Lords Sitting of 20 March 1885

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—Select Committee—Water Companies (Regulation of Powers) *(56), nominated.
PARLIAMENT—ADJOURNMENT—THE EASTER RECESS.
  STATEMENT.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, we propose that your Lordships, as far as the Business of the House is concerned, shall adjourn for the Easter Holidays on Friday next, and meet again on Monday, the 13th of April. The Motion on Friday, however, will be made for an Adjournment during pleasure, as it may be necessary to have a Royal Commission on the day following.
EGYPT (FINANCE, &c.)—COST OF THE ARMY OF OCCUPATION.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF JERSEYrose to ask the noble Earl the Under Secretary of State for War a Question of which he had given him private Notice. It was, Whether Her Majesty's Government estimate that the annual cost of the Army of Occupation in Egypt will not exceed £200,000; and, if so, on what basis such calculation rests; also, whether it is proposed that any extra cost shall fall solely on the English Exchequer; and, if so, why? Their Lordships were aware that under the International Agreement just laid before Parliament the annual cost of the Army of Occupation was put down at £200,000; but in the Reports of Sir Evelyn Baring and his Colleagues, presented last June, the cost was estimated at £293,000. In the Conference which followed that estimate was accepted without demur; and in all

  3
  the French and English proposals it was never suggested that there should be any diminution of the sum of £293,000. He wished to know what had induced Her Majesty's Government to agree to such a large diminution of what must be the obvious cost of the Army of Occupation, as the extra charge would be thrown entirely on the English Exchequer? They had now about 16,000 men in Egypt, and bad spent in the last two months £200,000 extra, and there was a prospect of our spending a great deal more.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: I must certainly object to the course pursued by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Jersey) in bringing forward a subject of this kind without public, instead of private, Notice. The answer I have to give to the Question is this—When the Force which was to form the garrison of Egypt—and which is entirely distinct from the Expeditionary Forces in the Soudan— was first sent to that country it was found that the extra cost—that is to say, the difference between the cost of maintaining the troops in Egypt and at home—was, as nearly as the Government could ascertain it, at the rate of £4 per man per month, or £48 a-year. Taking the garrison at a strength of 4,000 men, which was the number anticipated to be necessary, at that rate £200,000 would cover the extra yearly cost to this country. Whether the garrison be reduced to this strength or not, the Government has agreed to charge no more to the Egyptian Government. This is the part of the bargain under which £200,000 a-year is to be deducted from the interest on the bonds. The extra sums asked for are for the Expeditionary Forces in the Soudan and at Suakin, which have nothing to do with the garrisons in Egypt.

OPENING OF MUSEUMS ON SUNDAYS— THE NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM, SOUTH KENSINGTON.

  RESOLUTION.
  LORD THURLOW, who had given Notice of a Motion respecting the Resolution of the Trustees of the British Museum, in favour of opening the Natural History Museum at South Kensington on Sundays, said, he would not detain their Lordships many minutes, but would state his case as briefly as
  4
  possible. On former occasions, he had had opportunities of explaining at length the motives by which he was actuated and the arguments by which he was supported. Neither would he weary their Lordships with pages of statistics, as the thing had passed beyond the region of statistics, and had entered the more healthy sphere of practical polities. The same principle was involved in the Resolution of that evening as in those of former years, only with the difference that that night the application was narrowed to one great national institution, the Natural History Museum at South Kensington, a building of great beauty and attractions, well fitted, in his opinion, to be used as a test of the success of Sunday opening in London. His position that night was much strengthened by the recent growth of public opinion on this question. What he advocated was now advocated by every daily paper in London that he knew of—papers representing all shades of political opinion. He was equally supported by The Morning Post as by The Daily Telegraph, and by the great arbiter of events, The Times. This growth of public opinion had evidently not passed unnoticed by the Trustees of the British Museum, and had borne fruit, as might have been expected. On the 17th of January last, a special meeting of Trustees was held to consider the question. The proposal to open the South Kensington Natural History Museum was, be believed, moved by one of the ecclesiastical Trustees, and practically passed unopposed by an overwhelming majority. The first question one asked one's self, when one heard that a thing had been done by a body of men, was to inquire into the constitution of that Body, in order to ascertain to what extent it was influential and representative. He proposed to take that course, and it would be seen that no more influential Body could be found—that it comprised men of every shade of politics, of every school of thought, men of different creeds, and many of the most illustrious ecclesiastics and laymen of the day. The British Museum had 49 Trustees. Of these 24 were official. One was appointed by the Queen. Nine represented the Sloane, Cotton, Harley, Townley, Elgin, and Knight families and bequests, the remaining 15 being chosen by the former 34. The official Trustees were the Arch-

  5
  bishop of Canterbury, the Lord Chancellor, the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Lord President of the Council, the First Lord of the Treasury, the Lord Privy Seal, the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Lord Steward, the Lord Chamberlain, the five Secretaries of State, the Bishop of London, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Polls, the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, the Presidents of the Royal Society, of the College of Physicians, of the Society of Antiquaries, and of the Royal Academy. The Trustee appointed by the Queen was the Dean of "Windsor. The family Trustees were the Earl of Derby, Earl Ca-dogan, the Rev. Frederick Annesley, the Rev. Sir G. H. Cornwall, Lord Henry Lennox, Mr. George Cavendish Bentinck, the Earl of Elgin, Mr. F. W. Knight, and one vacancy caused by the death of Lord O'Hagan. The elected Trustees were the Prince of Wales, Mr. Spencer Walpole, Viscount Eversley, Viscount Sherbrooke, the Duke of Argyll, Lord Acton, the Duke of Devonshire, Lord Walsingham, Sir Henry Rawlinson, Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Beresford Hope, Lord Houghton, the Dean of Christ Church, the Earl of Rosebery, and Professor Huxley. Any recommendation coming from such a body as that deserved every consideration, and especially careful consideration, before it was rejected. Now they came to the Amendment of the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury). He had no fault to find with it whatever, except that it did not deal in a straightforward way with the matter in hand. It dealt with electric lighting and week-day evening opening, two things he (Lord Thurlow) entirely approved, and it bristled with statistics, of which he was very fond. It was almost identical with last year's Amendment, and challenged a division on the same false issue. Two or three weeks ago, he noticed an excellent leading article on Sunday opening in one of the great London daily papers. It said—
  "The importance of the decision taken by the Trustees of the British Museum cannot be over-estimated. Now, for the first time, working men will have, on their one whole holiday in the week, an alternative to the public-house, whose doors yawn open to receive them and their weekly earnings. Licensed victuallers are the only caterers of entertainments allowed to
  6
  take and to make money on the Lord's Day. Pictures may not be seen, mummies are tabooed, but a working man may enter a gin palace and drink and smoke under cover and protection of the law. The temples of Bacchus are the only ones open to those who seek recreation on the Sabbath Day."
  All this was perfectly true. It had been said that the poor people had the Parks and public gardens to go to; but the Parks, although they might be valuable for well-fed and rich men, who had a good dinner to go to, and wanted a constitutional, were not very attractive places in a biting East wind for poor people. A working man, working hard all the week, did not want a constitutional to whet his appetite for his Sunday dinner. Besides, they must not forget that keeping the Parks open on Sunday required a much larger staff of working people than the keeping open of Museums, Picture Galleries, and Libraries would. Then he would ask, once more, what could a poor man do on Sunday if, as often happened, it was wet and cold? He was shut up in one room with a large family, perhaps some of them ill. What could he do? It might be suggested that he should go to Hampton Court or Kew; but that cost money, which he could ill spare, and encouraged Sunday traffic of omnibuses and railways. But he might not go into those spacious and well-warmed halls close to him filled with the most beautiful creations of God and man, and objects illustrative of Christian history—all built and maintained by taxation to which he contributed in no small degree, as he was now becoming daily more aware, and as we might now more easily realize, by the knowledge that it was the third-class fares more than the first-class fares that enabled Railway Companies to pay a dividend. Look at the inconsistency of the thing. If he lived in Manchester or Birmingham, Stoke or Wigan, he might go to Libraries, Galleries, and Museums on Sundays; but if he lived in London, where he was further from the green fields, he might not. So much for the inconsistency of locality; now let them look at the social inconsistency. Rich men had, to a greater or less degree, their libraries, their galleries, their luxurious clubs, their carriages and horses; and was it to be said that that was exactly the reason why the Museums should not be opened on Sundays? He knew that their Lordships

