and tends much to keep the working classes out of the public-house.' Dr. Moore, curator of the Glasnevin. Botanic Gardens, Dublin, writes— No injury whatever has been done by the visitors; on the contrary, they appear to take great interest in examining the plants, &c., of foreign countries. Now the House will allow me to read a short extract from a letter sent to me specially in reference to the Bethnal Green Museum by a most respected clergyman, the Rev. Septimus Hansard. He writes— In the month of November last 260,000 visitors, almost entirely of the humbler class of society, came to see the works of art in the Bethnal Green Museum. The police and officers on duty there assure me that not a single person misbehaved him or herself. You never see any rudeness, nor hear any of the foul language of the street. In the face of what is beautiful the roughest is made gentle, his very language is purified, and his demeanour reverential. I have seen on week-day holidays men whom no sermons ever reach, and who have long since forgotten the Bible lessons of their childhood, gazing with wonder and interest, not unmixed with awe, on the pictures of great artists, representing some scene in the life of Christ, or discussing with one another in animated language the merits of Rembrandt's or Reynold's portraits, or questioning the reality of the bright life of Murillo's beggar boy. I should like to mention a circumstance which was reported to me on the best authority, which bears on the great question of recreation versus public-houses. On the day of the opening of our Bethnal Green Museum there must have been congregated in the streets of the East-end of London nearly 500,000 people, men, women, and children, and yet there was not a single case of drunkenness brought before the magistrates the next day arising out this event, and why? Because the people had something else to do and to look at and to amuse themselves with. I wish you would tell Sir Wilfrid Lawson this. I am certain that a great proportion of drunkenness in the humbler classes is caused by their having nothing else to do on a holiday but to get drunk. I do not know what people will say about this matter 50 years hence. They will probably say that in the year 1877 there was a tremendous "to do" raised against the drinking habits of the people; that meetings were held, and every evil and every crime that existed was traced to those drinking habits. Whether the evils of drink are exaggerated or not I will not say; but for my part I believe that if the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), went to Italy, and saw the leaning tower at Pisa he would come to the conclusion that its peculiar position was caused by alcohol. However that may be, people 50 years hence will tell how we fought and quarrelled and turned out one Government and put in another on the question whether public-houses should be opened half-an-hour sooner or later; but that a large majority declared—for I fear that will be the case—that let what may be open, every avenue to improvement and recreation should be closed on Sunday. The working classes require and must have the stimulus of change and recreation. We have plenty of it. We have the Derby Day; the 12th of August, and the 1st of September; and I suppose many of us have amusement and excitement for every day in the year. The poor man must have something to look forward to at the end of his week's work—some change, amusement, and recreation. As it is, he looks forward to the public-house with its warmth, its comfort, and its gossip; and I for one am not prepared to take that way. I do not believe in raising people by taking away a lower-class excitement, but rather by giving them something better and higher. This has been so well put by a high dignitary of the Church—I find myself supported on all sides by the clergy; it is a new sensation for me—that I must quote his words. At a meeting at Liverpool of the Chester Diocesan Branch of the Church of England Temperance Society, the Dean of Bangor said— That to compel public-houses to be closed on Sunday by Act of Parliament, before the people were willing that it should he done, would be very undesirable, even if it were possible. The question arose, however, if they were going to close public-houses on Sunday, what were they going to give the working-classes in exchange for them? One element of the case was the convivial or the social character of the gatherings at public-houses, and they ought to provide some counter-attractions. They must find something to replace the public-houses—something to ennoble and not debase the people. The rev. Septimus Hansard, from whom I before quoted, concludes his appeal in words compared with which any language of mine would be weak. He says— In the name of my Master, and for the sake of the religion most hon. Members of the House profess, I ask that all places of healthful recreation for mind and body under the supervision of the Government should be opened on Sunday afternoons. I shall now ask the House to permit me to tire it once more by reading an account of what they have done in America in this matter. This account, which is not without its interest, was given by Mr. Gannett at the Boston Convention. He said— There is the public library reading-room on Sundays; there it was not till three or four years ago, thanks to some of the working man's good friends. But in Boston, after 10 separate struggles during a 17 years' campaign, it lots stood open to him since February 9, 1871. He has scanty time for papers or magazines through the week, and there he will find a feast of them. If you go there you will see him any Sunday afternoon or evening. According to the last report of the Boston Library, at the central reading-room it takes on the average, that day, 476 periodicals to feed him and his fellows—the winter average, apart from the summer, much exceeding this—and on full Sundays the congregation overflows into the next room. A very considerable proportion are persons who do not or cannot visit the library on week-days—reporters, mechanics, and those who work early and late. At the Christian Union reading-room, at Boston, they read books as well as papers. When that institution was re-organized in 1868, without a word said to anyone, it simply left the bookshelves free on Sundays, and no one said a word against the liberty. Probably three times as many readers go there as on the week days; before the morning church, and through the afternoon and evening. 'I would rather close it any other day than Sunday,' says the President. The Milwaukee Library ventured to do the same in 1869 or 1870. In Philadelphia, also, the Mercantile Library followed suit in 1870. Before the second year was out the attendance averaged 700, nearly all young men, and it reports generally increasing numbers ever since. The Cincinnati Public Library, opening its doors on a March Sunday of 1871, has the past year, averaged over 1,100 in its Sunday reading-rooms. 'How many were genuine, how many are loafers in search of a warm place on Sunday, I know not,' writes the friend I quote. 'But where might the loafers have been otherwise?' It is better, I take it, even to loaf and idle by the shelves of libraries than in other places to which I need not more particularly refer. Mr. Gannett continues— In New York the Mercantile Library began with a Sunday of May, 1872. The St. Louis Public School Library was only a month later. 'It is always as full as its generous accommodation permits.' In even a small city like Worcester, 200 visitors find Sunday shelter in the Library, besides a librarian, who makes it a part of his personal Snnday service to minister to their individual book wants. What is the experience of individuals in this country—such men as the Duke of Westminster and Mr. Bicknell? All honour to them, I say, for what they have done. Some friends of ours in this House may think otherwise, nor do I very well see why the Duke of Westminster should be permitted to endanger the souls of many thousands of his fellow-creatures simply because that house is his private house. However, let us see what he writes to Sir Henry Cole— Visitors numbered in the two months 10,560, and the applications were so numerous that the clerk's time was so entirely taken up with this work that we had to say that no more could be entertained, or tickets issued. I had no idea that there would have existed so great a desire to see these things, and I am heartily glad of it. It shows that if the opportunity could only be given, thousands would gladly avail themselves of visiting, to their benefit, such collections on, with many of them, the only available day—namely, on Sundays—and thereby improving their taste and assisting towards the instruction required. Another year we may make better provision before hand. Among other applications (refused) was one for admission for the Thames bargees. I received a letter yesterday from a foreman at a large tailoring establishment— Poole's—and he says that seeing that the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council (Viscount Sandon) had said that working men were opposed to the Motion, he canvassed 900 working men, and found only 12 opposed to it. He adds— I shall be very glad to introduce to those shops either Lord Sandon or any other Member of the House of Commons who supposes that working men are opposed to the Sunday opening of museums. Last year, I am told, a procession of 20,000 persons walked through the streets of London quietly and knocked at the doors of the British Museum and the National Gallery, and requested to be admitted to their rights. They were very properly told that the Trustees of the British Museum had carefully considered the application, and had come to the conclusion that the question was one for the decision of the Government. With the Government and the House of Commons, therefore, it depends whether the people should have the advantage of visiting those places on the Sunday. Mr. Wornum, of the National Gallery, replied in the same way. I am struck with an impression almost of terror at the awful waste of human intellect and human enjoyment which is the result of our mode of dealing with Sunday. When you reflect that every man who lives to be 70 has passed 10 whole years of Sundays, and that there are tens of thousands of workmen in our great towns who have no opportunity of study or culture, who, perhaps, have not half-a-dozen books to go to, and who are shut out from these centres of knowledge and intelligence, I say it strikes one with terror. I cannot credit that there are many mute inglorious Miltons who would arise to bless the country; but I am convinced that the general enjoyment and intelligence and re-active force of tens of thousands would be infinitely raised if we could take a more sensible action in this matter. There is another point of view which I would urge on the House. I would ask it to reflect that we are voting on a matter which interests, individually and personally, no single Member of the House. Not a Member cares whether museums and libraries are opened on Sunday or not. It is Dives legislating for Lazarus; and I only say we should be very careful what decision we come to. It is a division of labour, and not one of a wholesome character. We, wealthy, and it is to be hoped pious, pass a sort of self-denying ordinance; but those out-of-doors, away from us, and away from our vote, will suffer, and not ourselves. I cannot understand how hon. Gentlemen can take on themselves the responsibility of giving an adverse vote. I imagine somebody going along the worst streets in London or in Birmingham, and seeing drunkenness and brutality and hopeless apathy—the alternation between deadly apathy and the excitement of the gin palace. Let him go a year afterwards, say to Birmingham, where the public libraries and art gallery have been opened, and into which he sees working-men with their wives and children entering, sober, well-dressed, and happy, and I defy him—however he may be going to vote tonight—to prevent an involuntary "thank God" rising to his lips. But every man who votes against this Motion is doing his utmost to prevent a consummation which, if it came about without his intervention, he would deem worthy of gratitude to the Almighty for. I will only give the House one more extract, and it is from a letter, dated June 6, from the incumbent of the Bedfordbury Mission Church, St. Martin's-in-the-Fields. He says— As the clergyman of a very poor district within one minute's walk of the National Gallery, I wish you success. It is a very rare thing for a family in my district to have more than one room for all domestic work. It is wicked, indeed, to refuse the people the use of a place like the National Gallery; it is no further from them than a gentleman's picture gallery from his lawn. I wish Members of Parliament and other religious people who oppose your Motion could spend one Sunday afternoon where I always spend mine, and I am sure they would vote at least for the opening of the National Gallery. What the people's rooms are on a wet Sunday, when they cannot break the Sabbath by walking in the parks, let medical men say. People oppose this Motion as virulently and vehemently as if you were going to pass a law to compel them to go to museums and picture galleries. All we desire is to free those persons who do desire to go from the inability to gratify themselves; and I do think it would not be more tyrannous to compel those to go who do not want to go, than to declare by law that those who do desire to avail themselves of the British Museum, and other great collections, shall not go. What is the right to coerce? And what is more monstrous than that the Dissenters should take up this law? I am told the strongest opponents of my Motion are the Dissenters. Whether that is so or not, I cannot say. I represent a constituency of Dissenters, and they do not seem very angry with me. I have personal friends largely among the Dissenters, and I know very few indeed who are opposed to it. But if it be true that there is a section of Dissenters who are opposed to this Motion, their conduct is most flagrantly inconsistent—to demand the separation of Church and State, and to say that they will not permit any bond of the State to interfere between them and their conscience, and then to say they will not allow the right of private judgment to those who differ from them. I make an earnest appeal finally to the House to pass this Resolution. It is on the face of it natural, reasonable, and moderate. It only brings up London to where many large towns at this time already are, and it only brings up London as far as the British Museum is concerned to where it is as far as Hampton Court and other gardens are concerned. It infringes the conscience of no man, except it be a conscience of that delicate texture which will not be satisfied unless it infringes on that right of private judgment in others which it demands for itself. I beg leave to move the Resolution.

