Lords Sitting of 21 March 1884

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—City of Norwich (Mousehold Heath) Provisional Order* (35): Metropolitan Commons Provisional Order* (36).
Select Committee—Greek Marriages* (26), nominated.

PRIVATE BILLS.
Ordered, That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Friday the 20 th day of June next:
That no Bill originating in this House authorizing any inclosure of lands under special report of the Land Commissioners for England, or confirming any scheme of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, shall be read

413
a first time after Friday the 25 th day of April next:
That no Bill originating in this House confirming any provisional order or provisional certificate shall be read a first time after Friday the 25 th day of April next:
That no Bill brought from the House of Commons authorizing any inclosure of lands under special report of the Land Commissioners for England, or confirming; any scheme of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, shall be read a second time after Friday the 27 th day of June next:
That no Bill brought from the House of Commons confirming any provisional order or provisional certificate shall be read a second time after Friday the 27 th day of June next:
That when a Bill shall have passed this House with Amendments these orders shall not apply to any new Bill sent up from the House of Commons which the Chairman of Committees shall report to the House is substantially the same as the Bill so amended:
Ordered, That the said orders be printed and published, and affixed on the doors of this House and Westminster Hall. (No. 37.)

LONDON, REIGATE, AND BRIGHTON RAILWAY BILL.—MOTION.
EARL CADOGAN, in moving that the Examiners' Certificate on this Bill be referred back to the Standing Orders Committee, said, that he might mention that a large number of Petitions had been presented asking their Lordships to suspend the Standing Orders with reference to this Bill. For his own part, he wished to say that he would not have been a party to any such Motion. He felt very strongly that it was their duty to uphold the authority of the Standing Orders Committee; and he had, therefore, limited his Motion to requesting the House to refer the Examiners' Certificate back to the Committee. He was not speaking on the merits of the Bill, nor on the fact that the Bill was of some importance and interest to a very large community. It was a Bill, as their Lordships were aware, for the connection by an independent railway of the important termini of Northern lines between London, Reigate, and Brighton. He did not think, however, that the mere fact of the Bill being of great importance would excuse any Member of that House in coming forward to request that the Standing Orders should be displaced; but in this case he thought that there had been some misunderstanding on the point raised by the Standing Orders Committee, and on that-ground only he would ask that the certificate be referred back. The Bill
414
had failed to satisfy the Committee on six points; but the first four might be omitted, as they were not insisted upon by the Committee; the chief point was the definition of two children under 12 years as equivalent to one statute adult being used. This had led to the number of persons who would be displaced being stated at 111 less than the actual number. It had, undoubtedly, been an error to use this expression in a Bill of this sort to which it did not apply. The Bill had, however, been amended in that respect, and the amendment had been made before Parliament assembled. The Bill, after having passed the Standing Orders Committee of the House of Commons, had been rejected by the Standing Orders Committee of their Lordships' House on what appeared to him the very insufficient ground that a technical error appeared to have been committed by the Referencer. He now only asked their Lordships to refer the Bill back to be considered by the same Standing Orders Committee as had considered it before. A similar Motion to that which he now made had been adopted in the case of the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Bill of 1866, and also in that of the South London Tramways Bill of 1881.
Moved, "That the Examiners' Certificate be referred back to the Standing Orders Committee."—(The Earl Cadogan.)
THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, he regretted that the noble Earl had thought fit to bring that case again under the consideration of the House. Nothing could be more important than that proper attention should be paid to the proceedings of the Standing Orders Committee, consisting, as it did, of 40 Peers. The decision of the Committee on that matter was unanimously come to, after two considerations, by all the Members who were present. It was worthy of notice that the Bill had passed the Standing Orders Committee of the House of Commons, and the error had been discovered by their Lordships' Committee. The point was of considerable importance. They had had a discussion in the House, the other day, in regard to the dwellings of the poor, and as to the number of persons who were displaced by railway and other works, and it was essential that accurate

415
Returns should be furnished by the promoters of Private Bills. In this instance an erroneous Return of the persons to be displaced had been made; and although it was said that it had been corrected, it was necessary, if the evils of over-crowding were to be guarded against, that the Standing Orders of the House should be properly upheld.
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he attached as much importance as any of their Lordships to the necessity of adhering to the Rules regulating Private Business; but, as he understood, one of the functions of the Standing Orders Committee was to allow Bills, where errors had been made of a technical character, and which were not injurious to public or private interests, to be heard on their merits in spite of those technical errors. Though himself a Member of the Committee, he was not able to be present on the day when the decision was given; but he believed that the error which had been made was not of sufficient importance to prevent the Bill being heard on its merits, and that no charge of mala fides could be substantiated against the Referencers. No doubt, the promoters were to blame for the manner in which they had scheduled the persons who would be displaced under the provisions of the Bill, and there was no excuse for the mistake; but the mistake had been corrected before the Session opened, and the difference of the numbers in the original and in the amended Schedule was not great. It was stated that all persons within the limits of deviation should have been scheduled as persons to be displaced; but this was not in accordance with precedent, and he cited a number of Bills promoted in the present Session, with the object of showing that although in two cases three houses were taken within the limits of deviation, no persons were returned as displaced, while in a third case 19 houses were taken, but only 26 persons were displaced. He, therefore, ventured to say that the error that had been committed was not a material one, and was of no great public or private interest. If the error was corrected at the time no mala fides existed, and he thought the promoters had acted entirely according to all precedent. The Committee, therefore, might reconsider their decision.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he could not support
416
the Motion. He did not see how the proposal which had been made could be carried out, because its object was to refer the Bill back to the Standing Orders Committee. If their Lordships referred the Bill back to the Standing Orders Committee no new evidence could be adduced. All that could be done was to produce the evidence that had already been taken. As the Committee had heard all the evidence of those persons whose conduct was impugned in the matter, he could not understand why they were to be expected to alter the decision which they had come to on a previous occasion. This circumstance might happen. If the Bill were again referred back to the Standing Orders Committee, all the Members of the Committee who were not present on the first occasion might attend and outvote those who had attended at the first hearing, and who had listened to the whole of the evidence. There were numbers of people opposed to this measure who had abstained from taking further steps because they understood that by the decision of the Standing Orders Committee the scheme was at an end. It would be unfair and unjust to them to refer the matter back. He thought it would be very unwise to alter the decision of the Standing Orders Committee unless very strong grounds existed for doing so.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN, as one of the Members of the Standing Orders Committee on the occasion referred to, said, he would like to say a few words. He had no doubt the Bill was rejected mainly because the promoters of the Bill failed to comply with the Standing Order No. 38. He might say for himself that he could not leave out of his mind the fact that their Lordships had attached in the present Session very great importance to this Standing Order. Commissions had been appointed to inquire into the houses of the poor, and the point that had been specially brought forward in connection with this matter was the character of the Returns under discussion. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) the other evening moved that in every case of a Private Bill these Returns should be presented to the House. As to the non-compliance of the promoters of this Bill with the Standing Order, he had no doubt whatever. Would the