  7
  would not say that, but it was what the poor said and thought. If their Lordships voted to-night for the noble Earl's Amendment, that would not be the odious reason, but because they were carried away on the wrong scent. No doubt, he would be told of the Continental Sunday; but the day for that argument was past and gone. Working men in our days were powerful enough, he rejoiced to say, to protect themselves against overwork. It was they that prescribed, not only how many days in the week, but how many hours in the day they would work. This was not a new question; the only new feature was the action taken by the Trustees of the British Museum, and it was that he asked their Lordships to support. The mist and cloud that had long obscured the view of the public upon this matter had now passed away, dispelled by the force of a more enlightened public opinion; and he was sanguine enough to believe the majority of their Lordships would go into the Lobby with him upon this subject. They saw from the police returns the good results achieved elsewhere, in Birmingham and in Manchester, and other towns—how there sobriety had increased, and how there crime had diminished. Then, would they still refuse to try this thing in London, where it was most required, and would they again be led away by the unreal Amendment of the noble Earl? He did not believe that they would be. He believed that their Lordships would show their sympathy with the Trustees, who had shown their appreciation of the spirit of the age we lived in, who had shown that they possessed the courage of their opinions; and he believed their Lordships would support their endeavours to contribute their quota to the sum of human happiness of the working classes of this great City. In conclusion, he begged to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  Moved to resolve, "That whereas a considerable majority of the Trustees of the British Museum present at a general meeting on the 17th of January last specially called to consider the question, voted in favour of opening the Natural History Museum at South Kensington on Sunday afternoons; and whereas it is desirable to afford the working classes of London such further opportunities of instruction, recreation, and enjoyment as they would obtain thereby, and as are already conceded in Manchester, Birmingham, Stoke-upon-Trent, Dub-
  8
  lin, Newcastle, Middlesboro', and other centres of industry; that, for the above and for other reasons affecting the health and happiness, the morality and sobriety, of the working classes of London, this House is of opinion that the time has now come to support the decision taken by the Trustees of the British Museum in regard to this question."—(The Lord Thurlow.)
  EARL CAIRNSsaid, that he was sure their Lordships would join him in an expression of regret at the absence that evening of his noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury) through indisposition, which he hoped would be but of slight duration. He hoped that their Lordships, instead of agreeing to the Motion of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Thurlow), would accept the Amendment to that Motion which stood upon the Paper in the name of his noble Friend, and which he (Earl Cairns) would now take upon himself to submit to the House. It ran as follows:—
  "To leave out all the words after 'That' and to insert 'the Trustees of the British Museum having applied to the Treasury for the funds necessary to light up the Natural History Museum with the electric light, and having lighted up the Reading Room of the British Museum with the electric light till eight o'clock at night for several years with 'very satisfactory results,' and having obtained estimates for lighting the whole of the British Museum at night with electricity, and bearing in mind that the South Kensington Museum has been opened till ten o'clock at night for twenty-eight years, and been visited at night by 6,885,722 persons, and that the Bethnal Green Museum has been opened at night for twelve years, and been visited in the evenings by 3,567,278 person's, and that a Parliamentary Committee has recommended 'That the British Museum and National Gallery should be opened on week day evenings 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 into effect, and the national collections opened on week day evenings, but not on Sundays."
  Now, he had always looked upon this question as a question for working men alone; and he knew no one in that House, or out of it, who was better qualified to gauge the temper and wishes, or to speak upon questions affecting the working men of London than his noble Friend, because, owing to his philanthropy and benevolence, he had been brought into immediate contact with them for a long period. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Thurlow) had said that this proposal had often been before the House. No doubt, in a certain degree that was the case; but he (Earl Cairns) now remarked that

  9
  there was a change in the Resolution, for whereas, on former occasions, those bringing forward the proposal had sought to throw open on Sundays all the Museums and Galleries supported by the State in the Metropolis, it was now proposed only to open the Natural History Museum at South Kensington. The noble Lord's argument, he quite admitted, went much further. He had told them, correctly, that the Board of Trustees of the British Museum was composed of 49 Noblemen and Gentlemen, and the impression he seemed to leave was, that the decision arrived at represented the opinions of the whole number; whereas the Resolution itself was decided only by a majority of a meeting composed of 16 Noblemen and Gentlemen. The Trustees, however, purposely abstained from making any recommendation that the British Museum should be opened on Sunday, and simply confined their motion to the South Kensington Museum of Natural History. There was not a word in their Resolution that the great building in Blooms-bury should be opened on Sunday, He desired to speak with the greatest possible respect of the Trustees of the British Museum; and while he would take their opinion on what would be safe or unsafe as regarded matters connected with the keeping and exhibition of our valuable treasures of Nature and Art, he was not disposed to accept as conclusive any opinion they might express or the religious view they might take with regard to the propriety of opening our National Museums and Galleries on Sundays. He did not think they were the Body to apply to on a question involving social, political, or religious considerations. Of course they had heard much of the public-house argument in this matter—of how, if these Museums were opened, the public-houses would be emptied. But it was an argument which broke down the moment they touched it, and upon this matter he could not but recall the remarkable speech made by Mr. Broadhurst in the other House upon this question. That Gentleman, himself a working man and thoroughly qualified to express the views of the working men, had ridiculed the idea that there could ever be any competition between the Museums and Galleries and the public-houses for two reasons—the first
  10
  being that the people who would go to the Museums and the Galleries were not those who frequented the public-houses on Sunday; and the next being that those who frequented the public-houses would not go to the Museums and Galleries on Sunday if they had the opportunity of doing so. It was also said that it was proposed by those who advocated the opening of the Museums on Sunday that they should be opened on Sunday afternoons between 3 and 6 o'clock, which was exactly the time during which the public-houses were closed. But what would happen if they were closed at the latter hour? The East India Docks, Stepney, and the Tower Hamlets were a long way from South Kensington; and would working men come from these distant places, spend two or three hours in the fatiguing operation of walking about the Galleries, without requiring, when 6 o'clock came, some refreshment—something to eat and something to drink? Then, at 6, the Galleries would be closed, and the crowds would pour out into the public-houses. In this fact they would find a complete explanation of the desire of publicans for the opening of Museums on Sunday. The proposal of the noble Lord involved a question of money, which must come from the House of Commons. That was a technical objection; but there was a stronger one. Why were their Lordships so constantly appealed to in this matter? It was, as he had said, a question eminently affecting the working class, and one upon which the other House might be thought to be more competent to speak. Therefore, it was to the other House of Parliament in an eminent degree that we must look for the representation of that class, and for the expression of their views. What were the Petitions which had been presented to that House on this subject? It seemed that the noble Lord had entirely overlooked this matter. He had not given the slightest proof, or made the slightest assertion, to show that the working men of the country desired the change. Nay, he (Earl Cairns) went further, and said that they did not like it, they did not desire it, and were anxious that the proposal should not succeed. What did they find in the House of Commons as the result of 10 years' petitioning on both sides of