LORD FRANCIS HERVEY

, in seconding the Resolution, said, that he did so with great pleasure, for it only asked that the Museums and National Gallery should be thrown open on Sundays for some hours—a demand which, in his opinion, was both clear and moderate. When a similar proposition was brought forward three years ago, it did not meet with altogether a fair reception. It was opposed on grounds of principle by the hon. Member for Leicester's Colleague (Mr. A. M'Arthur) and by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Shepherd Allen); but afterwards his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) raised with felicitous subtlety a doubt whether the Resolution was not somewhat ambitious and extravagant. The hon. Member for Leicester had now cleared up any ambiguity which might have existed, and had removed all suspicion of extravagance. The objections urged against the Resolution were of an insidious character, and such as were scarcely worthy of serious refutation. Its opponents took up first of all the cause of the employés, but the solution of any difficulty of that kind was easy. This was a rich country, and if it chose to have its museums and galleries open on Sundays, it could afford to act justly to the employés who were entrusted with the custody of those buildings. The opponents of the measure also talked about the additional cabs, trams, omnibuses, and trains which would be used. Why, if all the public buildings in London were opened on the Sunday, he did not believe that it would make any perceptible difference in the amount of traffic in the streets or on the lines of railway, and he was satisfied that in the event of his hon. Friend succeeding in carrying his Resolution, he would not be able to create a revolution in the character of Sunday traffic in London. The last argument that the opponents of this proposal always put forward with great effect was, that this was only the thin end of the wedge, and that if people were once admitted to the picture galleries and to the libraries, the factories and the shops would very soon be opened also. He regarded that argument as the merest possible "bogie." Was it reasonable to suppose that when Sunday was made more attractive, and when the means of recreation and instruction were increased, the working classes would allow themselves to be forced back into factories and into shops at the instance of their employers? Did anybody believe in the soundness of that argument? The truth was, that it was put forward by those who had a certain delicacy in stating what their real objection to the proposal was. He desired to touch very lightly on this branch of the subject, and to avoid as far as possible all theological discussion, but he must warn those who were determined to enforce strictly their Sabbatarian views against the danger of disgusting people with them, and of causing them to disregard the Sabbath altogether. He would caution them against the Nemesis that awaited upon extravagance. By putting forward claims for Sunday, and urging grounds which were not believed by those whom they addressed, they were really undermining instead of supporting the Sunday. It was also asserted by the other side that this movement had been got up in the interests of the publicans; but he did not believe that visiting picture galleries and libraries was more thirsty work than walking in the parks or in the streets. Having thus met, he hoped successfully, the main arguments on the other side, he would proceed to urge one or two points which, it appeared to him, told strongly in favour of the Resolution of the hon. Member. Its object was to render Sunday a more effective and better holiday, and afford the people additional means of refinement and instruction. He did not believe that such a result would be attended with any great evil. There had never been at any previous period of our history so strong a demand for recreation of an intellectual kind as there was at present, and this was a demand which came not only from the richer and from the professional classes, but also from the working classes. Under the existing law it was impossible that the demand could be satisfied, because on the only day on which the working classes could visit our art museums the latter were closed. In these circumstances, it being now proposed to throw museums and picture galleries open to the people on that only day, he hoped the House would feel justified by this great and increasing demand on the part of the people for intellectual recreation in not allowing itself to be swayed in this matter by Sabbatarian considerations, but that by adopting the Resolution they would convert Sunday from being a dismal day into one of which they could say—"This is the day the Lord hath made; let us rejoice and be glad in it."