417
House consider for a moment what it was the promoters actually did? They were directed in the Standing Order of the House to make a Return of the number of persons whom they would probably displace. Nothing could be more simple or more clear. It was perfectly well known to Parliamentary agents. What had been the course taken in this case? The person referred to was the Parliamentary agent, whose name was on the back of the Bill. Instead of complying with their Lordships' Standing Order he went to another Statute, which they found was the Passenger Statute, and he picked out of that a definition of the character described as "statute adults." When the agent was asked to return the number of the persons displaced, he replied that he would displace a certain number of "statute adults." If the examiner had not been sufficiently careful to look at the term "statute adult," and to point out to the Parliamentary agent that the Return was incorrect, it would have come before their Lordships' House. The case, he thought, was perfectly clear, and no one could dispute that it was an infringement of a Standing Order of importance. What had been the course taken by the noble Earl? The Committee heard all the evidence fully, and the noble Earl asked which of the noble Lords present would move that this Standing Order be suspended. No one responded, although there were seven or eight noble Lords present, and the whole matter fell to the ground. The noble Lord opposite was a Member of the Committee, but was not present, and, having failed to hear the evidence, now sought to reverse the unanimous decision of the Committee.
EARL CADOGANsaid, his information was obtained from the shorthand-writer's notes.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, their Lordships would be creating a most inconvenient precedent.
VISCOUNT BURYsaid, he was convinced, from his experience with railway matters, that they would be creating a very inconvenient precedent if they adopted the suggestion of his noble Friend (Earl Cadogan). Unquestionably the Standing Order had been infringed. It was said that the mistake that had been made did not justify the Standing Orders Committee in rejecting the Bill.
418
The Committee had come to a unanimous decision on that point; and the House was now asked, upon necessarily incomplete information, to reverse that decision. If such a course were adopted, Railway Companies and others would never be certain as to when their opposition and their vigilance could be relaxed. He hoped the Motion would not be pressed.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he could not agree that this was a case in which they were asked to act on imperfect information. He thought the information in the possession of the House was of such a nature as not only to afford them no justification for overruling the decision of the Committee, but to show that the decision of the Committee was perfectly right, and that it would be entirely wrong to reverse it.
EARL CADOGANsaid, he did not ask the House to overrule the decision of the Committee. He asked that the House should refer back this Report to the same Standing Orders Committee.
On Question? Resolved in the negative.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he thought that sending back the Report was a reversal, if not in form, yet in substance. It seemed to him that what was done by the promoters of this Bill was absolutely inexcusable. The Standing Order was explicit; it required that the Return should state the number of houses to be pulled down, and the number of persons, so far as ascertainable, to be displaced. The person who sent in the Return either wilfully or accidentally looked up some other Act of Parliament, and based his Return according to an imaginary definition in that Act. This was a wilful and perverse departure from the Standing Order. But he also thought that the spirit and intention of the Order had been departed from in another point, not less important. That Standing Order required that in the case of a Bill by which power was sought to take 15 houses or more occupied by persons of the labouring class, the promoters should deposit a statement of the number, description, and situation of such houses—that was to say, of all the houses to take which power was sought—and also the number of persons to be displaced. He did not see how the object of such an Order could be satisfied, without stating the number of

419
persons who might be displaced by any possible exercise of the powers sought to be obtained by the Bill. What had been done was not to give, or pretend to give, the number of persons inhabiting the 902 houses, but to give the number of persons inhabiting some indefinite part of those houses, which, according to the present ideas of the engineer or promoters of the Bill, they at present contemplated taking. But they asked for power to take all the houses; and they would not be bound, if they obtained that power, to adhere to the present ideas of the engineer, which rested in probable intention only, and did not depend on any matter of fact, capable of being ascertained at the present time. The information given in the Return was, therefore, nugatory. He hoped that the Standing Orders Committee would never be satisfied with anything less than a Return showing the whole number of persons occupying all the houses which a Bill sought power to take.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY, with some diffidence, ventured to take a different view of the meaning of the Standing Order from the Lord Chancellor. He (the Earl of Kimberley) contended that what the Order contemplated was that there should be a statement of the number of persons which the Railway Company promoting the Bill thought would probably be displaced. It was extremely improbable that all the houses within the limits of deviation would be taken. In submitting a Return of the number of "statute adults"—a phrase perfectly well understood—instead of the persons to be displaced, he did not think there could have been any intention to deceive, otherwise they would have gone a step farther; and it seemed to him, therefore, that it would not be very unreasonable to allow a project of considerable magnitude from being heard upon the merits. The other House had, in this case, dispensed with compliance with this Standing Order, and he thought it would be well if they did the same.

SUNDAY OPENING OF NATIONAL MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES.

  RESOLUTION.
  LORD THURLOW, in rising to move—
  "That in the opinion of this House, the time has now come to afford to the working
  420
  classes of London the opportunity of visiting, on Sunday afternoons, such of the national collections of books, natural history objects, and of works of art of an elevating character, as may from time to time be sanctioned for Sunday opening by the President in Council, and thus give to the working classes of London opportunities for recreation and instruction equal to those enjoyed by the working classes of Birmingham, Manchester, Middlesboro', New-castle-on-Tyne, Wigan, Stoke-on-Trent, Dublin, &c.,"
  said, he had been induced by two considerations to again bring this matter before the House—first, because he felt that at a moment when the question of the improvement of the condition of the poor of London filled so large a place in their Lordships' minds they might not be unwilling to consider one way, at any rate, by which it was possible to do something to render life more enjoyable to them, and to take one step in the direction of their ennoblement and happiness; secondly, because he was not satisfied with the side issue which had been allowed to intervene, and on which the vote of last year had been in reality taken. It would be remembered that this question was last year laid before the House by the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Dunraven), and that it was met by an Amendment from the noble and philanthropic Earl opposite (the Earl of Shaftesbury), whose whole life had been spent in endeavours to ameliorate the condition of the working classes, and whose name was never mentioned without honour either inside or outside the House. That Amendment was practically an entirely different proposal. The noble Earl proposed to the House a Resolution that the National Institutions referred to should be kept open later on week-day evenings instead of being opened on Sunday afternoons. He did not suppose that any noble Lord would be found to vote against such a Resolution taken by itself. It was, therefore, very natural that, urged as it was with all the energy, all the eloquence, all the weight and authority of the noble Lord, that Resolution was accepted and the original Resolution displaced; but he repeated that that so-called Amendment raised in reality a false issue upon which the vote was taken. Last year there was a reason, which now no longer existed, why their Lordships were not unwilling to be led away from the original Resolution. In the other House of

  421
  Parliament, the year before, the question was brought forward by a well-known representative Member of Parliament (Mr. George Howard), and was supported by a Member hardly less generally recognized as representing the feelings and the views of the working classes (Mr. Burt). Unfortunately, however, it was opposed by another Member of the same class (Mr. Broadhurst), who produced and pinned his faith to certain fallacious statistics, compiled, or rather concocted, by a well-known sectarian society. These statistics were accepted as authentic, and guided Members' votes. But no sooner was the result of the Division known than special meetings were held, he believed, in every working men's club and trade society in London to protest against and repudiate Mr. Broadhurst and his figures. A mass meeting of delegates was held in St. James's Hall; but it was too late, as the harm was done. One trade society in London, the Amalgamated Millers, was returned as still faithful to Mr. Broadhurst's cause, but they now wrote to repudiate such a ridiculous position. He would not dwell on these circumstances—those who wished to know the whole facts of the incident would find them recorded by the noble Earl on the Cross Benches in the pages of The Nineteenth Century for this month—but it was of the utmost importance that he should explain in very few words how those statistics were compiled in order that noble Lords might be able to place a proper value upon them. It would only be necessary for him to explain the first line of the statistics with its formidable total of 28,000 votes. It took credit for 28,000 votes on behalf of the Amalgamated Society of Boilermakers and Iron Shipbuilders. What that really represented was the votes of the chairman and the secretary, for they had canvassed the various branches of the Society. Some declared that they were never consulted at all, and those that were consulted reported that they were consulted on the week-day evening question, and especially on the Sunday labour question, and very indirectly, if at all, on the Sunday afternoon question. Not content, however, with counting those 28,000 votes in a mass, later on they counted about two-thirds of them once and even twice over again as members of other workmen's clubs, Odd
  422
  Fellows or temperance societies. But the National Sunday League had adopted a different mode of arriving at the views of these societies and their branches. The National Sunday League was a Society entirely composed of working men, and supported by their contributions for the purpose of advocating this cause by all Constitutional means. They had addressed every working men's club and trade society in England individually, requesting them to hold special meetings to consider the subject, and to inform them in reply—first, how many members their branch had; secondly, how many attended the meeting; and thirdly, how many voted for and how many against Sunday opening, with the following results:—The Barrow-in-Furness branch No. 1 of the Boilermakers and Iron Shipbuilders consisted of 300 members, and they unanimously voted for Sunday opening. Of the South Shields branch of the same Society 180 were for and 13 against. Of the Newhaven branch, of only 12 members, 10 were present, and they were all for. Newark branch counted 27 members, all for. Greenwich, 165 members, all for. And so on, with little or no variation. As a gross result hey had of the Boilermakers' Society 2,739 for and only 25 against, and as regarded the workmen's clubs in London, 80 pronounced for Sunday opening and only one against. And of trade societies, 163 were for and 15 against it. Having thus satisfied himself of the views of the working men themselves on this point, he had nest endeavoured to arrive at he prevailing opinion hold generally on he subject, and it so happened that in, the newspapers a remarkable unanimity of opinion prevailed. Excepting one or two Sabbatarian newspapers, every newspaper in London was on his side, and, so far as he could gather, the same might be said of the country newspapers throughout England. He had not, however, been satisfied with this. It had occurred to him that the police magistrates of London might be good judges of whether his proposal was likely to benefit the masses or not, and to conduce to their morality and sobriety. The magistrates were the men who tried the Monday morning cases—the results of Sunday drinking—in the London Police Courts. There were 25 police magistrates in London. He had consulted them all, and only three pronounced