  11
  the question? On the one side, they had 3,886 Petitions with 524,000 signatures against the proposal; and, on the other side, 158 Petitions with 79,900 signatures in favour. Therefore, so far as petitioning went, there was no comparison between the numbers of those who desired, and those who did not wish for the change. Then, what was the result of the last division in the House of Commons on the point in 1882? Against opening 203, in support 83. In the year 1877, the previous occasion when a division was taken, the minority was 87, so that in the course of five years the minority in favour had fallen off. On the last occasion on which the subject was before the House of Commons, Mr. Broadhurst made the very admirable speech to which he had before referred. He must say that he had never read a speech more remarkable for its conciseness and the cogency of its reasoning, and he admired the Representative whom the working classes had secured for themselves in the person of Mr. Broadhurst. Sitting for Stoke, a working man'sborough, Mr. Broadhurst spoke as a Trade Unionist of 25 years, not in the interest of any Society, or with any theological view of his own. He stated that he simply desired to speak as a Representative of working men what he knew they would desire. One observation of Mr. Broadhurst struck him very much. He said—
  "You are proposing to open Museums and Galleries on Sunday; but the Trade Unions for the last 20 years have been trying to better the working classes of the country, and the traditions of the country with regard to labour. One of the privileges that the working man values most is to have the seventh day his own, and not to be interfered with. We have gone on that principle, and we have agitated for, and to some extent secured, early closing, and we want to secure it more. We have secured the Saturday half-holiday, and we want to maintain that. On what principle do we agitate for these things? That that is the time working men want to improve their minds and to look at Galleries and Museums."
  He further said—
  "If you make a change and throw these places open on Sunday and make that the day for looking at your Collections of Art, you cut the ground from under our feet for early closing on Saturday. Therefore, the one thing we desire is that you will not offer an alternative for early closing on Saturday by opening Museums and Galleries on Sunday."
  He (Earl Cairns) was not surprised at this view being taken by the working
  12
  men. Mr. Mundella, the Minister superintending the education and culture of the country, also strongly opposed the Motion. He told this remarkable fact—he said that there were 154 Municipalities throughout the country which had provided and supported Museums from the public rates. These Municipalities were the true representatives of the working men of their neighbourhoods; and it appeared that out of these 154 Municipalities, four only opened their Museums on Sunday, and 150 did not. Mr. Mundella also referred to the case of Nottingham, which had provided a splendid Museum and Free Library out of the rates. In 1879 there was a difference of opinion in the Town Council as to whether they should open their Museum and Library on Sunday or not; they had a division, and there were 25 for opening, and 28 against. Then, said Mr. Mundella, in 1881, a test election was taken — the municipal election turned on the question of whether the Museum was to be opened on Sunday or not. After the election, the voting in the Town Council was eight in favour of the opening, and 34 against. It might be said that these boroughs were at some distance from London, that the working men in the neighbourhood of London might have a different opinion, and that, therefore, they ought to consider what the working men in London would say. He did not suppose that there was any division of the Metropolis which was so completely a locality of intelligent, skilled working men as the Tower Hamlets. Well, at the last Election there was a prominent working-man candidate—Mr. Lucraft—for that constituency, and he was asked what he thought about the opening of Museums and Galleries on Sundays, and he said he looked upon it purely from a working man's point of view, and that he should not like to work seven days a-week instead of six. Therefore, he could not vote for their opening. That announcement was received with great cheering, and although Mr. Lucraft was not returned, yet when the question came again before the House of Commons, and a division was taken, the Members for the Tower Hamlets voted against the proposal. To take the case of other towns—Worcester, in 1884, resolved, by eight against four, to open its Museum on Sunday; but, after a month's expe-

  13
  rience, the decision was reversed, and the Museum was closed. Maidstone, in February, 1881, decided to open its Museum; but, after an experience of three years, decided, by 16 votes against three, to close it again. In September, 1884, Chester resolved to open its public Library on Sunday; but, after three months' experience, it was closed, three members of the Town Council only dissenting from that course. The most deliberate appeal had been made to organizations representing working men for their opinion on this question. Organizations representing 500,000 working men decided, by a large majority, in favour of the view taken by Mr. Broadhurst as against that of the noble Lord. And what had the noble Lord urged against these arguments? Nothing whatever. Upon the religious aspect of the question, he (Earl Cairns) would point out that the Wesleyan Body, as well as a great many other religions, had presented their opinions against the proposal, and it was opposed by a great number of working men from a different view. They were opposed to it on conscientious grounds; they held that the seventh day was one they ought to have free from labour—that it was their privilege to have that day, and that it was a blessing to them morally; they had experienced the value of it as such, and they were jealous of anything which would even have the appearance of depriving them of it. He had been much struck by the Report of the Royal Commission which last year inquired into the question of instruction to the industrial classes in foreign countries. The Commission originated from the impression that this country was behind foreign countries, and that something was required to help us in the severe competition with foreigners. That Commission practically recommended that Museums should be opened on Sundays for that purpose, so that the working man might get instruction similar to what was obtained in certain Sunday Schools in France, Belgium, and Germany. It was not, however, by gazing at the objects exhibited in the Museums that this technical instruction was to be acquired. It would be necessary that qualified persons should be employed to give them lectures, and teach them the meaning of what they saw. What the Commissioners did was, in fact, to advise the
  14
  setting up of schools of technical education in this country like those abroad, although they had not the boldness to recommend it in so many words. He repeated that it was not only that these Museums were to be thrown open to the public to gaze on Collections and articles of Art. Some persons must go with them and explain those Collections, and give practical instruction; and the consequence would be they would have, no doubt, in a very short time, what was so universal on the Continent. He had said that this was a workman's question, and that the opinion of working men would more naturally be looked for in the other House of Parliament, and he would remind their Lordships that they were now on the eve of a great and material change which would give the working men of London an opportunity of expressing their views which they never had before. He forgot the number of new Members which were to be given to London; but when that change took place the working man would be able to speak out, and then they would see whether the opinions which he and others held, or whether those of the noble Lord who introduced the Motion, were correct. The noble Lord said there was no connection between the Amendment on the Paper in the name of his noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury) and the Motion; but there was both an affirmative and a negative part, and he would see that the latter part deprecated the opening of Museums on Sundays. That was entirely germane to the proposal. Let him (Earl Cairns) say a few words on the affirmative part of the Amendment. He owned he could not understand why the object in view should not be met by the opening of some of these great stores of Art on certain evenings of week-days. The objection as to the injury to exhibits from gaslight could be obviated by the use of the electric light, and he did not see why that should not be taken advantage of for the purpose. Why should not the National Gallery be made available in this way? He did not believe the cost would be very great, and the existing facts disproved the theory that the working man was too fatigued in the evening to attend; and the records of South Kensington and Bethnal Green showed that they were able and glad to visit such places in the evening. These

  15
  were the views which he ventured to put forward as the views, so far as he could ascertain them, entertained on the subject by working men. He believed that a very large number of them were convinced that Sunday was a Divine institution, and that it had conferred incalculable blessings of every kind upon those human races who had known it and observed it. There was a very large number who were anxious on higher grounds to resist the proposal of the noble Lord. He hoped it would be resisted. They regulated trade on Sunday by legislation; and he believed they could maintain that legislation if they were consistent; but if once they departed from the general principle thus laid down, and if, with regard to their own Collections of Art and places of amusement, they set the example of opening them on Sunday, he maintained that they could not expect to support legislation for the purpose of curtailing the liberties of other persons. If they began that they must make the one rule for the institutions supported by the State and those not so supported, and he believed it would be a great mistake to agree to the Motion. He begged to move the Amendment of which Notice had been given.
  Amendment moved,
  To leave out all the words after ("That") and insert ("the Trustees of the British Museum having applied to the Treasury for the funds necessary to light up the Natural History Museum with the electric light, and having lighted up the Heading Room of the British Museum with the electric light till eight o'clock at night for several years with 'very satisfactory results,' and having obtained estimates for lighting the whole of the British Museum at night with electricity, and hearing in mind that the South Kensington Museum has been opened till ten o'clock at night for twenty-eight years and been visited at night by 6,885,722 persons, and that the Bethnal Green Museum has been opened at night for twelve years, and been visited in the evenings by 3,567,278 persons, and that a Parliamentary Committee has recommended 'That the British Museum and National Gallery should be opened on week-day evenings 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 into effect, and the national collections opened on week-day evenings but net on Sundays.")— (The Karl Cairns.)
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he should be most sorry if the Sunday was not kept as a day of rest. Even if it were looked upon as a mere human institu-
  16
  tion, he thought it would be much to be lamented if it were not kept as a day of abstinence from labour. He spoke with a strong personal feeling of the immense advantage of the day; having had, in the course of his life, a great deal of work to do, he felt the absolute necessity of the rest he got from the Sunday. He should be sorry to see it kept as the Continental Sunday was kept. He should like to see it kept gravely and decorously, and he should not like to see upon it horse-racing or anything else which brought about the sort of scandal which attached to that and some other kinds of amusement; but while he felt this most strongly, he did think, on the other hand, that the day ought to be kept—in part, at least—as a day of recreation and reasonable amusement for the body and for the mind. And he was afraid it was neither, but was now kept in such a way as to be positively mischievous. What was the English notion of keeping the Sunday? He did not say that everybody thought so; but the majority of the English people—the Anglo-Saxons, he might say—thought there ought to be no amusement on the Sunday. If people played chess they were to be reprimanded, and he had heard that even a walk, taken for the purpose of recreation, was regarded as a wrong thing. In his judgment, it was a mischievous mistake to insist that there should be no rational amusement. What was to be done if people were not to amuse themselves in the innocent way he had mentioned? It was said that their minds should be entirely given up to devotional practices and devotional thoughts. That was an impossibility. He did not say that there were not strong-minded and religious-minded people who were capable of so employing themselves; but the majority of mankind were quite incapable of following out that way of keeping Sunday, and the only consequence of enforcing such an observance of the day was to make people break what they supposed was the Commandment. If they wished to avoid the Continental Sunday they must give people the opportunity of reasonable, decent, and quiet enjoyment. Of all the sins that man or child could commit, the one that went least against his conscience was to do what was called breaking the Sabbath.