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is desirable to give greater facilities for the recreation and instruction of the people by opening for some hours on Sunday the National Museums and Galleries,"—(Mr. P. A. Taylor,) —instead thereof.

COLONEL BERESFORD

, who had given Notice of an Amendment to the effect—"That, in the opinion of this House, it is not expedient that places of amusement be thrown open to the public on Sundays," said, that he regarded our Sunday rest as the great charter which we had received direct from the Al- mighty. In his opinion, the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) stood alone in his advocacy of the matter, and he had not shown that any change like that which he had proposed to make was required by the great mass of the working classes. What had happened yesterday? While the hon. Member was obliged to present a Petition in favour of his Resolution signed by a single person, he (Colonel Beresford), on the other hand, had presented to-day 200 Petitions, signed by nearly 50,000 people, and one of which was 1,506 feet in length, with 34,600 names, against it. A number of Petitions against the Motion had also been presented from places in Scotland and Ireland. These Petitions, he considered, showed evidence of the state of public feeling on the subject—that it was the general desire the Resolution should be rejected. It was a significant fact that the principal supporters of the movement were the members of the Sunday League. He believed that if there was one boon greater than another that had been bestowed on mankind it was the gift of the Sabbath day, and yet the hon. Member for Leicester wished to throw open museums and other institutions of a similar character on that day. The question had been already brought before the House, and debated, but had always been rejected. It was fully considered by the House in 1868, and was rejected on the Motion of an hon. Gentleman opposite, and in 1874 a similar Motion was rejected by a majority of more than 200, the numbers being 271 against 68. This circumstance had also to be taken into account. A meeting of clergy was held at St. Martin's Schools, Charing Cross, when a motion by the Sunday League Party in favour of opening museums, &c., on Sunday was lost by 56 to 35; and at another clerical meeting at Sion College a similar motion proposed by the same rev. gentleman was defeated by 29 to 6. That showed, at least, that the London clergy were not agreed on the subject at all, and that the majority were against the Sunday opening of museums and galleries of art. In 1874 the Sunday League boasted that they had secured the adhesion of 200 clergymen, men of science, and ministers; but it was met by 4,000 signatures from the same class of persons. Similar meetings were held on the subject in Nottingham, Manchester, and Liverpool with the same result; while in Leicester, the head-quarters of the hon. Member (Mr. P. A. Taylor), a Petition, to which 4,000 names were attached, was met in a few hours by another with 15,000 signatures. These were rather strong arguments against the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, and the junior Member for Leicester (Mr. M'Arthur) would give the House his opinion as to the general feeling of that town on that subject. The Sunday League, which was the great instigator of this movement, had amongst its chief supporters Bradlaugh, Truelove, Besant, Charles Watts, and others, who were more or less implicated in the dissemination of indecent publications which were now before the Courts of Law. To open these places to the public on a Sunday would render indispensable the employment of a large staff of persons. The hon. Member and the noble Lord the Member for Bury St. Edmund's (Lord Francis Hervey) both admitted this; but we had no right to do evil that good might come of it. He trusted that the House would never sanction the employment of a large body of public servants on Sundays. It would be impossible to carry out the Resolution without a large staff of attendants in every building thrown open to the public, besides refreshment rooms and drinking establishments. It had been alleged that the licensed victuallers were all in favour of this movement; and, if true, that was strong evidence against the Resolution. With these facts staring him in the face, he hoped the House would not accept it; but retain the credit it acquired in 1874 by rejecting it by a still larger majority.