  423
  against Sunday opening. One London magistrate wrote to him as follows:—
  "I am, and always have been, in favour of opening Museums on Sundays. I am satisfied that religion, instead of being injured, would be benefited by the reform, and that public morality and sobriety would be greatly enhanced."
  Another London magistrate wrote—
  "A working man once put it to me in this way—'If we could go to the Picture Galleries on Sundays we should like to take our wives and children, and in that case we should like to see them better dressed, and to do that we should have to give up drink; it would do us good all round.' "
  Next he consulted the clergy of London as to whether they considered Sunday opening inimical to true religion. He knew that he had many supporters among the clergy, but he was not prepared for so much enthusiasm from them in this cause. Many, of course, who had not very specially considered the subject, opposed it almost instinctively; but he had received from the London clergy nearly 400 replies in favour of Sunday opening, and he had on his side a very large majority of those working in the poorest and most congested districts. Some gave the most extraordinary reasons for opposing. One wrote—
  "Public Libraries are of no use to the poor, who, when they want to read a book, prefer to buy it."
  On the other hand, a high, dignitary of the Church wrote—
  "Sunday opening would be a great been to the working classes, and would tend decidedly to refine and elevate them, and predispose them to the higher influences of religion."
  These were the words of one of the ornaments of the Church of England, and they did him honour. Another clergyman wrote that he was in charge of a parish containing 10,000 artizans, who all wished for the change, and many clergymen urged it "on purely religious grounds." He had received the last figures published by those opposing Sunday opening, showing, according to them, the numbers of the London clergy for and against. Those figures might be correct, and there might be no "overlapping." It was natural that those of the clergy who approved Sunday opening should by preference address him, and that those against it should address his opponents. But the figures proved conclusively what he had
  424
  merely suspected before—namely, that the London clergy were very equally divided on the subject. Considering that many who had not specially considered the matter might not unreasonably instinctively vote against the change, and bearing in mind the undoubted influence and opposition of the Bishops, he could not but regard the fact that the clergy of London were equally divided on this question as a highly favourable sign. He had consulted the custodians of the wealth of London—the bankers—who were assuredly not likely to embrace rashly any innovation of a revolutionary character likely to unhinge society or sap the foundations of Church and State. Well, 70 per cent of the bankers declared for the change as conducive to law and order and the best interests of society. Last of all, he had consulted the large employers of labour in London, a body many thousand strong, to whom it was all-important to keep their workmen happy and contented. He had endeavoured to consult every employer of 100 hands and upwards, and he found that they were in favour of Sunday opening in the proportion of four to one. He had received communications from employers representing over 90,000 workmen. A large proportion of his correspondents consulted their hands before replying. One, for example, wrote as follows:—
  "We have taken the opportunity of ascertaining the views of our men, with the following result:—Out of 107 men paid in our factory 97 were in favour of opening the Museums on Sundays, two objected on religious grounds, and eight objected without stating any reason."
  The noble Earl last year rested his cause on the demand of an intelligent minority at any rate. He was not content to do so. He demanded the change in the name of an overwhelming majority of 90 per cent. Nearly all the evidence which he had accumulated pointed in one direction. He had consulted every representative class, and always with the same result. He would not fall back upon former arguments, which were as yet unanswered and were unanswerable. He preferred to rest his proposal on the wants of the poor and working classes themselves. There was not much their Lordships could do for them, but this thing they could do and easily. There certainly never was a time when it was more necessary to ele-

  425
  vate the masses, and there never was a time when that fact was more appreciated by both sides of the House. Their Lordships proved that by sinking all Party feelings the other evening in considering the Resolution of the noble Marquess opposite for a Royal Commission to inquire into the dwellings of the poor. This was a kindred subject, and he appealed to the noble Marquess to treat it in the same manner. This had to do with the minds of working men, and if their minds were improved their feelings of self-respect would be raised. The noble Marquess admitted in his writings and speeches that not the least difficulty was to raise the standard of their minds above callousness to squalor, He knew of no better way of doing that than by opening wide the doors of our great National Institutions on Sunday afternoons, and by increasing their number, even as the number of public-houses in London was annually increased. He asked their Lordships to look at the composition of the newly appointed Royal Commission, appointed at the instance of the noble Marquess. On it, very properly, their Lordships would find many names familiar to all as veterans in the cause of the improvement of the poor, and among them many of the staunchest and oldest advocates of Sunday opening—Cardinal Manning, Mr. Jesse Collings, Mr. Lyulph Stanley, and others He appealed to the noble Earl opposite to remember the high authority on which we had the instruction that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. He asked the noble Earl whether he had not seen, as he had himself seen, every Sunday afternoon in London, groups of working men loitering about the dismal streets in the rain and chilling fog peculiar to our climate waiting till the well-warmed and brilliantly lighted-up palaces opened their doors by Act of Parliament after Church hours to receive them, and to intercept their wages, paid the night before, from providing for the wants of their wives and children? The contemplation of such things going on year after year in London, as he had seen it, and tried to bring it home to their Lordships now for seven years, was enough to make one almost despair of the future in this evergrowing City; and this was not all, for it was only here in London, where, for many reasons, it was most required,
  426
  that nothing was done and no remedy applied. Other great towns had taken the lead—Manchester, Birmingham, Dublin, &c.—and London only sat with folded hands. He would tell them the result at Manchester, for it was typical. The last, the 21st, Report of the Council of the City of Manchester on the working of the Public Free Libraries, stated—
  "There has again been an increased use made of the Libraries on Sundays, in the reference libraries the average of books consulted being 267 a-day, against 251 last year. In the branches 9,428 volumes have been used by 9,214 readers, and 51,815 volumes have been issued to boys in the four boys' rooms. The total number of persons who have entered the Libraries on Sundays has been 215,000, or 4,200 on each Sunday."
  These figures showed an increase of 14,400 on 1882, and of 63,537 on 1881. The Returns from Birmingham were equally satisfactory. Would anyone tell him this had done harm, or that this bore out the profound remark to which he had adverted, that "Libraries are of no use to the poor, who always prefer to buy their books?" He would tell them what the Chief Constable of Manchester wrote to him on the subject, with permission to use it in their Lordships' House—
  "There can be no doubt, to my mind, of the beneficial effect of the opening of such places on Sunday afternoons. Our figures show that the number of visitors steadily increase. The Sundays of December 30 and January 6 were wet, and I do not hesitate to say that a very large proportion of the 6,625 persons who visited the Art Gallery on those two days would have found their way to the public-house. Shut up your public-houses on Sundays, save for one hour in the middle of the day, to enable the working man to obtain his dinner beer, and open every class of elevating Exhibition, and you will do more to increase morality and so-briety and prevent misery than by any other agency. The poor people have nowhere to go to, and must either remain, in too many cases, in a most depressing home, or frequent the comfortable public-houses. Provide the necessary counter attraction, and yon will see that the longer it is open and the more widely it becomes known, the greater will be the attendance, and the work of the police, as regards Sunday drinking, will diminish accordingly."
  The experience at Manchester dated from 1878, and the official statistics of crime in that place showed that it had decreased since the date of Sunday opening by about one-third—from 4,625 offences in 1878 to 3,218 in 1883. What questions, then, remained for consideration? None that he knew, of ex-