  17
  If you told a child not to spin a top on Sunday, the child would see no harm in it, either to itself or the top, and it probably went and played. He declared, on his conscience, that the present way in which Sunday was spent in England might, in his opinion, be called an easy introduction to sin. Once the law had been broken, the next step was much easier; and, in his opinion, it was a most mischievous thing that a feeling should obtain that a Commandment should have been given of such a character that the majority of people had not the strength of mind to obey it—that people should be told in the same way not to steal, and to keep the Sunday in a way they could not keep it. He wished earnestly, therefore, that some alteration should be made. He had often wondered what possible argument there was for the present notion of the way in which Sunday ought to be kept. It was, comparatively, quite a modern innovation, since up to the time of Charles I. there had been no such notion, but games and sports had been indulged in; and in the Reign of James I. a book had been published setting out certain sports which were lawful for Sundays. At that time the day was treated rationally, and was eminently a day of rest, and it was not until the time of the Puritans that an alteration was made. If they looked throughout Christendom—except in this country, and he believed in America, where they had got many of our ways—they would see no notion of spending Sunday in the way in which it was spent here. On the Continent, whether in a Catholic, a Protestant, or a Greek Church country, reasonable and proper enjoyment was to be obtained, and the day was treated, as he could not help saying, as a day of recreation. He could not help thinking that the Commandment had been misinterpreted. They were to work six days and to keep holy the seventh—how? By doing no manner of work; but there was no prohibition in this, either direct or by implication, of reasonable and proper enjoyment. He had received a letter on the subject from a very eminent gentleman of the Jewish persuasion, in which the writer said that there was a great misapprehension abroad as to the manner of observing the Sabbath among the Jews; that it was not the day of gloom and inanity
  18
  that some supposed; on the contrary, that it was the happiest and most joyous day. They rigidly abstained from work, or anything implying or leading to work. After the religious offices of the day, it was passed in social intercourse and recreations, among which the writer mentioned visits to Museums and Picture Galleries, concerts, and even theatres. Card playing, however, would not be considered proper, and lawn tennis and such like games would come within the definition of work, involving bodily labour and fatigue. Their Lordships might take that to be a true expression of the way in which the Jews interpreted the Commandment; and they might surely be supposed to know the meaning of their own law better than anyone else. As to the argument that the opening of Museums would be the beginning of general work on Sundays, the whole course of things in the 30 years had been in an opposite direction. He was glad of it, and it was most useful with reference to both social and political considerations; but it was undoubtedly the case that the working men bad got the Saturday half-holiday, and shortened the hours of labour in every direction, while a great many of them took a holiday on Monday. He was not blaming them if they could earn their subsistence by working only four days a week—they had a right to work only that amount; but so it was, and yet they wore now told that the working men were afraid of being set to work on Sunday. Those who liked to stay away from Museums on Sunday could do so; but the argument put forward was that those who liked to go should not, because there was a fear of the working man being set to work on Sunday. He thought Mr. Broadhurst's argument a very bad one, for he had divided mankind into two classes—those who went, and those who did not go to places of recreation. Those who did not go to such places went to the public-house; but if they were to give them an opportunity of going to Galleries on Sunday it would prevent their going to the public-house. If they wanted a good use made of the Sunday, if they wanted to prevent people from becoming unwilling hypocrites, if they wanted not to lead into temptation, and to prevent the introduction of the Continental Sunday, then they should do their best to introduce

  19
  a rational, decent, and quiet mode of enjoyment for that day.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, he was rather at a loss to imagine in what society the noble and learned Lord who had just sat down (Lord Bram well) had lived, when he spoke, as he had done, of the gloomy and miserable manner in which Sunday was spent in this country. The noble and learned Lord seemed to think that all those who opposed the Motion were not only against looking at a picture on Sunday, but had conscientious objections to allowing a working man to look at a picture, or take a turn in the park on that day. Therefore, the spirited attack of the noble and learned Lord, based on the assumption that such doctrines were enforced on this question, appeared to be a clever legal device to throw disrepute upon his opponents by putting into their mouths arguments which they would never have thought of using for a moment. He did not know where the noble and learned Lord found those who entertained the extraordinary views he had described now-a-days; and though they might have been held many years ago in some remote parts of Scotland, he (the Earl of Harrowby) did not know that they had ever prevailed in England. The whole of the question had been argued from the point of view of the working man. It was not the doing of the opponents of the Motion, but the noble Lord who introduced the subject (Lord Thurlow). He supported its action by stating it would greatly benefit the working man. He (the Earl of Harrowby) claimed to know something about the working man, having to within a very recent period represented in Parliament one of the largest working class constituencies in this country; and having been brought into close relations with those men he was able to speak as to their feelings on that Sunday question. He did not claim for them any superiority in virtue over other classes; but he said that the more anyone went among the skilled artisans and working men of England the more would he be convinced of the deep-seated reverence for the Sunday which existed in their minds quite distinct from other motives. He quite appreciated the motives of those noble Lords who wished to open those Galleries on Sundays to the working classes; and he was quite sure that
  20
  it was due to the generous feeling that surrounded as they were by all sorts of useful or curious objects in their own homes, which they could enjoy on Sunday, noble Lords earnestly desired that the working man should be placed as far as possible in a similar position. That was a noble and generous sentiment; but surely they should seriously consider the reasonable and well thought out objections to that Motion of the class on whose behalf they acted. The noble and learned Earl near him (Earl Cairns) had completely disposed of the argument that that was a working class movement. There was no proof of it; indeed, the number of Petitions to Parliament against it, and the action of Municipalities, completely did away with the argument. There was not a single fact in support of it, and the more it was investigated the less it would be found a working class movement. What, he asked, happened a few years ago in Bethnal Green? The late Sir Charles Peed, the Chairman of the London School Board, had told him (the Earl of Harrowby) that the Bethnal Green Museum was largely prized by the working men of that neighbourhood; but when it was proposed to open that Museum on Sunday the feeling of the people of the district on the subject was taken, and 80,000 signatures were appended to a protest against the opening of the institution on Sunday. Instead of the current of feeling now running, as the noble Lord (Lord Thurlow) had said, in favour of the opening of Museums on Sundays, the fact was just the other way, and there had been a decided movement in the matter of late years. He ventured to say that, far from the tendency being in favour of Sunday amusements, it was all the other way, and that public opinion was in favour of tightening the law with regard to Sunday occupation rather than of loosening it. Many of their Lordships would remember that not very long ago all Royal receptions were on Sundays, and those and other similar things were deferred to week days in deference to the popular wish. Again, it was not so long since there was a postal delivery in London on Sundays; but public feeling had stopped that practice—a somewhat remarkable fact in the case of so great a commercial centre. The noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Bram-