MR. A. M'ARTHUR

Sir, it is by no means an agreeable duty I have to perform in rising to oppose a Motion brought forward by my hon. Friend and Colleague, and supported by hon. Members of this House, and also by some gentlemen out-of-doors for whom I entertain feelings of respect and esteem. But my hon. Friend is aware that we entertain widely different views upon the Sunday question, and respecting the best means of maintaining and using an institution, which has been characterized by one of his friends as "an effete system which is fast losing its hold on the respect of thinking men," but which has been, I think, more correctly described by another of his supporters as "the greatest institution the country possesses for the purposes of the religious and moral education of the people." My hon. Friend thinks the policy he advocates is right, and would do good, that it would be an advantage to the public, and that it would especially benefit the working classes. Now, Sir, I give my hon. Friend and many of those who sympathize with him full credit for pure motives and good intentions; but I am fully persuaded in my own mind that the course he recommends us to take is a dangerous one—that it would be a step in the wrong direction—that it would not be an advantage to the public, and that instead of benefiting artizans and the working classes, as he has persuaded himself, and tries to persuade us, it would on the contrary bring about a state of things which might be subversive of their liberty, and would be highly injurious to their truest and best interests. I therefore feel it my duty to oppose the Motion, however unpleasant it may be for me to have to do so. Sir, I observe that the Motion proposed by my hon. Friend in 1874 differed in some respects from the one he now invites us to consider. He then moved— That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable to give greater facilities for recreation of a moral and intellectual character, by permitting the opening of Museums, Libraries, and similar institutions on Sunday. He now asks the House to affirm— That it is desirable to give greater facilities for the recreation and instruction of the people by opening for some hours on Sunday the National Museums and Galleries. Now, Sir, I do not imagine that the members of the Sunday League have changed their minds, or modified their views, upon this question; but they probably think that limiting their demands to opening the national museums and galleries for a few hours on Sunday, will make the Motion more acceptable to the House, and give it a better chance of support. And they are perfectly satisfied that if they can succeed in obtaining what they at present ask, all that they desire must inevitably and speedily follow. Sir, I trust that the difference in the wording of the Resolution will not deceive hon. Members, or induce them to look more favourably upon it than they did upon the Motion of 1874. To me the proposal submitted to us is even more objectionable than the former one. I am aware it has been argued that a broad distinction should be made between such public institutions and those maintained by companies or private individuals over whom we have no control. Now, Sir, I do not think we have either disposition or the right to interfere with the liberty of private individuals in this respect. We all know that a highly respected nobleman, actuated, we doubt not, by pure motives, has thrown open his galleries to the public on Sunday at certain periods. We may regard this as mistaken kindness, and think the object he has in view would have been better accomplished had he opened them on Saturday afternoons and on Mondays, but no one ever dreams of interfering. We are also aware that in Birmingham and, perhaps, in other places, certain corporate institutions have been opened on Sunday, and, I am willing to admit, with some advantage to a limited number of persons. In the town so long and ably represented by my hon. Friend, where he is so deservedly popular, the propriety of opening the museum and free library has been discussed for many years past, and if the corporation of Leicester think it would be an advantage to the inhabitants to open these institutions, I do not apprehend there would be the slightest disposition on the part of this House to interfere in any way. But what we are now asked to do is, in my opinion, vastly more important and much more objectionable, than the opening of such places in a dozen provincial towns would be. Sir, we are now asked to give the sanction of this House to the opening of national institutions on Sunday, and thus publish to the world that England has changed her views respecting the observance of the day. That would be a signal triumph to my hon. Friend and his supporters, who, as I have already intimated, know perfectly well if they can succeed in the effort they are now making, that the opening of all other institutions throughout the country would soon follow, and that one of the strongest barriers for the defence of our English Sunday, with all its inestimable privileges and advantages, would be broken down. But we are informed by the very rev. Dean who has now the honour of being President of the Sunday Society, and whose generous sympathies and benevolent intentions none who are acquainted with him will question, that "they desire only to go as far as they thought to be right, and not one step further." Well, Sir, if the very rev. gentleman were always to be president, and if all would submit to his judgment, we might be tolerably certain that he would not go further than he has indicated, unless his extreme good nature should lead him to concede a little more when urged to do so. But can he depend upon having all his own way? Is he not fully aware that what he proposes is only a small instalment of that which his new allies desire and are earnestly contending for? Can it be that he is unconscious of the danger of encouraging men to go as far in a wrong direction, or, at all events, in carrying out what many regard as a dangerous experiment as they think they could go with safety? Sir, that is a delusion which has proved fatal to many. There were doubtless some men of generous impulses and good intentions who identified themselves with the Communistic movement in Paris a few years ago, under the impression that they were advocating the cause of liberty, and with the determination that they would go as far as they thought to be right, and not one step further; brave men like Rossell and some others fought for what they believed to be the rights of the people, and imagined they could control the movement. But we all know how sadly mistaken they were, how soon they lost all control, how even women were transformed into demons, how all Europe was horrified at hearing of that diabolical crime, the murder of the hostages, including the Archbishop of Paris and several men of high character and position, and of the attempt to destroy Paris by fire, an attempt which was so far successful that a large portion of the Tuileries, the Hotel de Ville, and several other public buildings were actually destroyed, and the Pantheon, under which a large quantity of gunpowder had been stored for the purpose of blowing it up, was only saved by the bravery of a soldier who, at the risk of his life, rushed forward and extinguished the fusee which had actually been ignited. I am aware we are happily free from all apprehension of such atrocities being committed in London; but I give this as one illustration out of scores that might be given to show how difficult it is to control a movement in a wrong direction when once a certain impetus has been given to it. But, Sir, we are told of the wonderfully good effect the sight of paintings, sculpture, and other works of art will have, especially if they are seen on Sunday; how people will desert the public-houses and flock to such institutions for intellectual improvement. Well, Sir, I am not one of those who despise or undervalue the refining influence of art. On the contrary, I would wish to see artistic tastes more cultivated and encouraged in every legitimate way; but I have yet to learn that art has ever done much for the promotion of good order, morality, or civil and religious liberty. We all know something of the histories of Greece and Rome, and I need not occupy the time of the House by referring to them. I may, however, remark that we have a more modern illustration, and I must add warning, in our neighbours across the Channel. I am aware my hon. Friend and his supporters are quite tired of hearing about a Continental Sunday. It is by no means an agreeable subject, and they would sooner keep it in the background. I recollect a few weeks ago reading an article in a paper which strongly advocates the opening of museums and other places of a similar character on Sunday, but which I am bound to acknowledge has freely admitted arguments on both sides of the question. The writer, after referring to the well-meaning, but withal intolerant Sabbatarians, who offer the people no alternative between the church and the public-house, observes— And what are the chief obstacles? The objections upon the score of the comparatively infinitesimal attendant superintendence and expense being happily obviated by the promoter of the reform, the sole impediment seems to be that dead mass of religious Pharisaism and prejudice which has ever proved an almost insuperable barrier to the impartial consideration of this important subject. And what is the chief plea upon which the non-church-going masses are now condemned to abandon to the public-house that Sunday leisure which might otherwise be devoted to innocent amusement and rational recreation? That irrepressible bugbear of the Continental Sunday, upon which there is really more quietude and less drinking, is of course trotted out, likewise the equally plausible but still ill-timed scarecrow extreme of theatre opening; but this species of Sabbatarian intimidation has long ceased to alarm. Well, Sir, it may be very stupid on the part of this mass of religious Pharisaism and prejudice that they cannot see just as the members of the Sunday League see in this matter, and that they will learn wisdom by the experience of our friends on the Continent, and endeavour to avoid the evil which their mode of Sunday observance has entailed upon them. But however inconvenient and unpleasant it may be to my hon. Friend, I fear we must not close our eyes to what is going on in the world around us, or ignore the danger which threatens us. Sir, Paris has for ages past enjoyed the wonderful advantage of having her museums, picture galleries, theatres, and other places of amusement open on Sunday, and her races and reviews are generally on that day. Has the result been so satisfactory as to induce us to follow her example; or is it not a fact that thoughtful men both there and in other parts of the Continent, are conscious of the evil consequences of such desecration, and are endeavouring to bring about a better state of things? Will any one who knows both places assert that there is more morality, more social and domestic happiness, or more civil and religious liberty in Paris than we have in London? And, above all, will any one argue that working-men are better off, or have more rest and enjoyment? Is my hon. Friend and Colleague aware that a society to promote the better observance of Sunday has been established on the Continent, and that a Conference was held last year in Geneva, at which I believe I am correct in stating that there were delegates from almost every country in Europe? Pére Hyacinthe was one of the speakers, and, after alluding to the value and importance of Sunday from a religious point of view, he is reported to have said— But the Lord's Day is not the day of God alone, it is the day of humanity. This is the true democratic festival, this day of God and man. And yet this is the day which certain friends of the people wish to deprive them of. False friends that cheat them with the name of liberty, thinking only of their bodily needs, and not wisely even of those. Another gentleman who has seen more of the world than most men living, and who is well qualified to form a correct opinion, writing upon this subject observes— Often have I wished that all the working men of England could see the toil and frivolity of a Parisian Sunday. I am sure that the most thoughtful of them, however opposed to Christianity, would be ready to say, as was once said to me by a Leicester rationalist who met me in one of