  427
  cept the modus operandi and its effect on the increase of Sunday labour. Various suggestions had been made, practical and otherwise—among others, that Jews, who keep their Sabbath on Saturday, should be engaged for Sunday labour. His own opinion was that no real difficulty would occur. In the case of Stoke-on-Trent, volunteers had done the work satisfactorily for two years, headed by the Mayor and Town Council, taking the task of supervision in rotation. It was the old story—where there was a will there was a way. Manchester, Birmingham, &c., had found out the way, and so should London. Then, as to encouragement of Sunday labour. The noble Earl on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Dunraven) had pointed out, in his execellent Nineteenth Century article, that there were no signs to show that the working classes could not take care of themselves in these matters. On page 75 of the little primrose-coloured book which he held in his hand, and which he would commend to noble Lords opposite, written by one of the best known of the hard-working London clergy, their Lordships would find the case very clearly put—
  "As for compulsory labour, there need be no such thing in England. Men who dictate to their masters, not only the wages they will have, but the number of hours a-day they will work, are quite equal to deciding the number of days in a week and the exact extent to which they will consent to work for the good of others on Sunday or on any other day."
  And he would give their Lordships the opinion of another London clergyman on this point, the greatest authority in London—he meant the Rev. Septimus Hansard, Rector of Bethnal Green. He wrote to him, with leave to quote his words, as follows:—
  "When the working classes could not take care of themselves, I was a determined opponent of opening Museums on Sundays or of any relaxations of Sunday strictness by law. I am speaking of 35 years ago, when I first came to be a clergyman among the poor of London. I feared the greed of employers and the weakness of the working class. Between the two I feared the Day of Rest might be lost. But I have lived to see, thank God, the working classes assert their own. By trade societies and trades unions they can well protect themselves from any attempt of employers to trespass on Sunday rest. The working classes have the whole thing in their own hands, and they can crush any attempt made by anyone to go beyond the programme of the Sunday League and the Sunday Society."
  428
  He would not take up their Lordships' time by quoting more opinions on this point, though it was for no lack of materials. He thought he had said enough to prove his case. As regarded the wording of his Resolution, he had inserted the President in Council as the sanctioning authority as being the one most able and likely to influence such Governing Bodies as the Trustees of the British Museum and National Gallery, who could not long resist the popular pressure that would be put upon them, and also because the Lord President had charge of education, and he considered this an educational question; but he was quite willing, if desired, to substitute the Home Secretary or any other preferred authority of equal rank and weight and responsibility to Parliament and to the country. Then he earnestly desired to assure the right rev. Bench that he moved that Resolution in no feeling of hostility towards religion or themselves or their high calling. In doing so, he was supported, he knew, by hundreds—he believed by many thousands—of their clergy, and was only acting as their mouthpiece. That the subject he ventured once more to bring forward before their Lordships would receive careful consideration he felt sure; it was not a Party one, it appealed to the individual conscience of all men. Finally, he would protest against the Amendment of the noble Earl opposite. He appealed to him to allow the Division to be taken on the merits of the case, and not on a side issue. There was a practical inconvenience in the course the noble Earl proposed to those who, like himself, favoured week-day evening opening as well as Sunday afternoon opening. If the noble Earl would not allow the question to stand on its merits, they must, of course, vote against his Amendment and their consciences; but a Vote thus taken on a side issue could not be regarded as conclusive or satisfactory. Besides, the Amendment of the noble Earl did not meet the case. Working men rose at 5 or 6 in the morning and worked till 5, 6, and sometimes 7 in the evening. They had then to walk home, probably a mile or more, clean themselves a little, and have their supper, which was their only domestic meal. Rest was what they required after that. Would any of their Lordships, after such a day, take the trouble

  429
  to change their clothes and start again on a weary walk some two or more miles, say, to the British Museum, which they could not reach before 9 o'clock at the earliest?" Would not the body and the brain be too fatigued to take a pleasure in beautiful things then, at all events to the same extent as on an otherwise idle Sunday afternoon? And how about the wives and children who were to benefit so much by Sunday opening? How would they benefit by week-day evening opening? There were the additional difficulties to overcome of extra night labour, expense and danger of lighting, and the like. In conclusion, he must express the hope that the noble Earl would give him his lists of supporters as he had given him his, chapter and verse. He claimed the support of an overwhelming majority of working men themselves, of their employers, of the magistrates of London, of nearly 400 of the London clergy, and of the custodians of the wealth of London. What could the noble Earl set against that great body of public opinion? He asked the noble Earl to let them hear it, and he asked the House to decide between them. He begged to move the Resolution that stood in his name.
  Moved, "That in the opinion of this House, the lime has now come to afford to the working classes of London the opportunity of visiting, on Sunday afternoons, such of the national collections of books, natural history objects, and of works of art of an elevating; character, as may from time to time be sanctioned for Sunday opening by the President, in Council, and thus give to the working classes of London opportunities for recreation and instruction equal to those enjoyed by the working classes of Birmingham, Manchester, Middlesboro', New-castle-on-Tyne, Wigan, Stoke-on-Trent, Dublin, &c"—(The Lord Thurlow.)
  VISCOUNT POWERSCOURTsaid, that in Dublin for many years past the Botanical Gardens had been open on Sundays, and the result had been that, while on week-days the visitors were counted by the hundred, on Sundays they were counted by the thousand. It was the same with the National Gallery. There were one or two objections in the way of the Amendment of the noble Earl. He had been talking the other day with the Director of the National Gallery on the subject, who had given his reasons, which presumably were shared by the Trustees, against the opening of the Gallery in the evening as proposed.
  430
  There was the risk of fire and the great injury caused to pictures by gas. A third objection was that if the gas were by any accident to be suddenly extinguished when the Galleries were crowded, the scene of confusion among the people would be terrible, and the pictures would be certain to be injured in the attempt of the people to get out. In the present state of electric lighting the risk would be even greater. He would, therefore, support the Motion of the noble Lord.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY, in rising to move, as an Amendment—
  "That, inasmuch as a Select Committee of the House of Commons on Public Institutions have reported, on the 27th of March 1860, that such institutions as the British Museum and the National Gallery should be opened on week-day evenings to the public between the hours of seven and ten in the evening at least three days in the week, this House is of opinion that the time has arrived when this recommendation should be carried out,"
  said, that the noble Lord who had moved the Resolution had told them that its great object was the elevation of the working classes. If he believed the proposal of the noble Lord would have that effect he would not merely go so far, but much further. He did not believe. however, that the opening of Museums on Sundays would tend to the moral elevation of the working classes, but rather the reverse, and he was, therefore, opposed to the proposition. It was very difficult to find any new arguments whatever on either side of this question, which had been altogether ex-hausted, and all that could be done was to adduce facts and figures; and he would now confine himself to showing, by facts and figures, that the great mass of the working people, instead of being in favour of Sunday opening, as proposed, were opposed to it. He would first state that no trouble had been taken that year to obtain Petitions; they rested on the numerous and largely signed Petitions of former years. Some had been volunteered, and especially one from Glasgow, presented the day before, which stated—he would quote the exact words—" That the Petitioners represented 40 trade societies in Glasgow and the neighbourhood." He must, however, repeat the evidence of last year, which showed that 2,412 trade unions, friendly societies, working men's clubs, institutes, and other organizations,