  21
  well) seemed to think they might have a decorous Sunday with the Museums and Picture Galleries opened without a corresponding increase of work. On that point the working people had made up their minds. They had sent their representatives to visit France, Germany, and other countries, in which those places were opened on Sunday, and they had reported that wherever Picture Galleries, Museums, and Libraries were open on Sunday its certain concomitant was such an amount of additional work for the mass of the people that that fact had finally sealed the judgment of our working classes on that question. Surely, then, noble Lords who pressed the Motion ought to show some extraordinarily good results from the opening of Museums where it had taken place. Was it possible to say that Paris, Berlin, Vienna, Rome, or Naples were more moral or more pure than London? There was no proof that the opening of these institutions in these Continental cities had led to the moral elevation of their working populations. He defied any man to bring forward a single city abroad in which the working classes were higher in the tone of their moral and family life than they were in London. He was proud to think that drinking habits in England were now steadily going down; but he was sorry to say that abroad they were, unhappily, increasing. Again, if noble Lords were so anxious upon the subject, there were many much more hopeful means of promoting the health, happiness, and sobriety of our working classes than by the adoption of that Motion. He trusted that their Lordships would encourage every effort which those classes were now making to shorten the hours of labour, particularly of the young, and that they would think of the miserable lives of shop assistants, and help to ameliorate their lot. He trusted also that they would, by their social influence at least, seek to aid the masses of the people who were now overworked on Sundays. It was well known that it was one of the great cries of the whole of the railway service in England that they were dreadfully overworked on Sundays. Again, there was the case of the men employed in omnibuses, tramcars, and in similar occupations, such as cabmen and others, while country postmen and such trades as
  22
  bakers and others suffered greatly from the same cause. A bitter feeling existed among those classes as to their overwork on Sunday, and a strong desire animated thorn to emancipate themselves from that curse. Again, their Lordships might assist in promoting the establishment of parks all round the increasing population of London; and if they wished to go farther in that direction, nothing could be more conducive to the welfare of the working classes than the improvement of their dwellings in our large towns. Those were points in which they could wisely, and with the full consent of the whole class affected, assist them in mending their condition, instead of embarking in that most delicate and most disastrous endeavour, by introducing the thin end of the wedge, and opening the Museums and Galleries, to increase Sunday work among the people. He trusted, however, that the Government would consider whether those Galleries could not be opened on week nights. It would be better even to knock off a few grants for fresh purchases of pictures, in order to introduce the electric light into those institutions, so as to throw them open on several week nights to the people, He asked their Lordships to reject this reactionary proposal, which would, as it were, put back the hand of the clock. It would rob the working classes of the rest which they now valued more than they did 30 years ago, and which they needed more now, because the pressure of their work was far heavier than it used to be. The simple result of adopting the Motion would be that their Lordships would do their best to increase the amusement of the rich, who had plenty of amusement already, while they would add to the burden of those who had too much work already. He begged them, therefore, to refuse their assent to that fatal proposal—fatal not only to England and these Islands, but fatal in its example on the Anglo-Saxon race, who, he was proud to think, cared most for the Sunday, revered its sacred obligations, and prized its most blessed results. In the last words uttered on the subject in that House by the late Lord Beaconsfield, he now asked their Lordships steadily to refuse to destroy "that most Divine of all Divine institutions which secures a day of rest for man."
  LORD MOUNT-TEMPLEsaid, that if the proposal before the House involved any new departure, and an alteration in the mode of observing Sunday, which was characteristic of the nation, he should oppose it. No legislation was proposed, but only a definite expression of opinion in favour of extending the existing practice to another Museum. At the present moment, under the authority of Departments of the Government, the Picture Galleries of Hampton Court and the Botanical Collections at Kew were open to the public on Sunday; and that opinion, if given, could not be quoted in support of the opinion of the National Sunday League, that each man's observance be regulated by his own convictions, and be freed from ascetic restraint. The ultimate designs of the National League would be less likely to prevail if this reasonable change were granted than if the closing of Museums were to drive those who would be content with it into alliance with the Sunday National League for fundamental changes. The Jewish mode of employing their Sabbath had been alluded to. A day of rest was of incalculable importance to the whole community. There were, however, two forms of rest. It must be remembered that the Sabbath of the Jews came at the end of the week—at the close of six days of toil and labour; but the Sunday of the Christians was the first day of a week of work. The day of rest of the Jews was a day of rest in outward, material, formal ways; but that of Christians was a rest of preparation, and of the acquisition of fresh energy for the six days which were to follow. The day of rest assisted the rising out of the troubles and worries of daily life, and the development of the higher faculties of soul, heart, and mind. For the soul there was religious contemplation, for the heart domestic, family companionship, for the mind intellectual occupation, such as might be found in studying the works of the Creator through the instructive collections of the Natural History Museum. There was a large number of young men in London who had had education enough to appreciate a place of that kind, and in their interests he trusted that their Lordships would agree to the Motion. There were many persons of both sexes who had only bed rooms in
  24
  Loudon; when they were tired of walking about or wished for shelter on Sundays, when they had nothing to do, their choice lay between two places of public resort—either to go to church or chapel or to the public-house. A Museum of the kind to which they referred would, in spacious and comfortable Halls, if opened, afford shelter from cold and rain. Assistants in shops, messengers, and young men of the ordinary degree of education might meet friends, and obtain a considerable amount of intellectual recreation.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, he would not detain their Lordships many moments. He thought it was, in many ways, desirable that those plain arguments—for such he was persuaded they were—should be addressed to the House by Lay Peers. It was possibly with a certain amount of professional deduction that Spiritual Peers might be listened to on this subject; but he must say that, if he were an entirely independent listener, he could not doubt up to this moment on which side had lain the balance and the force of argument. The arguments on one side had been precise, clear, distinct, critical, and numerical; on the other side they had been, he must say, vague and anticipatory. The question at this time came before their Lordships in a very ingenious and very attractive form. It was a kind of bijou presentation of the argument. It came in the form in which he himself would have been most likely to admit it, and had been urged in a spirit which he could wholly accept. But while it was an application to open the doors of a single Museum on Sunday, none of them believed that that could be the end of the movement. While it was felt on both sides that it was undesirable to produce a Continental Sunday, a movement of this kind was known to be a change in the English Sunday. If it were believed that no change was coming on or expected, it would not have been so keenly urged. The English Sunday, as now observed, was no Puritan observance. They knew very well what a Puritanical Sunday was, and an English Sunday might be put in strong contrast with it. They knew historically how the present Sunday came into England. They knew that very early in the Plantagenet period it was pressed, preached, moved by re-

  25
  ligious and earnest people, just as temperance and other movements are pressed now; and the chroniclers told how this point of social improvement for the people was urged and gained ground, and gradually public opinion was affected, and then law became the expression of the public feeling of the riper and better heart of the community. It was originally promoted by all who wished the people well. There was no superstition about it. There was no superstition, he believed, about its observance in England; it was, indeed, part of the organized life of the Church, but it was also part of the civilized life of England. It belonged to the whole Church; the Roman Catholic portion of the Christian world and the Nonconformist portion of the Christian world took no different view. The memoirs of old France before the Revolution showed them that the old French Sunday was as like the Sunday in England as possible in its manner of observance. From that early beginning it had grown to what it was now as they found it; it was the sweetener of the toiling life of the nation. For masses of people it rendered the hard week's work tolerable; in many men's feelings it recompensed what would be otherwise too severe. The English Sunday rendered many lives quite happy which would otherwise be miserable; and, most of all, among the poorest and most hard-worked of the population. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell) had told them two years ago that he knew no more of theology than he did of astrology. He must congratulate the noble and learned Lord on the progress which he had made in his theological studies since that time. In his (the Archbishop of Canterbury's) own experience, Sunday was as different a day as possible from that which was described by the noble and learned Lord. He knew no families which did not enjoy it. Children liked Sunday better than any other day in the week. As for walking, which the noble and learned Lord held to be prohibited, the Sunday walk was an English institution. The noble and learned Lord went into historical as well as theological quotations. He reminded them of The Book of Sports of the Reigns of James I. and Charles I. But he forgot that it was The Book of Sports, as much as any single thing, which brought down the oppo-
  26
  sition of the people upon the Royalist Party. He believed that if Museums were opened there must be an increased pressure upon the poorest class of the people, who were least able to protect themselves. Promoters of Sunday opening expressed themselves as tired of hearing of cabmen, tramcar and omnibus drivers, conductors, porters, barmen, and barwomen; but these existed, a very vast and very defenceless class, more without holiday or change than any class, and least able to claim them. And when they considered that the South Kensington Museum was as far as possible from the very people whom it was proposed to benefit, it was hopeless to imagine that there would not be a great increase of traffic and a largely increased amount of labour. Those poor people, constituting a large bulk of our poorest population, were already at the pitch of despair with regard to their religious opportunities and their social advantages. He agreed with the noble and learned Earl (Earl Cairns) that Sunday traffic at the present time inflicted a serious grievance upon them, and he was quite convinced that that grievance would be much heavier if the Museums were opened. They could not have Mondays or Saturdays allowed them instead. The masters could not do it. The noble and learned Earl had quoted, to the clearest purpose, the state of things in foreign towns. In those towns, moreover, the average amount of labour in the week, as ascertained by the Commission, was 72 hours; and, in addition to that, they had their Sunday morning's technical school-work. Their Lordships ought to pay the greatest heed to the prospects of the lowest class among us, who, he feared, were being depressed to a constantly lower and lower point. We should have among us a class of people who could be only called white slaves. He desired the deliverance of those people, and not their further oppression. There was among the higher class of artizans an instinctive dread of the proposed change. It was said that the class of clerks and shop assistants would benefit by this change. But that very class had as great a dread of these changes as any class; because they also thought that they would lead to additional work. There was no proof that any class of the community desired this change. No