the streets of Paris one Sunday, 'I don't like this, it is so unlike our system of finishing a week's work, taking rest, and then beginning again. Here there is no cessation. Look at those carters how sluggish they seem, as though their life was one endless toil and drudgery.' Will the House permit me to read one other extract from a letter written by Mr. Hill, the Secretary of the Working Men's Lord's Day Rest Association— On the Continent the Sunday is secularized. They have a so-called free Sunday, a kind of freedom that involves the Sunday slavery of the great mass of the labouring population. The religious observance of the day is ignored. My first Sunday in Paris I shall never forget. I awoke in the morning to the sound of workmen's tools. On going to the window I saw a glazier tapping at the sash with his hammer and knife. A carpenter was also hard at work with his planes and saws. At eight o'clock the roar of the traffic of a great city was in full operation; vans of timber, lime, coal, railway luggage, and numberless other vehicles were driving along. The postman was loaded with newspapers and letters, the scavengers were hard at work, the newspaper kiosks were all open selling the newspapers that are published on every day in the year. I counted 100 men working at the Hotel Continental, which was being erected on the Rue de Rivoli. These men worked not a part, but the whole of the Sunday. Hundreds of women were washing clothes in the washing barges on the river. Shops in all directions were open; hatters, hosiers, mattress makers, gun shops, scientific instrument shops, jewellers, drapers, and umbrella shops, picture dealers, furniture shops, toy shops, in the grandest streets were wide open as on other days of the week. In one of the papers dated 10th Sept., 1876, there were no less than 65 places of amusement advertised as open on the Lord's Day, including 21 theatres, concerts, gymnasia, Palace of Industry, panoramas, museums, skating rinks, circuses, and balls. In addition there were notices of fetes and amusements in many of the suburbs, and of the Sunday races at Boulogne. The cafés and public-houses were open all day long, and all amusements are intensified. The nation has no day of rest. The labouring classes have no Sunday. Hon. Members who are familiar with Paris must recognize the truthfulness of this description. To the rich, Sunday is there a day of dissipation and amusement, but to young men and women in shops and offices, and to the working classes generally, life is, as described by a Leicester rationalist, one endless toil and drudgery. And yet I have heard my hon. Friend argue that there is more quiet and decorum in Continental cities than we have in England, and he quotes the late rev. Dr. Guthrie to prove this. Well, Sir, Dr. Guthrie stated that he counted 33 theatres and places of amusement open in Paris on Sunday, and he met many other things which made him almost exclaim with Abraham "the fear of God is not in this place." But he saw only one drunken man and no drunken women; while his Christianity was put to the blush by the disgusting spactacle of drunkards reeling along the streets, and filling the air with horrid imprecations in London and Edinburgh. But does my hon. Friend imagine that Dr. Guthrie attributed the greater sobriety of the Parisians to the influence of the picture galleries and the 33 theatres and other places of amusement he saw open, or that he would have advised us to make a similar experiment. Would he not, like a practical and sensible man which he was, rather come to the conclusion that in Paris the great bulk of the population drink light French wines, while the masses of this country drink strong ale or spirits of some kind. Sir, my hon. Friend and his supporters are very anxious to impress upon us the evil consequences of Sunday drinking, and also to persuade us that opening museums and libraries would lessen the evil by inducing people to forsake the public-houses and seek for higher and more intellectual pleasures. Sir, I do not believe that any appreciable good would be accomplished in that way. My decided conviction is that instead of diminishing, it would greatly increase the quantity of intoxicating liquors consumed, and, perhaps, one of the best proofs of this is that the publicans are almost all in favour of the Motion. But, Sir, who is responsible for all the evil of this Sunday drinking? I and many others think it would be one of the greatest blessings that could be conferred on working men to close public-houses altogether on Sundays, or to provide British workmen public-houses where refreshments for bonâ fide travellers might be provided, but my hon. Friend and his supporters will not allow us. Their argument seems to be—yes, we admit that Sunday drinking is doing a vast amount of harm; that it is robbing unfortunate women and helpless children of the money which ought to be spent in procuring them better clothes and food; that it is increasing crime, and producing poverty, disease, and death. Still, we must oppose all at- tempts to close public-houses on Sunday; but it is a crying shame that you should allow them to be open and refuse to open museums, picture galleries, and other places of amusement to counteract the injurious influence they are exerting upon the public. It must also, I think, be evident to all those who really look at the question in all its bearings, that just in proportion as you open public institutions and places of amusement, there will very naturally be a demand for additional refreshment stalls and dining-rooms, where intoxicating drinks will be freely consumed, and where large numbers must be employed as cooks and waiters—with their assistants. I want also to ask who is to fix the standard, or draw the line where we are to stop, and not go one step further down the inclined plane on which we are invited to travel? Sir, I doubt not I have the honour of being included in that mass of "religious Pharisaism and prejudice" alluded to "which prevents the impartial consideration of this important subject." Well, Sir, I do not admit the justice of the imputation, for I really have felt it my duty to endeavour to understand the question, and to give it my most careful and impartial consideration. In order that I might be able to do so, I have read a great number of pamphlets that have been sent to me, a great number of articles that have appeared in newspapers, and a great many reports of speeches made at public meetings both by supporters and opponents of the Motion of my hon. Friend, and perhaps an argument used by a rev. gentleman at one of these meetings may help us out of our difficulty. The rev. gentleman is reported to have said— They did not wish to destroy or degrade the Sabbath, but they believed to open free libraries and museums would be a good thing. If it was right to go to the museums on Saturday, it could not be wrong to go on the Sunday. Now, I think if we follow out this line of argument, it will lead us further than I hope the rev. gentleman would like to go, though not one step further than I believe a great many members of the Sunday League would wish us to accompany them. Sir, there are many hon. Members of this House who think horse-racing a harmless and very enjoyable amusement, that it helps to improve the breed of horses, and should be encouraged. I do not know how far my hon. Friend shares in that opinion, for he always votes against the Adjournment of the House on the Derby Day; but according to the principle laid down to which I have alluded, if it be right to go to the races on Saturday, it cannot be wrong to go on Sunday. Again, there are many who think that theatres, ball rooms, and music saloons are innocent and enjoyable places of amusement, which, if it be proper to attend on weekdays, it cannot be wrong to attend on Sunday, especially as we are informed they have been so successful in promoting quiet enjoyment, good order, and morality in Paris. Well, Sir, I hope we shall not try the experiment of endeavouring to improve our English Sunday by such means. I am perfectly aware that many who agree with the proposal of my hon. Friend have no wish to go so far, and some would perhaps be shocked at the idea of such a thing. But I am equally certain that that is the road along which they are invited to travel, and if they once commence the downward journey, they may find it more difficult to stop than they imagine. We are also informed, on the high authority of the President, that the object of the Sunday Society is, on the one hand, to maintain the value and importance of the English Sunday, and, on the other hand, to do the best they can to improve it. Well, Sir, we have heard of a certain painter who once sent in a bill of a guinea to the churchwarden of Liddington for mending the Commandments, altering the Belief, and making a new Lord's Prayer. The objects proposed by the Sunday Society are not quite so comprehensive, but they are in the same direction. We have also heard of improving people off the face of the earth, and I trust we shall not try the experiment of endeavouring to improve our English Sunday by adopting Continental customs that have done much harm there, and have resulted, not in the liberation, but in the enslavement of the working-classes. Sir, we hear a great deal said about sympathy with the working-classes; but it seldom assumes a very practical form, and we are sometimes tempted to think that, in many instances, if it were not for the pound, shillings, and pence argument, and the desire to pay good dividends, we would hear much less about the good effects of opening such places on Sunday than we are in the habit of hearing. If there is this wonderful sympathy, why should not the directors of the Brighton Aquarium give us some proof of it by admitting the working classes free on Sunday, and thus manifesting their interest in them and liberality towards them. Again, it is argued that the national museums are the property of the nation, and should, therefore, be open to the public. Sir, I hope my hon. Friend does not imagine that he and his supporters constitute the nation. If so, I believe he is greatly mistaken; and if they do not, he will, I trust, admit that those who differ from him are entitled to some consideration, especially if they form the majority, as I believe they do. At all events, whether I am right or wrong in this opinion, I think it must be admitted we have very little evidence to show that working men as a class have any strong feeling in favour of the Motion of my hon. Friend. Certainly, the demonstration attempted to be got up last night in Trafalgar Square, would not warrant us to come to such a conclusion. And my conviction is that the great majority of them are too well aware of their own interest to approve of any measures the tendency of which is to increase their labour without increasing their income. I think I may safely add that those who desire to preserve the rest of Sunday are amongst the most sober, industrious, loyal, and law-abiding portion of the working men of this country. Sir, it has been said that cleanliness is next to godliness, and I think that even in a sanitary point of view our English Sunday is exceedingly valuable, for its proper observance tends to create and encourage habits of cleanliness, good order, decency, and self-respect. There are few more pleasing sights to be seen than the cottage of a respectable artizan or working-man on Sunday morning, where everything is as clean and comfortable as circumstances will permit— And sweetly steals the Sabbath rest Upon the world's work-wearied breast; Of heaven the sign, of earth the calm, The poor man's birthright and his balm, when his wife and children are neatly, though inexpensively, dressed, and when he is enjoying with them the rest of the day that God has given him—the only day he can call his own—and which, if he is wise, he will let no man take from him. Sir, I am not unconscious of the great value and importance of the rest and quiet of Sunday to the religious portion of the community. It is not, however, my intention to detain the House by dwelling upon this part of the subject, except to repeat what I have said on a former occasion—that I believe Christianity has made us what we are as a nation, that Christianity and the Sunday are inseparably connected, and that if we abolish or secularize the latter we shall soon have comparatively little of the former left worthy of the name. But there is another aspect of the question upon which my hon. Friend has not