  431
  With 501,075 members, heartily approved the Amendment proposed by Mr. Broadhurst in the House of Commons in 1882, and by himself in the House of Lords in 1883. Now, on this point a word must be said. An objection had been taken, and had been again repeated in an article by a noble Lord in The Nineteenth Century, that the true issue was not fairly put before the societies; that they were simply asked whether they would approve an increase of Sunday labour generally, and that no reference was made to the fact that the increase would be only in the case of Galleries and Museums. That statement was the reverse of accurate. The very form of the Circular gave a contradiction to the assertion. The Amendment was as follows:—
  "That in the opinion of this House it is undesirable that Parliament should further promote the employment of Sunday labour by authorizing the opening of the national museums and galleries which are now closed on that day, but that such museums and galleries should be opened between the hours of 6 and 10 P.M. on at least three evenings in each week."
  And on the very same paper beneath it was printed the form in which the assent or dissent should be given. Three copies were sent to every association, and every one who signed knew the Amendment as clearly as their Lordships knew that the Lord Chancellor was then sitting on the Woolsack. Again, it had been urged that the secretaries had signed the papers in their individual and not in their official capacities. Now on this head there had been great care taken. The secretaries representing the 501,705 all signed in their official capacity. Those who signed in their individual capacity represented 175,408 members, but had not been included because they said that although they had no doubt of the feelings of the members, it was a rule of their associations not to discuss political subjects. The greatest care had been taken to ascertain whether there was any change of opinion; the highest authorities had been consulted; and he could not do better than read the statement at the head of the new edition—
  "In order to make this list as accurate as possible, the compilers several months ago went to the very heavy expense of sending a marked copy to each of the 2,335 organizations in the first edition, calling attention to the particulars
  432
  of each society, and requesting to be informed of any inaccuracies. The great care taken is proved by the fact that only about 28 corrections were made, several only of which related to the figures, the other corrections relating to the names. These corrections, with the addition of 77 more societies, are made in the present edition, and the document is the most conclusive proof ever issued of the views of the working classes on this question."
  He had received reports, and he believed that the noble Lord had referred to them, from 34 firms and societies in London, which had expressed an opinion in favour of the noble Lord's Motion. To some of the lists the numbers of the workpeople were appended, to others not so. The total numbers, as stated, were 2,348; possibly, had all the numbers been given they might have reached double that amount. Now he received, with the greatest respect, any expression of opinion from such bodies of the working classes; but he must on that occasion be allowed to read a portion of a letter received from Mr. Chubb, the distinguished manufacturer of locks and safes. That gentleman had been asked to obtain the sentiments of his people. This was the course he took—
  "It was suggested to me (so he wrote) that I should obtain the opinion of the workpeople and Staff in the employ of my firm on the question of the Sunday opening of Museums. &C. I have done this to-day by ballot; and as it is a test case and records the perfectly free opinion of a number of intelligent, hardworking, London workpeople, I thought it would not be uninteresting to your Lordship to know the result. A few men being ill or absent in the country could not vote, but all who could vote did so with the following result:—In favour of opening, 47; against, 181."
  Now, it was his own firm belief that had the same course been taken in all the workshops the issue would have been the same; and noble Lords on the Government side of the House could not object to the ballot, which they had so often asserted to be the only means whereby a man would have the opportunity and the courage to speak the truth. Here he would observe that the noble Lord, speaking at a meeting in Piccadilly on the subject, said that if everything else failed an appeal must be made, sooner or later, to the constituencies. Well, he could assure the noble Lord that that was the very thing that he desired. A plébiscite on that subject he was satisfied would give such an overwhelming majority against the noble Lord's Motion as would settle the

  433
  question for at least 50 years to come. But to state evidence from another class—the ministers of religion, Church of England, Methodists, Congregation-alists, Baptists, and Presbyterians—the returns were not all of them come in, but this was the result. In the Metropolitan district, within the four mile circle, the total number of votes was 533, of which there were—for opening on Sunday, 56; and against it, 477. In other towns such as Manchester, Birmingham, &c., the total vote was 147, of which there were—for opening on Sunday, 22; against it, 125. Thus the grand total was 732 votes, of which there were—for opening on the Lord's Day, 83; and against it, 649. That was the case so far as related to facts and figures. There were, however, other considerations arising out of the consequences of such a vote as that before them. Were the proposition good in itself, he should feel that his argument derived from evil results would be somewhat weakened. But he and his Friends maintained that the proposition was far otherwise, and that thus they might insist oil these evil results. That was not the place for theological discussion. He would simply state as a motive of his action and that of most of his Friends, that they believed and maintained the Divine and perpetual obligation of the Lord's Day. They might consider, then, the enormous amount of increased labour, were the vote carried into effect, that would be thrown on the officers of the Museums and Galleries, for whom substitutes could not be provided, and on the already overworked drivers of omnibuses, cabs, and tramcars. That multitudes would throng to these Exhibitions was possible, but then they would consist of easy, comfortable people, who could go to them on any other day. But would they attract any of the frequenters of the gin-palace and the pot-house, for whose amelioration the Motion of the noble Lord was proposed? He believed not one. The noble Lord said his great object was to elevate the working classes, and no one would doubt that that was his motive; but if the noble Lord would take a walk with him through some of the slums of London either on a weekday or on a Sunday he would show him a sight of the sort of men and women to be seen there, and he would ask him whether he really believed that the
  434
  opening of Museums and Galleries on Sunday would transform those persons into lovers of science and art, and would induce them to leave the joys of the gin-palace in order to spend their time in looking at statues and pictures? For himself, he did not believe that one of them would do so; and even if they did, the result might not be exactly what was desired. The evidence, indeed, given by a former secretary of the Sunday League before a Committee of the House of Commons was very remarkable on that head. In stating his reasons why public-houses should not be closed on the Lord's Day, he observed that the people going to hear the bands—in Battersea Park, for instance—would require refreshment after their labours; the same would occur, no doubt, with pictures and statues. In that way visitors would be decanted simply from one gin-palace into another. The noble Lord had gone through a number of cases in which the opening of Museums and Galleries on Sunday had been successful; but he had carefully abstained from stating the number of cases in which it had failed, and in which those Institutions had been shut up. He did not mention the strongest instance, perhaps, of all—the town of Nottingham. How was it that that town, having one of the finest Galleries and everything that could attract the people's attention, contained a population more resolute than that of any other part of the Kingdom against the opening of Museums and Art Galleries on Sunday? Only last year, many thousands of working men of Nottingham petitioned the Town Council on no account whatever to allow those places to be opened on the Lord's Day. But supposing the noble Lord's Motion were carried, he asked, would matters stop there? Why should not, on the same principle, every place of public amusement be open? Why not the theatre? The theatre had often been urged as a noble vehicle of public instruction, and it would be urged again, and probably; with effect. It was no answer to reply, that the theatre was for profit, but the Museums gratis. If the benefit of such opening were sound and extensive, it was not the worse or the less legitimate because it was paid for. Here, too, what a fearful increase of Sunday toil of the actors and servants of the play-