  27
  evidence had been produced. It was a patron's change. As regarded the opinion of that House, it was not to be desired, in a people's question, that it should be set in special contrast to that of the Representatives of the people. That was a delicate question, upon which he would say no more. With regard to the British Museum, it had been said that an overwhelming majority of the Trustees were in favour of opening the Museum on Sundays. But, as the noble and learned Earl had said, there were not a third of the Trustees present when that resolution was arrived at. The term, therefore, "overwhelming majority," was scarcely applicable to such a state of things. He was himself one of the Trustees of the Museum, and he must protest against its being supposed that, of their own authority, they had proposed to originate any such measure. Their proper wish was not to put any hindrance in the way if Parliament should desire the Museum to be opened on Sunday. He was sure that no such proposition could be properly said to have originated with the Trustees, and that they would wish to do no more than be prepared to follow the decision of Parliament.
  EARL COWPERsaid, in supporting the Resolution, he wished to refer to the question of public-houses. Some stress had been laid on the argument that the public-houses and the Museums would not be opened at the same time. But how were those working men, who did not desire of themselves to go to public-houses, to get through 16 hours of a Sunday with nothing to do but either to sit in their own squalid dens, or wander about the dismal streets? It was obvious that if an opportunity of going to public exhibitions were presented to them the dreariness of the day would be broken, and many of them would be saved from going to the public-house. Then it was said that the matter ought to be left to the House of Commons to deal with, because it was one involving more or less the question of money; but if they admitted that consideration to affect them, they would be cut off from the consideration of a great many subjects, for there were few important questions which did not turn upon money—the question of peace or war, for example. If that argument was to hold good, their Lordships ought not to discuss the
  28
  occupation of the Soudan, which would probably cost millions. But the money involved in this question was almost infinitesimal, and he believed the additional amount of work at South Kensington caused by its operation would be very small. Again, it was argued that it ought to be left entirely to the working men to decide that question for themselves. He had as high an opinion of working men as any of their Lordships, and was, perhaps, more anxious that they should be fully represented in Parliament than some of those who brought forward that argument. But he was not inclined to form his opinion of any question affecting working men on the number of Petitions presented for or against such questions. If they did so, they would be entering upon a dangerous principle. One of the main duties of that House was to protect minorities against the tyranny of majorities; and, before accepting them, he should like to inquire into the ground upon which these working men founded their opinions. In the present case it seemed to be almost entirely based on the assumption, involving a dread on their part, that the opening of public places on Sunday would gradually lead to their being obliged to work on Sundays; and it was that dread which led them to oppose that measure. But the amount of work which would be occasioned would be infinitesimal, and he failed to see how the opening of innocent places of amusement could perceptibly increase it. It was, therefore, in his opinion, a groundless fear. There were already the trains and omnibuses, and other forms of Sunday labour, which it would be much more reasonable to stop than to prevent the opening of Museums. But nobody would venture to stop those forms of labour on the Sunday. He desired, by all means, that theatres and music halls, and other places where money was paid, should not be opened on Sundays. He was, at all events, very glad that no attempt had been made on this occasion to maintain the old Puritanical idea of the Sabbath in that House, such as had been denounced by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell), and that no one had ventured to oppose that proposal on the ground that it was wrong to visit Museums on Sunday. With regard to the counter-proposition, they never heard of it at all, except

  29
  when this Motion was brought forward. He hoped, however, that if it were passed again it would not be allowed to drop, but that something would be done to carry it into effect. He remained of the same opinion as last year, and should vote for the Motion.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he believed this to be a social, and not a political question. He did not agree that it was undesirable that this House should discuss and vote honestly upon social questions of this sort, more especially when the discussion was conducted in the spirit which had been shown on both sides of the House during this conversation. He had listened to the noble and learned Earl (Earl Cairns) with the greatest attention; but he had not heard a single argument which he had not heard before. The most rev. Primate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) objected to bringing out the worn-out argument about the cabs; but he immediately proceeded to adduce that argument. He did not see why it should be harder for a cabman, or for his horse, to take him a mile to Hyde Park Corner than it was to take him to Hampton Court or Kew. He did not desire, however, to raise that question now. He found himself in rather an anomalous position; for, on the one hand, he had to justify the Government for not having given their sanction to the resolution passed by the Trustees of the British Museum; while, on the other hand, he had to state why he should give the same vote to-night which he had formerly given. Up to the present time, the Government had not thought it right to take any action in regard to a social question the merits of which very much depended on the public feeling and the public opinion which existed. The celebrated opinion of the 500,000 working men in the Metropolis had been elicited, he would not say in an unfair way, but in the most unjudicial manner which it was possible to imagine. The working men were not simply asked whether they would have Museums or not opened on Sundays; but the question was mixed up with that of Sunday labour. The Government did not think they ought to take the initiative and responsibility of the vote passed by the Trustees of the British Museum; but, as regarded himself, he adhered to his former opinion,
  30
  and when that opinion was asked for by the House of Lords he would give it in the way which his conscience had dictated to him up to the present time.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he wished to refer, in the first place, to the speech of his noble Friend behind him (Lord Mount-Temple), who had put the matter on ground which it was hardly safe to stand upon. His noble Friend had said that this was a small matter, and that it was not a matter for legislation, as it was only carrying a little further a principle which was fully acknowledged—namely, that certain Museums and Exhibitions should be opened to the public on Sundays. What were the examples to which his noble Friend referred? He (the Duke of Argyll) believed there were only two—namely, the Museum in Kew Gardens and the Palace at Hampton Court; and these were not really cases in point. Both places were essentially Parks, and he did not suppose there was any Member of that House who was not in favour of all Parks and Gardens being open to the public. The Museum at Kew was but a small adjunct to the Gardens, and the same was the case with the Palace at Hampton Court. In his opinion, however, the vote they were asked to give that evening was one of very serious import. There was no use disguising the fact that it was a vote of considerable meaning and significance. That importance arose from the whole facts of the case, and from the previous transactions. The subject had been debated for several years in both Houses of Parliament, divisions had been taken, and in the other House especially large majorities—to a great extent representing the working classes—had always been against the opening of Museums on Sundays. Therefore, it was a serious vote which their Lordships were asked to give. And now he came to his noble and learned Friend the theologian (Lord Bramwell), with whom he could not agree. [Laughter.] Well, his noble and learned Friend might certainly be called so, for he was pre-eminently in that House the legal theologian. But although he did not agree with him, he acknowledged that the noble and learned Lord always came to the point; and in this case, by attacking the Puritan view of the Sunday, he had given the key to the movement which the Motion before