said much, or perhaps thought much, and which I regard as quite too important to be lost sight of in a debate like the present. I have already alluded to the statement made by the President of the Sunday Society respecting the best means of maintaining and using what he very properly regards as the greatest institutution the country possesses for promoting the moral and religious education of the people. Well, Sir, my conviction is that, next to the pulpit and the Press, there is no other institution which has done so much to promote the moral and religious education of the people of this country as the Sunday School. At a period when education was not so popular, or so much cared for as it happily is at present, hundreds of thousands of children were taught to read, and received moral and religious instruction, the value and importance of which to them and to the nation it would be impossible to estimate too highly, and I believe it is to this that we are indebted for much of the order, good feeling, respect for the law, and respect for religion which prevail even amongst many who do not attend any place of worship. Almost innumerable instances might be given to prove the beneficial effects of Sunday Schools, but I must not enlarge upon the subject. Some idea of the extent of Sunday School work, may, however, be formed from the fact, that it is estimated there are in England and Wales about 30,000 schools and 500,000 teachers, who are zealously, laboriously, and faithfully instructing between 3,000,000 and 4,000,000 of children and young persons in our Sunday Schools. But it is said Sunday Schools are not now so necessary as they formerly were. I believe the reverse to be the case. The tendency at present is to ex- clude from day-school teaching all religious instruction, except what is of an elementary and undenominational character, and the strong argument in favour of this is that such instruction ought to be given in the church and the Sunday School. I think it must, therefore, be apparent, that if we desire to promote morality and religion among the masses we must encourage our Sunday Schools. Well, Sir, I believe one of the greatest evils likely to result from adopting the policy advocated by my hon. Friend would be the serious injury it would inflict upon our Sunday Schools and the children who attend them. I have stated that I do not believe opening museums, picture galleries, and similar places would induce men who are in the habit of frequenting public-houses to forsake them, or that it would at all lessen the evil of intemperance; but I do think it might induce men of a better class who now spend their Sundays at home with their families, and send their children to school, to go out and take the youngsters with them to places of amusement, where they would witness scenes and receive instruction that would be injurious to their best interests. Sir, I think all who feel interested in this question, and have noticed the statements made by many of those who advocate the opening of museums and similar places on Sunday, must have been struck with the singular inconsistency of the arguments used. The very rev. President of the Sunday Society, after referring to the fact that ordinary work is carried on in Spain and on the Continent on Sunday, just as upon other days, goes on to state that— In the hurry and constant pressure of English life, and with English feelings such a practice would be absolutely impossible and intolerable; and in this respect the Fourth Commandment was even more applicable to the present state of society in England than to the Jews, because rest was more necessary to us than it was to them. On the Continent, not only was work carried on on Sunday, but all kinds of amusements were provided even more copiously than on other days. He must, however, decline to sit in judgment on the consciences of others; hut they must all feel that it was an immense gain to the solidity and seriousness and elevation of the English character that there should be one day in the week of interruption to those occupations which tended to enervate the body and. impair the mind. He thought the general character of the day should not be interfered with by an undue extension of the hours during which museums and similar institutions should be open on Sunday, nor should the repose of the public servants, who must be employed, be unduly curtailed. The objection to the unnecessary employment of labour was one of the most praiseworthy scruples existing on the subject, and that version of the Fourth Commandment which most commended itself to his mind was that which, after forbidding the work of male and female slaves and beasts of burden, added, Remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt.' Another friend of mine who has ably advocated the views of my hon. Friend commences one of his papers by stating that, if it can be shown that the opening of museums and similar places would increase Sunday labour, it would be objectionable. Now, Sir, how gentlemen who entertain and express such views can advocate a proposal, the acceptance of which would inevitably lead to the opening of museums, picture galleries, and places of amusement on Sunday all over the Kingdom, which would tend to secularize the Sunday, destroy the rest and social and domestic enjoyment of the day, and enormously increase the amount of Sunday labour is to me a mystery which I cannot solve. Sir, I hope it is scarcely necessary for me to repudiate the idea that I have any desire to deprive artizans and working men of any legitimate pleasure and enjoyment, and I believe that on reflection the great majority of them are too generous and right-minded to wish to deprive large numbers of their fellow-labourers of their just rights for their own gratification. Nor do I think this at all necessary. We have an old adage, "Where there is a will there is a way," and I believe there never was a time when it was less necessary to open museums and picture galleries on Sunday than it is at present. People do not visit such places every week, and some of us find it difficult to visit them more than once or twice a-year. The Saturday half-holiday is now customary; we have more general holidays than we formerly had, and very large numbers of our operatives take Monday to themselves. They ought, therefore, to find no great difficulty in visiting museums and galleries occasionally, as other people do. And even if these national institutions were open on Sunday, we all know that the number they can contain would be only an infinitesimally small portion of the working classes. Of one thing, however, I am quite certain, that we have sadly too much Sunday labour already; that there are tens of thousands in London, and hundreds of thousands throughout the Kingdom who have to work like slaves —who never have a Sunday for rest or enjoyment, and who, in this respect, are positively in a worse position than even our convicts. I have before me an estimate, or rather a list, of the number of men already employed in various ways on Sunday; but I must not trouble the House with the details. I think, however, we may safely infer that there are upwards of 1,000,000. Every additional institution you open will add to the number of those who must work on Sunday, and who will enjoy the privilege, as many do at present, of giving seven days' work for six days' wages. I have already referred to the Parisian Sunday —will the House permit me to give one other quotation upon the subject from a letter written by a Gentleman who is a large employer of labour, and who was a Member of this House during the last Parliament. The writer was obliged to spend last Winter in Algiers for the benefit of his health, and the letter was addressed to his brother, on the occasion of his son coming of age, when there was a festive gathering of the workmen in honour of the event— Please remember me to the workmen. Tell them how glad I should have been to be present, and what pleasure it would have given me if I had found myself in possession of sufficient voice to say a few words to them about the country I have been visiting. Amongst other advantages which they enjoy over the working people of Algeria is the day of rest. Labours goes on here almost without intermission. Artizans, labourers, tradesmen, all at work. Algiers is worse in this respect than Paris. If the workpeople are spoken to upon the subject, they reply, as they have done to me, we are helpless. If we were to refuse to go to work on Sunday, there are others to take our places. I have heard people at home dilate upon the thraldom of the English Sunday. I have thought about it since I have been here. Thraldom! Why, it is liberty itself, compared to the thraldom imposed by the incessant demands made upon labour in this country, I have never held a Puritanical view of the Sabbath. I take Mr. Dale's view that it is a privilege. If I had had no previous experience, I have seen enough here to convince me that no portion of the population has so deep an interest in the maintenance of the day of rest as the working class. Sir, when I state that the extract I have read is from a letter written by Mr. James Howard, of Bedford, I think it will be admitted that he is a good authority, and that there are few men in England better qualified to form a correct opinion upon this question than he is. But we are assured by another able advocate of my hon. Friend's Motion, that "working men have learnt tolerably well how to take care of themselves." Sir, I rejoice to believe that working men are becoming more intelligent every year. But is it not a fact that large numbers of them are even now altogether unable so far to take care of themselves as to avoid Sunday labour and incessant toil? I was speaking, a few days ago, to a conductor on one of the tramway cars, and he told me he worked 15 hours every week-day and 16 upon Sunday, which was the hardest day he had. I know the case of a man who for upwards of five years has never had a Sunday to himself, and when asked why he did not insist upon one occasionally, his reply was— Some of the men get tired and take a Sunday, and when they return to work on Monday they are informed that their services are no longer required; but," he added, "I have a wife and four or five children to provide for, and I cannot afford to be independent. I know of another case of an omnibus conductor or driver who for 15 long weary years never had a Sunday's rest, and who at last, broken down by incessant toil, sunk into a premature grave. I do not want to trespass unnecessarily upon the time of the House, or I might give hundreds of similar illustrations. Let me, however, give just one more. We are told that men engaged on Sundays should always have some other day of rest. That is very good in theory, but how is it in practice? I visited Kew Gardens a few days ago to ascertain what was the rule there, and I was informed by one of the officials that he never had a Sunday to himself, or a day in lieu of it. I said, in reply—"But you have the morning; as I observe, you don't open until two o'clock." "Yes, sir," he said, "but even one Sunday in the month would be a great boon to us." Sir, it is just as I have stated. In nearly all such cases of Sunday work it is incessant toil, and six days' wages for seven days' work, and I cannot help arriving at the conclusion that those who advocate the policy recommended by my hon. Friend would prove themselves greater benefactors and truer friends of the working classes if they would devote their energies to the amelioration of the condition of the over-worked, downtrodden and oppressed who so greatly need sympathy and help, instead of advocating a policy which must increase the burdens and be injurious to the best interests of the classes whom they desire to serve. I must not detain the House longer, and I will conclude in the eloquent language of Emerson, a man who will not be accused of narrow-mindedness or want of sympathy with the masses, by any of those who are acquainted with his writings— Two inestimable advantages Christianity has given us—first, the institution of preaching, the speech of man to man; and secondly, the Sabbath, the Jubilee of the old world, whose light dawns welcome alike into the closet of the philosopher, into the garret of toil, and into prison cells, and everywhere suggests, even to the vile, the dignity of spiritual being. Let it stand for evermore a temple which new light, new love, and new hope shall restore to more than its first splendour to mankind.