  435
  house, who were worked almost beyond endurence during six days of the week. But he wished to call particular attention to the special dangers that would follow the public sanction of additional labour on the Lord's Day. He had in that House, and elsewhere, often said, that even those who were skilled workmen could not always protect themselves. Let there come a time when there were thousands wanting employment, and when only hundreds could be employed, then, depend upon it, if employers were to say—"You must work on Sundays as on other days, or else turn out," they would find thousands of people who would succumb to that condition. In September, 1882, the following statements appeared in the newspapers, confirming his statement in a most remarkable manner; he had not seen them himself until a few days ago:—
  "The manager of Landore Steel Works has offered an advance of 2½ per cent on their present wages, provided they consent to keep the furnaces on Sunday. This arrangement the men have refused to accede to."—[Cambria Daily Leader, September 2, 1882.]
  "The men employed at Dr. Siemens's Steel Works are out on strike, in order to resist Sunday labour, which the employers contend is necessary to enable them to compete with Continental manufacturers."—[Evening Standard, September 14, 1882.]
  "About 1,000 men employed at the Landore Steel Works stopped out on Monday pending the settlement of the difference between themselves and the Company, who have offered the men an advance of 2½ per cent in the melting department, provided the men keep tip the lights on Sunday."—[Cambria Daily Leader, September 5, 1882.]
  "The Directors are said to be firm as to the introduction of Sunday work, which they regarded as very desirable in the interests of the men themselves, and would lead to cheapening the production, so that the Company would be able to compete with other producers."—[Swansea paper, September 5, 1882.]
  "The melters on strike at Siemens's Steel Works, Landore, decided at a large meeting yesterday to resume work at the employers' terms—namely, an advance of 2½ per cent to keep the furnaces going on Sundays."—[Daily News, September 16, 1882.]
  This advance, their Lordships would observe, did not exceed 6d. a-week on wages of 20s.; but the inducement was not there. It lay in the fact that the men were locked out, that they were threatened with dismissal from their labour altogether unless they complied with the orders of their employers; and they obeyed rather than submit to
  436
  famine and starvation. Such would ever be the case, he affirmed, in times of very keen competition, extending even to working on the seventh day for no additional wages at all. This was the true and just fear of all the working men, and much would that fear and that danger be intensified were the sanction of public authority given by a vote that night to increase labour on the day specially assigned to repose and cessation from toil. The noble Lord who had moved the Resolution had stated in a meeting held on Tuesday night in Princes's Hall, Piccadilly, that they had to fight an insidious and inaccessible foe, the prejudice which put on the garb of religion. The words were strong; nevertheless he was not ashamed to own that, having a very solemn and deep religious feeling on the question himself, he was desirous that every one should possess the day for public and private worship and for all the endearments and enjoyments of domestic life. And considering the special interests of the working men, he did not hesitate to say that, so long as God gave him breath, he would never cease to exhort them to hold fast to this Day of Rest as the great charter of their physical and moral rights, and the great safeguard of their private and social liberty.
  Amendment moved,
  To leave out all the words after ("That") and insert ("inasmuch as a Select Committee of the House of Commons on Public Institutions have reported, on the 27th of March, 1860, that such institutions as the British Museum and the National Gallery should be opened on week-day evenings to the public between the hours of seven and ten in the evening at least three days in the week, this House is of opinion that the time has arrived when this recommendation should be carried out.")—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
  THE DUKE OF WESTMINSTERsaid, the difficulty in which the supporters of the Motion found themselves was due to the form which the opposition to the Motion had taken. Those who supported the Motion yielded to no one in their desire to preserve Sunday as a day of rest. If he thought the sanctity or the proper religious or due observance of the Lord's Day would be tampered with, or in any way affected by such a movement as that with which he was connected, he would have nothing whatever to do with it, or with the Sunday Society of which he had the honour to be

  437
  President for the coming year. The noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) and the supporters of the movement differed with regard to the definition of the word "rest" in this question. He and his Friends maintained that it was quite compatible with the character of the Lord's Day that the people should be provided with intellectual recreation and amusement on that day. They did not consider such recreation to be incompatible with "rest," or that it interfered in any way with the Lord's Day. The supporters of this movement were consistent in this, that they wished to extend the benefits which were conferred by the opening of Hampton Court and Kew Gardens, still further, by the opening of the British Museum, the National History Museum, Kensington, the National Gallery, and other similar Institutions. They were also consistent in thinking that such recreation and amusement was perfectly innocent in its character, and as it was productive of a considerable amount of intellectual enjoyment and advantage to those who participated in it, they could not see how such a movement could do harm to anyone. The noble Earl would be perfectly consistent, and those who were acting with him would be consistent, in objecting to the opening of Kew Gardens and Hampton Court; but he ventured to say that if they did so, opinion out-of-doors would become so strong as to make a movement of the kind, which, on their part, was perfectly consistent, impossible. But it might be said,—" How could a line be drawn between the opening of places of lower description, such as music-halls, to say nothing of theatres? "But they were not such fools as to suppose that public opinion would for a moment support this. The supporters of the movement for the opening of Museums and other places of amusement on Sundays, were in favour of providing the working classes with a high-class intellectual recreation; but, surely no one in his senses could agree to the opening on the same day of dancing saloons and music-halls. He had been lately connected with a Committee, instituted a short time ago to make inquiries with regard to the occupation and the manner of life of young men employed in the London warehouses. According to the numbers of the last Census, there were 200,000
  438
  persons between the ages of 15 and 25; many of these men were married, but there was no classification with regard to that number. But at all events there was, and must be, a very large class who were clerks and shop-assistants. He did not for a moment believe that the lowest class of persons referred to by the noble Earl—those who went to the gin-palaces and other low public-houses—would think of going to such places of amusement as the British Museum. There was a large class of young men, shop-assistants and clerks, whose lodgings were exceedingly uncomfortable, and when a Sunday afternoon was wet they had no resource for any recreation. Some people said they ought to sit still and read their Bibles. But they all knew how impossible that was. A person could not go on reading his Bible all day; and after going to church in the morning some sort of recreation was required in the afternoon. If our streets on Sundays, were like those of Paris and some other Continental cities, the case would be different; but when they considered the gloom of London streets on Sundays they could not re-commend a walk through them on that day as a very charming recreation. As to the Parks, those were in many cases too distant to be reached by the women of a family. The higher class of work-people, who would not go to the public house, had no club. All that remained to them were the temptations on the pavements—and those, alas! were too many in the streets of the Metropolis. By opening Museums for innocent amusement and recreation the need of those classes to whom he had referred would be met, at least to a certain extent. He saw the Episcopal Bench largely represented on that occasion; but there was an eminent divine, Dean Stanley, whoso name was always received with respect, who was a former President of the Sun-day Society. Dean Stanley, in one of his addresses, said—
  "The English Sunday, therefore, as I define it, is, on the one hand, a day of rest from ordinary work, is a day of disengagement from ordinary dissipations; and, on the other hand, is a day devoted to the opportunities of improving our hearts and minds, whether by direct religious worship, or by those occupations and recreations which., though not directly religious, have a tendency to raise and strengthen our general tone, and do not tend to overburden the already heavily-tasked energies of the working population of this country. These

  439
  are the aspects in which the Christian Sunday in England as an institution is worth preserving."
  He was convinced that the opening of Museums would do no possible harm, might do much good, and must do some good, and he, therefore, had much pleasure in supporting the Motion.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, that his views were opposed both to the Motion and the Amendment. With regard to the latter, an experiment tried on the Saturday evening had not been successful. Naturally enough the working men, after working all day, would not feel inclined to wash and dress themselves and start off at 8 o'clock in the evening to the Museum. As to the proposal contained in the Motion, he had come to the conclusion that the working people themselves were against the opening of Museums on Sundays. He was also influenced by the fact that it would entail a great deal of labour on the staffs of the various establishments which it was proposed to open, while facilities would be given for the introduction of explosives or any dangerous matter, leading. perhaps, to very serious consequences. He would, therefore, vote against the Motion.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, that, although he did not, of course, speak on behalf of the Government, he spoke, after inquiry, as one acting for, and for the time connected with, some of the Institutions which were affected by the Motion before the House; and, being responsible in that way, he could assure the noble Duke that the difficulties which he apprehended were utterly insignificant. There was, indeed, no difficulty of the kind whatever. He found, after inquiry, that there was in the Institutions referred to, and among their staffs, no feeling whatever against the proposition. On the contrary, their feeling was quite the other way. He spoke of those Institutions for which he was responsible; and he could answer for it that there would be absolutely no difficulty in throwing open the South Kensington and Bethnal Green Museums and the Edinburgh and Dublin Museums on Sunday afternoons from 2 to 6 o'clock.; He thought the only feeling of the staffs, which he entirely shared himself, was a feeling that the proposed change would make these Institutions of greater advantage to large classes of their fellow-
  440
  countrymen. He took an estimate which had been given to him as to the amount of labour required, and he found that the number of employés of all kinds that would be required, including police, was at South Kensington 22, and at Bethnal Given about 13, and that was the amount of labour they were told was to stand in their way when they desired to make these Institutions available for the good of hundreds and thousands of people in London. What was to be seen on a Sunday afternoon in the neighbourhood of Bethual Green? A vast population lounging about at their doors. They were, of course, enjoying a cessation from labour, and that, he admitted, was the first want of the labouring man. But they suffered under a terrible want of the means of passing those hours free from labour in the absence of any source of innocent and improving amusement; and all the while there was a Museum supported by the State, and paid for out of the taxes, shut up in the midst of that idle, dull population, passing their Sunday afternoon in the way he had indicated. As to the few people who would be, as he had said, detailed to look after those Institutions on Sunday afternoon for a small remuneration, he could not imagine many better ways for them to spend Sunday afternoon. He thought there could hardly be a more unselfish and Christian way of doing so than in providing for the amusement and happiness of an enormous number of their fellow - countrymen. These would not be the only Institutions in which Sunday labour was permitted. He believed, for instance, that the Sunday labour in Sunday schools was enormous. It was all very well to say that it was done from an excellent motive; but he could not draw any distinction in point of motive between those who were required to labour in Sunday schools and those who would give their time in Bethnal Green Museum if their Lordships and the other House of Parliament would only allow them to give it. A great deal had been said in the House and outside it as to the amount of the demand on the part of the working classes for this Sunday opening. He confessed that he agreed with his noble Friend on the Cross Benches, when he said in his article in The Nineteenth Century, that that question had been put by the over zeal of the Lord's Day Rest Association