  31
  them was intended to serve. ["Hear, hear!"] From the cheers just given, it was plain that that was the view which prevailed among those who were in favour of the Motion. In attacking the Puritan view of the Sunday, his noble and learned Friend gave a description of the Sunday in England which, he confessed, was wholly new to him. Even in the Lowlands of Scotland, where the Sabbatical view was very strong, he had never heard so violent a view taken of the Sunday that the noble and learned Lord alleged was taken in London. Possibly, it might be heard of in the West of Ross-shire and some of the neighbouring isles; but, certainly, it was not the view of the Sunday that was taken in the more civilized parts of the country, and he was very much struck to hear it stated that such strong Sabbatical views obtained in England, and he thought it had even been suggested that the remark applied to London. This struck him as very strange, because it so happened that, about 30 years ago, there was a very remarkable book, published by a Scotchman, about a pedestrian tour which he took into England. It was called First Impressions of England and its People. It was written by a very remarkable man, whose powers of composition, and of expressing himself dearly, were second to none in the literature of this country—he referred to a man who was well-known in Scotland, though, perhaps, he might not be equally well-known to all their Lordships — namely, Hugh Miller, a man who began as a stonemason, having been educated in one of the parish schools, and became one of the leading scientific men of the day, and wrote books on Geology, which became standard works on that branch of natural science. He recommended noble Lords to read that book, and assured them they would nowhere find more graphic descriptions of English scenery, or of the historical incidents connected with places that were associated with the names of distinguished men. In the course of his work, Hugh Miller had, of course, to express his views in regard to the English Sunday, and though a Lowlander, and not a Highlander, he observed on the immense contrast it presented to the Sunday to which he had been accustomed. To him it appeared that in England the
  32
  Sunday was not observed at all. He said—
  "It is roast beef day; it is plum pudding day; it is clean shirt day; but it is not Sunday at all."
  That was Hugh Miller's view of Sunday in England, and he (the Duke of Argyll) dared say he saw more of how it was observed than his noble and learned Friend was in the habit of doing. As to the origin of the British view of the Sunday, the most rev. Primate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) had told them that it was not true that the stricter view came in, as was supposed, with the Puritans, and that, as a matter of fact, it could be traced back to the Church of the Plantagenets. It was a curious fact that the observance of Sunday in Scotland, which was commonly supposed to be connected with Puritanism and Presbyterianism, was a peculiarity of the old Catholic Church of Scotland when it was a branch of the Western Church. If any historical fact had been more dearly ascertained than another with regard to those days, it was that the strictest view of the Sunday came in with the great religious revival effected in the time of William the Conqueror by a Saxon Princess, who married the son of Malcolm Can-more. It was not true, therefore, to say that the strict observance of the Sunday, either in England or in Scotland, was due to the peculiar views or doctrines of the Puritans. If the view prevalent in England were the extreme fanatical and superstitious view it was represented to be by his noble and learned Friend, he would agree with him that this Motion ought to be supported. He, however, took a very different view of the observance of Sunday in England from that of the noble and learned Lord. Of course there might be differences of opinion with reference to the historical account of the Jewish Sabbath; but he agreed with those who held that it was impossible to doubt that the setting apart of the Sabbath Day had a moral and social as well as a ceremonial significance. Taking it, however, in its social aspect, he supposed that they were now all agreed that the institution of the Seventh Day as a day of rest had been an immense blessing to man. His noble and learned Friend said he valued the day of rest himself; but he should bear in mind that his labours during the

  33
  week were of a mental character, and that a day of active life might, therefore, be a sort of rest to him; whereas it would not be a day of rest to a working man who had been engaged in hard physical labour all the week. Working men valued the Sunday as being a day of absolute cessation from physical labour; and he believed they looked with great jealousy and suspicion upon any innovation that would tend to impair their privileges in the matter, and which would throw open the door to a larger and larger share of Sunday labour being imposed upon them. His own feeling was that the working classes were right in taking this view of the matter. In his opinion a great deal of nonsense—pure nonsense—had been talked about the advantages that were to be obtained, in the way of improving the mind, from simply walking through Museums. Why, even if their Lordships themselves, who were better educated, went into a department of a Museum with the objects of which they were unacquainted, they could do nothing but stare and gaze; they could only take an interest in subjects of which they had some knowledge; and therefore he agreed with the noble and learned Earl when he said that, unless lectures involving great labour to the lecturers were delivered, the working classes would do-rive very little amusement or instruction from their visits to Museums on Sundays. It was said that Museums and Art Galleries were better than public-houses; but if they were once to open the doors of Museums on Sundays, it would be difficult to draw the line and to prevent theatres, aquariums, dancing halls, and other places of which the same might be said being also opened on those days. In these circumstances he thought that it would be better not to admit the thin end of the wedge; and he should, therefore, refuse his assent to the Motion of the noble Lord (Lord Thurlow).
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHsaid, that, while he most heartily sympathized with the feeling of the noble Lord (Lord Thurlow) in favour of affording more wholesome amusement to the working classes, he valued still more the character of the Lord's Day in this country, which was always a pleasing contrast in his eyes when he returned from Paris and saw how little it was regarded there. It made him proud of being an
  34
  Englishman. He did not support the views of those who looked upon it as the Jewish Sabbath. That was swept away, with all its obligations, when the Jewish Church ceased to exist. The nascent Catholic Church, which then, as now, had full power of legislation in all that constituted religious observances, changed the seventh day as the day of rest ordained by God to the first day of the week on which our Lord rose, and the conditions of its observance were declared to be public worship and rest from servile work. Now, no one could suppose for a moment that the proposal now before their Lordships to keep open one Museum for a few hours on Sunday would stop there. It would soon include all places of public amusement, where much servile work would necessarily be done; and he agreed with the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) that it was the thin end of the wedge which was now endeavoured to be thrust in, and a door would be opened over which they could have no control. For that reason he would vote against the Motion.
  On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Motion?
  Their Lordships divided: —Contents 64; Not-Contents 64.

  CONTENTS.

  Beaufort, D.

  Aberdare, L.

  Wellington, D.

  Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)

  Blantyre, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Bristol, M.

  Northampton, M.

  Bramwell, L.

  Ripon, M.

  Carlingford, L.

  Castletown, L.

  Brownlow, E.

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

  Caledon, E.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Cowper, E.

  De L'Isle and Dudley L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Ellesmere, E.

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

  Fortescue, E.

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Ettrick, L. (L. Napier)

  FitzGerald, L.

  Granville, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Hardwicke, E.

  Kimberley, E.

  Greville, L.

  Lathom, E.

  Harris, L.

  Milltown, E.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Minto, E.

  Morley, E.

  Hawke, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Hothfield, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Lovat, L.

  Sydney, E.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Sherbrooke, V.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Torrington, V.

  Monson, L.

  35

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.) [Teller.]

  Mount-Temple, L.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Napier, L.

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Sudeley, L.

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

  Romilly, L.

  Thurlow, L. [Teller.]

  Saltoun, L.

  Wigan, L. (E. Crawford and Balcarres.)

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Windsor, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, E. Archp.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Strathallan, V.

  Templetown, V.

  York, L. Archp.

  Carlisle, L. Bp.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Chichester, L. Bp.

  Newcastle, L. Bp.

  Norfolk, D.

  Norwich, L. Bp.

  Richmond, D.

  Oxford, L. Bp.

  St. Albans, L. Bp.

  Salisbury, M.

  Winchester, L. Bp.

  Winchester, M.

  Amherst, L.(V. Holmesdale.)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Bradford, E.

  Braye, L.

  Cairns, E. [Teller.]

  Colville of Culross, L.

  De La Warr, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  de Ros, L. [Teller.]

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  De Saumarez, L.

  Delamere, L.

  Donington, L.

  Effingham, E.

  Ebury, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Egerton, L.

  Fitzwilliam, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Forester, L.

  Jersey, E.

  Harlech, L.

  Manvers, E.

  Hylton, L.

  Orkney, E.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Ravensworth, E.

  Northbourne, L.

  Redesdale, E.

  Norton, L.

  Rosslyn, E.

  Ormathwaite, L.

  Sondes, E.