MR. LOCKE

said that his hon. and gallant Colleague (Colonel Beresford) had not, previous to the delivery of his speech, said a word to him (Mr. Locke) in relation to the course he intended to take on this question, otherwise he might, on one point, at all events, have prevented him falling into error. His hon. and gallant Colleague had opposed the Motion, but he (Mr. Locke) begged to inform him that no fewer than 3,233 of the electors of Southwark were in favour of the object contemplated by the Motion. He had been Member for Southwark for 20 years, and he had never heard that the opinion of the borough on this question was such as had been represented by his hon. and gallant Colleague. Passing from that point to the question itself, he wished to ask the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. A. M'Arthur) whether he was aware that there were places within a few miles of London containing some of the finest pictures in the world which were open to the public on Saturday afternoons. Where, then was the difference of going out of London, say to Richmond or to Hampton Court, to look at the pictures, and their remaining in London for the purpose, if they were permitted, of visiting the National Gallery? In the former case, they went into the country, took their dinners comfortably, and then came home again in the evening. Were persons who thus acted to be placed in the category of miserable wretches, undeserving the confidence of anybody, because they thus made themselves com- fortable? He should like to know where the wrong in such conduct existed. Where was its harm? Well, if it were not wrong outside London, where could be the wrong inside London? What possible difference could there be between the conduct of the people who went out of the metropolis to look at pictures and the conduct of those who remained at home to do the same thing? Common sense itself ought to direct them towards a proper conclusion in the matter, and he trusted that a greater number of hon. Members would vote for this Motion than on any previous occasion.

COLONEL BERESFORD

I desire to say that I have not spoken to my hon. Colleague for more than a moment during the last month. In fact, I believe my hon. Colleague has not been in the House more than once during that period.

MR. LOCKE

denied that he had been absent for more than a fortnight, and that had been for a sufficient reason.