  441
  in the most unfair and misleading way to the working men of the City of London. But, irrespective of that, what right had they to expect a very ardent demand on the part of the working men for these means of higher intellectual amusement and cultivation? Remarks had been made upon the degradation of the working classes, and the idea of many of them availing themselves of this opportunity had been ridiculed. He denied that they were degraded; but if they were, he wished to know when they were to have a chance given them of elevating themselves and acquiring a taste in this direction? The very absence of that taste was a strong reason for giving them the opportunity that was now asked. It had been said that a plébiscite had been taken, and that the result was unfavourable to this proposition. If that were so, which he much questioned, they must wait patiently until the popular judgment grew more enlightened. But that House, at all events, was independent of plébiscites; and he hoped such an opinion would be given on the Resolution of his noble Friend to-night as would help the coming of that day, which he would hail with the greatest pleasure, when they would be able to make the Sunday rest and freedom far more valuable to great classes of their fellow-countrymen by the opening of these Institutions during a part of the day.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, he had no idea of placing religion and the social good of the people in opposition to one another; he protested that it was an entire mistake to imagine that the clergy were ready to sacrifice the social good of the people to religion. It was in no such spirit that he and those who now sat on the same Bench with him became clergymen. They had become so with the hope of labouring for the good of the people in every possible way, and in the best manner they were capable of. This question ought not to be considered as a small concession oil the part of religion. It was no small question, at any rate; and he fully admitted that those against whom he should vote that night were as anxious for the highest good of the people as it was possible to be. It was said that these Galleries belonged to the people, and that they paid for them; and, if so, it was surely a matter of some importance
  442
  to consider what the majority wished. They were all joint partners in these Galleries, and they must certainly have the highest consideration for those who had the least time at their disposal. But surely it was, nevertheless, a question for the majority. He believed that the opinion of working men was ascertained, and he did not believe they were so desirous to see their Lordships open those doors. Mr. Broadhurst, whose speech was the occasion of that demonstration to which the noble Lord had referred, spoke, as he said, entirely in the interests of the working men. He had most feelingly painted the one holiday the working man had in the year, and entreated them not to take it away. Then, again, ought they not to take into consideration the fact that since the year 1881 there had been 783 Petitions addressed to their Lordships' House against the proposition now before the House, and that those 783 Petitions had contained no less than 161,000 names; that, too, in last year alone, there were 208 Petitions, representing 70,000 names; whereas, on the other side, there were but 528 names contained in 12 Petitions since 1881, and last year but 522 names against 70,000? Surely, these were very important figures, and were of value here. Then, again, between the years 1872–82 there were 388 Petitions to the other House, representing 524,000 names, against the proposition, and only 158 Petitions, with 80,000 names, in favour of it. Surely those figures were overwhelming; or, if they were not to count heads in that manner, surely it was a very important matter that the House of Representatives had so very strongly declared itself against the proposition. An appeal had been made to Casar Operarius, and he had decided on the other side. An appeal had also been made to the clergy of London. He knew there were 1,300 clergy in London, and if 400 represented the number of those in favour of this proposition, then two-thirds of the clergy in London were against it; and he found that if they took the clergyman of the Church of England alone within the four mile radius of London, they would get 251 clergymen against the Sunday opening for 50 in favour of it. But they must not only take the clergy of the Church of England in a question like this; they must take the ministers in the Metho-

  443
  dist, Congregational, and other denominations. They there found 226 ministers of four denominations who were against this Sunday opening to only six in favour of it, and that was a very small proportion indeed. Similarly, in the six towns named in support of the Motion, it proved that there was, as nearly as possible, seven-eighths of the clergy against it. It was said that the proposal was only of a permissive character, and that no one would be compelled to visit Museums and Galleries on Sundays if they were open. It was true that no one would be compelled to enter them; but the fact that they were open would compel great numbers to convey others there. In the British Museum and others, containing the treasures of the world and of time, skilled guardians would have to attend. The work could not be done by volunteers. Then it must be remembered that refreshments would have to be supplied. The visitors to Galleries on Sundays would either be a great multitude or not. If they would not be many in number, it was of no use making the change; if they would be a great multitude, boná fide travellers in the streets would be created, and this implied large traffic and trade. With these would come the chief, the only, compulsion known in England—the necessity of living, and of competing in order to live. It was said that the proposed change would promote temperance; if it should do so, it would be a moral miracle, for all other crowds who assembled in places of amusement emulated the army of Xerxes, and drank up rivers of intoxicating fluids. A Lincoln working man had told him that he was himself in favour of Sunday opening, but that if the working men were polled, there would be a great majority against the proposal. In the opinion of the same informant, the people who chiefly required elevating were the very last of all who would seek or could be raised by Museums and Picture Galleries. Much more powerful agencies would scarcely save them. The supporters of the proposal asked why Galleries should not be opened, when Kew Gardens and the grounds of Hampton Court Palace were open to the public on Sundays? In his opinion, the cases were not parallel. Gardens, trees, flowers, covered walks among them, were the very things which indoor people needed to see on
  444
  Sunday afternoons, and every increase of their opportunities of outdoor recreation was desirable.
  VISCOUNT POWERSCOURT: I beg to point out that the Picture Galleries at Hampton Court are open on Sunday.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Well, to his mind, the Gardens were the preferable recreation grounds for the people. What he wished to see was the general opening of Galleries in the evening on week-days. He believed that if by opening Galleries on Sunday they caused the labour and traffic and trade which would certainly be required to produce this indoor recreation, they would soon see an end to all, both outdoor and indoor, recreation on Sunday. The working classes held that the Christianity of this land alone upheld the principle of six days' work and one day's rest, and they revered Sunday accordingly. They were convinced that the system prevailing on the Continent would gain a footing here were it not for the religion of England. The little that would be gained by the acceptance of the proposed change would be far outweighed by the loss of rest that it would entail. He believed, therefore, that it would be an unwise piece of legislation. Sunday rest, said Von Humboldt, was at the basis of national greatness. If the change were made we should still keep Sunday, but in a very partial and uneven manner. Part of the population would be merry—too merry, he feared, on Sunday—but the condition of many would be very hard. By giving approval to this proposal their Lordships would declare that the past history of England in regard to the observance of Sunday had been a mistake. That was a declaration which he was not prepared to make. He would always strongly support schemes for the improvement of the homes of the people, for providing them with evening Galleries and Parks, and for the diminution of their hours of labour; but he must oppose a proposal which would immediately take away from many their rest on Sunday afternoons, and shortly result in taking it away from all.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEobserved that the noble Earl who had moved the Amendment represented a large section of the Church of England, who had always been opposed to the harmless change now contemplated. He