  Plunket, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Shute, L. (V. Barring-ton.)

  Tankerville, E.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Eversley, V.

  Hardinge, V.

  Teynham, L.

  Hood, V.

  Wimborne, L.

  Melville, V.

  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Contents being 64 and the Not-Contents also 64, according to the established Rule of this House, semper presumttur pro negante, the Not-Contents have it.
  Then it was moved to resolve—
  "That the Trustees of the British Museum haying applied to the Treasury for the funds necessary to light up the Natural History Museum with the electric light, and having lighted up the reading room of the British Museum with the electric light till eight o'clock at night for several years with' very satisfactory results,' and having obtained estimates for lighting the whole of the British Museum at night with electricity, and hearing in mind that the South Kensington Museum has been opened till ten
  36
  o'clock at night for twenty-eight years, and been visited at night by 6,885,722 persons, and that the Bethnal Green Museum has been opened at night for twelve years and been visited in the evenings by 3,567,278 persons, and that a Parliamentary Committee has recommended 'That the British Museum and National Gallery should be opened on week-day evenings 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 into effect, and the national collections opened on week-day evenings but not on Sundays."
  The said Motion (on question) agreed to.

AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS—CORRECTION.—QUESTION.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONasked the Lord President of the Council, Whether there is not an error made on page 12 of the recent Return of the Estimated Produce of the Crops of 1884, by the statement that the last wheat crop showed a deficiency of 7,756,000 bushels as compared with the estimated yearly average of the previous ten years?
LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL): There is an error in a sentence of the introductory remarks upon the Return which is really inconsistent with the statistics. The tables do not show a deficiency of the wheat crop of 1884, as compared with the average of the previous 10 years, (nearly all of which fall below the ordinary average), but with the average estimated for a much longer period.

INDIA—BENGAL TENANCY ACT —THE BENGAL LANDLORDS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS, in rising to call attention to a telegram from the President of the Committee of the Landlords of Bengal, said, he was desirous that there should be no misunderstanding on this matter, and the landlords were anxious that there should be no mistake as to the views they held. The noble Earl, after reading the telegram which he had received, said it protested in their name against the Tenancy Bill as being unjust in principle and contrary to the policy laid down by Her Majesty to her Indian subjects, by which she agreed to perpetuate their rights. It further protested against the Bill as proceeding on entirely untrue allegations, and on the assumption that the Zemin-

  37
  dars were rack-renting and oppressive landlords, whereas the general opinion was, that they had exercised their rights in a conspicuously moderate manner. They alleged that while the Bill would deprive the Zemindars of their rights, it would reduce the actual cultivators to the position of mere cottier tenants rack-rented by usurers, as in the Deccan. They further alleged that the Bill had been passed by persons who had no interest in its provisions, but who were forcing it upon 60,000,000 of unwilling people. Out of 20 Members of the Council which had passed the Bill, 15 were in the service of the Government. Moreover, the Bill had been entirely recast; but, notwithstanding the great changes which had been made in it, it had been passed without being republished. They therefore humbly prayed Her Majesty not to allow the Act to remain on the Statute Book. He might add that he had received a letter from Mr. Miller, an Englishman, and the Vice President of the Indian Constitutional Association. In that letter he said that there had been already introduced into the Indian Council two Bills supplementary to the Bengal Tenancy Act. That sort of legislation was bearing the same fruit as the Irish Land Act. It was earnestly hoped by the Committee to which he, had referred that the Royal Assent would be withheld from the measure which had just been passed by the Legislative Council.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he wished to say that he had received a telegram from the same quarter of very much the same purport as that read by the noble Earl (the Earl of Wemyss). He did not wish to make any observation upon it; but he could not think it a convenient arrangement that communications should take place by telegram between Natives of India and Members of the two Houses of Parliament having for their object the modification of the action of the Government in India. Whether this action on the present occasion was right or not he did not know; but the noble Earl the Secretary of State for India (the Earl of Kimberley) would, doubtless, have an opportunity of considering the measure, and determining whether it was his duty to advise Her Majesty to disallow it. The noble Earl stated the other night that the Act would become law without any further action
  38
  on his part, unless within a certain time he advised Her Majesty to disallow it.
  THE EARL OF KIMBEELEYsaid, that while he fully concurred in what had fallen from the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) respecting the undesirability of communications taking place between Natives of India and Members of that House with regard to legislation in India, he had nothing to add to what he stated the other night—namely, that the Bill had not yet reached him, and that it could not do so for a certain time. When it did come before him he had no reason to believe he should look upon it unfavourably; but there was not the least probability that any action would be taken in the matter before all the Memorials on the subject had been received and considered. He wished to take that opportunity of correcting a slight error in the telegram from Lord Dufferin which he read on the previous occasion. In the words of Lord Dufferin's telegram of March 11, instead of—
  "First Motion in Council was for suspension by Zemindar Representatives, which was lost by a majority of 18 to 2,"
  it should have been"17 to 2."

SCIENCE AND ART—THE NATIONAL GALLERY—THE ANNUAL GRANT.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether it had been intimated to the Trustees of the National Gallery that the annual grant is to be taken away for a term of years to repay the purchase of the Raphael and Vandyck recently bought; whether the Trustees were given any option in the matter; and, whether they had made any representation on the subject? said, he did not contend that £70,000 was too large a sum to pay for these remarkable pictures. Unquestionably, if we had not given the money for them, someone else would. The question was, what course was to be pursued in consequence of the purchase of these pictures? He was informed that the annual grant was to be withdrawn from the Trustees of the National Gallery for a term of years, and that they had written to the Treasury strongly remonstrating. He would supplement his Question by asking whether the Government would have any

  39
  objection to lay this Correspondence on the Table?
  LORD THURLOW, in replying to the Question on behalf of the Treasury, said, that, as in the case of the Peel Collection, the Treasury had come to the conclusion, after mature consideration, that they would not be justified in including any sum for the purchase of pictures for the National Gallery in the Estimates, in consequence of the very large expenditure recently incurred in the purchase of the Raphael and Vandyck from the Blenheim Collection. In making that communication to the Trustees of the National Gallery, the Treasury accompanied it with the expression of their readiness at any time seriously to consider any special opportunity that might occur to the Trustees of making any favourable purchase of works of art that might be in the market of any school, or characteristic of any school, now held not to be sufficiently represented in our Collections. In such an event, the Treasury would be quite prepared to consider the advisability of a special grant. He was not aware of the Correspondence to which the noble Earl referred; but he would remind the noble Earl that in matters of finance the Trustees of the National Gallery were subject to the control of the Treasury.
  VISCOUNT HARDINGEsaid, that, as one of the Trustees of the National Gallery, he could state that they most earnestly deprecated the course which the Treasury had thought it their duty to adopt on the present occasion. They felt that their hands would be considerably hampered when pictures came suddenly into the market, and that there would be great difficulty in inducing the Treasury to purchase these pictures. They had accordingly made strong remonstrances to the Treasury on the subject; and he hoped that the Government would see fit to publish those remonstrances, and that they would reconsider their decision upon the matter, for it could not be said to be finally settled, seeing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had consented to receive a deputation respecting it.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that he entirely sympathized with both the noble Lords in their desire to make this magnificent Collection as perfect as possible. He thought, however, that they would
  40
  not strengthen, but would rather weaken the hands of the Government, in pressing them not to show the same solicitude for the public purse with regard to works of art as was observed with respect to other things.

WATER COMPANIES (REGULATION OF POWERS) BILL.

  NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN, in moving the appointment of the following as Members of the Select Committee on the Bill:—The Earl of Jersey, Earl Stanhope, the Earl of Camper-down, the Earl of Elgin, the Earl of Normanton, Viscount Barrington, and Lord Bramwell, said, that the Committee would meet on Monday next at 2.30, to appoint their Chairman, and that they would be willing to hear such Representatives of the Water Companies as might choose to attend. They would also be prepared to receive such Petitioners as might present themselves.
  Motion agreed to.
  The Committee to meet on Monday next at half past Two o'clock, and to appoint their own Chairman: All petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard against the Bill to be heard by themselves or their agents.
  House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter 'before Eleven o'clock.