MR. W. H. SMITH

wished to say a few words on this question, both in his capacity as a Member of the House representing a very large constituency, and to some extent as a Member of the Government. The question had been often raised, and if he were asked upon the merits of the case which he should individually prefer — to see working men seeking amusement in museums and galleries on Sunday in preference to public-houses and places of resort of an injurious character, no doubt he should prefer the former. But that was not precisely the question raised by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. P. A. Taylor). The question was widely different, inasmuch as the hon. Member desired a fresh departure as far as the State was concerned as to the observance of the Sunday, and the question before the House was, whether it was desirable to change the practice as to the admission of the public which had prevailed ever since the national museums and galleries had been in existence. That he could not but regard as a very grave matter, involving very serious considerations, and he had no doubt that a proposal to open such institutions on Sundays was opposed to the sentiments, not only of the majority of the constituencies, but of the people of this country. Many people who did not regard the mere looking at a picture or the reading of a book on Sunday as injurious, yet viewed with very great distrust proposals like the one under consideration, which advocated the commencement of a new course of Parliamentary policy with regard to the day of rest, so highly valued by everybody. The hon. Member spoke strongly of the impropriety of preventing persons spending Sundays as they were disposed to do; but it was fair to ask him whether the right of private judgment did not come in on the other side. A considerable number of persons were employed in the custody, care, and management of these institutions, and the hon. Member proposed to direct by a vote of this House, that those persons should be employed on a day on which they were entitled by their contract to be free. It would be an interference with the right of private judgment and liberty accorded to those persons, if Government were to turn round and say they must work on Sunday. There was another point to be considered. The tendency of public opinion, at all events during the last four or five years, had been to the restriction of Sunday labour rather than to the increase of it. The local authorities of the metropolis had gradually shortened the period that shops were opened, and had diminished Sunday labour considerably, and in this they were supported by local opinion—the opinion of the persons who were interested, and who were affected by the measures they had taken. It must be admitted that the effect of opening museums on Sundays must be to bring instantly into operation a number of subsidiary means of providing for the refreshment of the visitors to the museums. Public-houses and places of refreshment were now closed during a large part of Sunday afternoon, and would it be possible to keep them closed if large numbers of people came to the British Museum, the South Kensington Museum, and National Galleries from distant parts of London? Taking the proposition as it stood, it involved very much more than stood on the Paper of the House, and the hon. Gentleman in his speech went considerably beyond his proposition. He did not disguise his opinion that he thought it desirable that much more should be done than opening the British Museum and the National Galleries on Sundays. He understood the hon. Member to approve of the opening of the Brighton Aquarium to paying visitors on Sundays; and, without expressing any opinion on the state of the law, he (Mr. W. H. Smith) would say that if that institution was opened for payment on Sundays, other institutions which existed in great numbers in London, must be opened also. The hon. Member seemed to look forward to the time when the drama might again exert a religious influence. Music had a great power over the minds of men, and contributed largely to their devotional feelings. Were we to prevent sacred music being provided for the people by those who desired to offer it; and if sacred music might be provided, why not classical music, with a view to raising the tastes and educating the masses of the people? If we could not refuse classical music, could we prohibit such an exhibition of the drama as in the opinion of many would tend to raise the morals and the tastes of the people? It would be said he was using the thin-end-of-the-wedge argument, but it was impossible that a proposal of this kind could stop exactly where the hon. Member left it. If adopted, it would instantly branch out into various other directions. Indeed, the hon. Member did not propose to stop there, but courageously avowed that he should feel it be his duty to go still further, and do away with the safeguards with which Sunday had been surrounded. The House must consider what the feelings of the people of the country were, and they ought to consider the feelings of the mass of religious men and women of the country, as well as of the small minority who were advocating this change. He himself attached enormous value to the day of rest which had been preserved for many centuries. Whether working-men desired to go to church or not on Sunday was not the question. The question was, whether they should have the day of rest preserved to them which the practice of this country had established. It was a valuable inheritance, which had much to do with the strength and vigour of the people; it had contributed largely to the power and prosperity of the country, and he trusted that nothing would be done by the House of Commons to weaken or diminish the hold which that day of rest had upon the feelings of the people.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he would not detain the House long in stating why he should support the Resolution of his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor). The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had put forward one argument that could hardly be sustained, when he said that the House by granting the Resolution was asked to take a fresh departure from the present practice. That could hardly be so, when not only the Gardens at Hampton Court, but the pictures, and when the Gardens at Kew and the Parks were all open and when bands played in the Parks. Hitherto, mainly in deference to the opinions and feelings of many gentlemen who were actuated by strong feelings of sincerity, he had felt he could not vote in support of a Resolution of this kind. But really it was a very difficult thing to find a tenable ground for such a position. Looking at the number of young men and women who did not know what to do with themselves on Sunday, even though they went to church once—they could not be always at church—and the very large number who did not go to church at all, some amusement was wanted for them; and if it was not provided for them, they would get something for themselves which, probably, would be a great deal worse. And with that fact there was the other one, that those museums and galleries really belonged to the people. Some desired to go to them and others did not, and he desired them to be opened for those who wished to go. They would get no harm, but would rather get good, and why should they be prevented? Then, again, this position was rather absurd. If the people who wanted to go to the museums and picture galleries liked to take a railway ticket to Hampton Court, they found that they were at liberty to look at the pictures there, but they could not look at the pictures close by their own doors—it might be in Bethnal Green. Well, that was a position he felt he could maintain no longer. He was not doing anything to keep up the sanctity of the Sabbath Day by supporting this inconsistency. It was a pity that the statements of Mr. Bradlaugh and of many who agreed with him had been quoted, because among the advocates of the measure there were many of the warmest supporters of the observancy of Sunday as a day of rest. For a long time he had hesitated, because he feared lest Sunday play should lead to Sunday work, but he had come to the conviction that there was no reality in that apprehension. There was in London already a great deal of Sunday play—if they could call that play which consisted in walking through the streets and other places which they did not like, and there was a good deal of Sunday work. If the Government were to accede to the Motion, the Secretary to the Treasury would be very rightly asked to incur some expense in providing assistance, so that the employés at these institutions should have one day of rest in the week. As to the opening of public-houses and places of refreshment as a consequence of the opening of museums, it must be recollected that the people who would go to them now went somewhere else, and had to secure refreshment in some way. It had been asked by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. A. M'Arthur) to what all this would tend—would they not think it advisable to do do everything on Sunday they did on Saturday? Why should they not go to races, theatres, and other places on Sunday as well as on Saturday? He thought there was a way in which that might be met. Let them ask themselves not what they thought it right to do on Saturday, but what they thought it right to do on Sunday. If they thought it wrong to go and look at pictures on Sunday and take their family with them, undoubtedly they would vote against the Motion. But if the enormous majority of them did not think that wrong, why should they prevent their fellow-countrymen from making use of those institutions which, he repeated, belonged to them? The real limit in those matters was not to let their legislation go beyond their own principles. Directly they attempted to impose, on what were called the humbler classes of the community, restrictive measures stronger than they thought it desirable to observe themselves, and to prevent them from doing anything which they did not think it wrong for themselves or their families to do, he believed they would be getting into exceptional courses which would endanger and weaken the authority of the law. He should support the Resolution of his hon. Friend.

Mr. BLAKE

, in opposing the Resolution, said, that feeling some little anxiety on the subject, he yesterday afternoon went to Trafalgar Square, to see what was called the great open-air demonstration in favour of the Motion; but he had great difficulty in finding in what part of the square the meeting was held. He asked an inspector of police, who was a better judge of numbers than he could pretend to be, and he was assured that not more than 250 were present. Such a circumstance conclusively proved, in his idea, that public feeling was not so strong in favour of the movement as had been said. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) spoke of clergymen who supported his views. He might also have mentioned meetings which had been called to support the Motion, where an amendment was carried against it. He (Mr. Blake) contended that the day of rest was a precious boon to man, and that it ought to be carefully guarded. There could be no doubt the overwhelming majority of Petitions presented to the House had been against the Resolution. He would give his vote most conscientiously against it.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 229; Noes 87: Majority 142.—(Div. List, No. 161.)

Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."