  445
  regretted exceedingly that the Bench of Bishops did not take a more enlightened view of so rational and useful a measure. But for the influence exercised by them on the clergy the change would have been agreed to long ago. It should be borne in mind that the proposal was not a new one; it was already carried out in many towns where these Institutions were not under the control of the Government, and no proof had been adduced from the experience in those places which would justify them in having any apprehension as to what would follow on the adoption of the principle in London. With reference to the point made by the noble Earl, who said that the Amendment moved by Mr. Broad-hurst in "another place" had the support of 500,000 people, he would only say that it was always very difficult to refute statements based on statistics which, one had not thoroughly investigated. After the Motion in the House of Commons in 1882, a proposition was laid before delegates from all parts of London us to the desirability of opening the Museums, and it was requested that those against it should vote also, and the result was that the large majority were found to be in favour of the change. At that meeting, which was held in December of that year, 23 working men's clubs, having 8,439 members; 28 trade societies, containing 19,537 members; the London Trades' Council, representing 15,480 persons; and 10 miscellaneous labour organizations, having 1,976 members; making a total of 61 societies, comprising 45,482 members, had sent delegates to vote in favour of Sunday opening; whereas only one working men's club, having 210 members, and one trades society, having 326 members, making a total of two societies, containing 536 members, had authorized their delegates to vote against the question, he did not deny that a large portion of the English people were opposed to the Resolution of the noble Lord. But, on the other hand, there was a large number of rational persons who desired to have an opportunity of visiting Museums and Picture Galleries on Sunday. Was it right to deny them that opportunity, because a large number were opposed to it? There was something ungenerous on their Lordships' part in opposing the Resolution. Their Lordships could enjoy their amusements and recreations on
  446
  Sundays, and do without restriction a great deal which the lower classes of the population could not do. There had been great stretches of opinion among the higher classes of late years with regard to Sunday observance, and the sentiment would extend in the course of time to the lower classes. He regretted that the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset)—a Trustee of the British Museum—should have resisted a Resolution which on two former occasions he had supported, saying that it was ridiculous to prevent people from visiting Museums on Sunday when they were at liberty to visit not only Kew, but Hampton Court, where they could see the beauties of the Reign of Charles II. He hoped their Lordships would consider seriously what the question was before they divided. It was whether they should give a higher class of recreation to large classes of the people.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, that the noble Earl had told their Lordships that the Bishops had influenced the clergy against this proposal. He could assure the noble Earl that no such attempts had been made by the Bishops. No doubt, the Bishops had, from time to time, endeavoured to ascertain the opinion of the clergy and laity in their dioceses on a matter which had been, much discussed, not only by the clergy, but by the laity also. But the statement which the noble Earl had made was, if he might be permitted to say so, absolutely without foundation. There was one point of view which had not been taken in the course of the debate to which he wished to refer. There were many of their Lordships who, whatever course might be taken with regard to the question, would still deprecate the expression of an opinion on the part of that House. No expression of opinion, no legislation, was wanted. A Museum might be opened on Sunday by the Trustees without any Resolution on the part of their Lordships. It appeared to him that the object in proposing the Resolution was not limited to a desire to open those Institutions; it was rather to produce a strong feeling in favour of altering the character of Sunday itself. What was wished was that it might be said that the House of Lords was in favour of altering the character of our English Sunday. Since the last generation very much more of the Continental

  447
  Sunday had become known among us than was formerly the case. It was said that the English Sunday was dull. Men who went to Paris saw Galleries and Museums open on the Sunday, shops displaying their goods, theatres open, and now and then a political election, a military review, or a horse race. There was on Sunday every form of amusement in a country which made amusement the chief object of life. Men said that those things were bright and pleasant, and that Sunday in London had no brightness and was dull. But in Paris and those cities which were said to be so bright there was much labour on the Sunday too. In England there had been from generation to generation a feeling about the Sunday which did not exist in any other country in Europe, and that feeling he wished to continue. It was wonderful to see on six days of the week the tide of business which flowed through our streets; but it was still more wonderful on one day of the week to see the hush which came upon all that business. It was much for men on one day of the week to be able to know something of a higher life and to rise, if they would, above the week's toil and labour. He wished to keep that privilege intact. It had not been created by Act of Parliament; it could not be enforced—though it might be protected—by law; it had its root in the traditional feeling of the nation; it was set in the heart of the people; he would venture to say it was to them the gift of God. Because he believed that the effect of this Resolution would be to weaken that feeling, he prayed their Lordships to reject it.
  LORD WALSINGHAMsaid, that he had listened with the utmost attention to the arguments which had been adduced in favour of the two alternative propositions before their Lordships; but no less to the objections which had been urged against them. It seemed to him that that class of objections which related to the increased hours of labour which would be imposed upon the employés at Museums applied with almost equal force to both propositions. When the Lord Privy Seal spoke of the satisfaction which those who had to undergo the additional labour imposed by the opening of Museums and Galleries on Sundays would derive from the consciousness that they were performing
  448
  an unselfish duty, he appeared to assume more than the facts of the case would warrant. He would certainly vote against the original proposition; and, thinking it almost impossible to exaggerate the danger that would be incurred by admitting crowds of people into a building containing valuable collections in glass cases with the present system of electric lighting, he hoped also to have an opportunity of voting against the Amendment.
  LORD BRAYEsaid, he thought the proposition was one which, if once sanctioned, might develop itself into the complete effacement of the English Sunday. Europe presented three methods of keeping Sunday. In the first place, they had their own method, based on Catholic law and in accordance with Catholic principles; secondly, they had the Scotch method, wholly Protestant or Sabbatarian; and, lastly, the Revolutionary method, which had penetrated more or less since the great Revolution into every Continental nation. He would ask them to consider whether it was wise to take any steps which might introduce the latter state of things into our own country?
  On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Motion?"
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents 38; Not-Contents 46: Majority 8.

  CONTENTS

  Bedford, D.

  Clifford of Chudleigh L.

  Somerset, D.

  Westminster, D. [Teller.]

  Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  Elphinstone, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Harris, L.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Brownlow, E.

  Derby, E.

  Hawke, L.

  Granville, E.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Hardwicke, E.

  Ilchester, E.

  Lovat, L.

  Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.)

  Monson, L.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Milltown, E.

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Morley, E.

  Onslow, E.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Romilly, L.

  Powerscourt, V.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Sherbrooke, V.

  Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery)

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Bramwell. L.

  Thurlow, L. [Teller.]

  Camoys, L.

  Truro, L.

  Carlingford, L.

  449

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Archp.

  Rochester, L. Bp.

  Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  St. Albans, L. Bp.

  Winchester, L. Bp.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Braye, L.

  Norfolk, D.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Middleton.)

  Richmond, D.

  Byron, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

  De La Warr, E.

  Feversham, E.

  Colville of Culross, L. [Teller.)

  Harewood, E.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Manvers, E.

  Crewe, L.

  Morton, E.

  Delamere, L.

  Redesdale, E.

  Denman, L.

  Shaftesbury, E. [Teller,.]

  de Ros, L.

  Dunning, L.(L. Rollo.)

  Ellenborough, L.

  Melville, V.

  Hylton, L.

  Strathallan, V.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Chichester, L. Bp.

  Shute. L. (V. Barrington.)

  Hereford, L. Bp.

  Lichfield, L. Bp.

  Templemore, L.

  London, L. Bp.

  Teynham, L.

  Norwich, L. Bp.

  Tollemache, L.

  Oxford. L Bp.

  Walsingham, L.

  Resolved in the negative,
  Moved, to resolve—
  "That in as much as a Select Committee of the House of Commons on Public Institutions have reported, on the 27th of March 1860, that such institutions as the British Museum and the National Gallery should be opened on week-day evenings to the public between the hours of seven and ten in the evening at least three days in the week, this House is of opinion that the time has arrived when this recommendation should be carried out."—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYwished, before the next Question was put, to appeal to his noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury), under the peculiar circumstances of the time, not to press his Amendment, which had now become the Main Question. The authorities of the British Museum were, he believed, very anxious that this particular measure should not at this time be taken. There were reasons which were very obvious, but which it was not necessary nor desirable to dwell upon; but he felt sure that almost everyone in their Lordships' House would support what he said.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, that in response to the appeal he would not press his Amendment.
  On Question? Resolved in the negative.

  GREEK MARRIAGES BILL.
  Select Committee on: The Lords following were named of the Committee:

  E. Milltown.

  L. Penzance.

  L. Balfour.

  L. Sandhurst.

  L. Strafford.

  The Committee to meet on Monday next at Twelve o'clock, and to appoint their own Chairman.
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.