asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it be the fact that the Chairman of the Faringdon Board of Guardians is in the habit of acting as one of the justices at petty sessions to hear charges or prosecutions at the suit of the board; and, if so, whether he will intimate to that gentleman that such a combination of the judge and suitor is opposed to the spirit of British Law?

, in reply, said, that he had received a letter from the clerk to the Justices, which stated that it was true that the Chairman of the Faringdon Board of Guardians, in common with other ex officio Guardians, attended the petty sessions when cases were prosecuted by that Board; but he did not, in the discharge of his public duty, make a habit of attending specially for the hearing of those cases any more than other cases. It would, the Justices thought, be detrimental to the public interests were ex officio Guardians to abstain from acting as Justices in such cases. He (Mr. Cross) did not think it would be possible for him to convey such an intimation as was suggested by the Question, inasmuch as the statute expressly stated that no justice of the peace should be disabled from acting as such because he was an ex officio Guardian, and in that capacity connected with any case brought before the Justices.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether blockade is not an act of a belligerent directed against neutrals (namely, to prevent neutrals trading with the other belligerent); whether it is not the right of one belligerent against the other belligerent, to seize his ships on the sea; and, whether the Despatch of May 16 does not merely assert that, as concerns the Suez Canal, England will not permit the exercise of those belligerent rights against neutrals, but says nothing of the acts of one belligerent against the other (excepting in the Canal itself)?

With reference to the first part of the Question of the noble Lord, I would observe that of course blockade is an act intended to prevent neutrals trading with the other belligerent; but whether it can be said that it is exclusively directed against neutrals is another question, because, of course, if you prevent trading between a neutral and the other belligerent, you are directing your action against both parties—the neutral and the other belligerent also. With regard to the second part of the Question, it is undoubtedly the right of one belligerent, as against the other belligerent, to seize his ships on the sea. With regard to the third part of the Question, I would ask my noble Friend to excuse me giving any more categorical answer to it than I gave yesterday. I think it is, as my noble Friend will see, inexpedient to be putting isolated questions and receiving isolated answers; and I would make the same observation, if he will allow me, to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley), who has upon the Paper a Question addressed to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs upon a cognate subject. I think it would be undesirable that we should have these Questions put at the present moment, and I hope that the House will excuse us for declining to answer them.

, whose Notice was as follows:—

"To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to the claim asserted to a right of way through Turkish Territory, Whether they will enter into negotiations on the proposals of the late Emperor of Russia in 1853 that (inter alia) 'England should take possession of Egypt and Candia as important for communication with India,'"

said:—I most readily concur with the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, but perhaps he will allow me to offer a short explanation. If a passage which I inserted in the Question before it was placed upon the Paper had been printed, perhaps it would have altered the view of the right hon. Gentleman. It will not take one moment to read. It is this — "That a proposal"—["Order, order!"]

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer having stated that he would not answer Questions of this sort, it would be useless for the hon. Gentleman to enter into an explanation of it.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether Officers who have commuted their retired pay can be compelled to serve?

Sir, officers who are in the position referred to in the Question are liable to be called upon to serve. Their names are continued on The Navy List, and they come within the terms of Chap. 7, sec. 3, of the Queen's Regulations as "officers on the Retired List." Should any such officer refuse to serve when called upon, his name would be struck off the List.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to move the Resolution of which I have given Notice, namely—

"That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable to give greater facilities for the recreation and instruction of the people by opening for some hours on Sunday the National Museums and Galleries."

Were it not for the peculiarity of this question, of which the House is of course sufficiently aware, I should have been disposed almost to doubt whether it is necessary to address grave arguments to the House in order to show that the people of this country, or those of them who desire to make use of the national institutions on the only leisure day in the week, have a good case to put before the British House of Commons. As to what conclusion the House of Commons will come to on the matter it is impossible for me to say. It was said 20 years ago that had the vote been taken by open Ballot the result would have been very different from what it was; but, however that may be, I hope the House will have no difficulty in distinguishing between the artizan class of the country and those Petitions we have seen, which are the happy result of the best work, but not the most scrupulous work, of various institutions in this country which have for their clientelle every Sunday-school scholar who can reach his head to the table. It is now three years since I touched this question in this House, and I should not have done so now, if I had not been asked by several Bodies, and been reminded that a great change has taken place in the opinion and feeling of the country on this question. The opinions and feelings of religious people and of the clergy have undergone and are undergoing great change. The observation of one rev. gentleman is—

"The clergy should occupy their proper position as leaders, and not merely spiritual relieving officers. It is high time beneficial reforms should be taken up by them, and not left to P. A. Taylor and Co. to inaugurate."

I can assure the rev. gentleman and his colleagues, that I would with the greatest pleasure resign the leadership—if I may claim to have it—to them, and I am sure they would be within their position, as clergymen, in doing that which would be for the moral advantage of the people. The Press also shows a great change in this matter, notably the Press which supports the Government on the other side, and may be taken to express the opinions of right hon. Gentlemen on that side. I believe the question is now more important, from the experience the country has had in the last few years, through the opening in many towns of similar places with excellent results, and entirely unattended with any disadvantage whatever. On the occasion when I last troubled the House on this matter, I thought it right to enter to some extent on what is termed the religious part of the question. I do not propose to follow that course at all upon this occasion; amongst other reasons because the House is not fond of religious or theological discussions, and also because opinions such as those I profess no longer deal with the old Sabbatarian, or religious ground. The pretensions of Sabbatarians have been so closely examined, socially, politically, and historically, that those who oppose the opening of museums on Sundays no longer rely on the religious argument. Therefore I shall no longer try to show the House that be- cause 3,000 years ago the Jews were forbidden to work on the seventh day, Christians should be forbidden to recreate themselves on the first. But now and then Sabbatarianism will crop up. Of course, those who oppose me will say that they highly appreciate the advance of the people in the arts and sciences, and that their only objection is that these should be taught on Sunday. Can it be doubted that they permit it on six days, because they cannot object to it, because on the seventh day they set themselves against it? In a circular the other day the Sabbatarian party let out rather too much of their ancient spirit. They say that—

"If the free Sunday party had but faith in the Gospel, they would reap better harvests of holiness and beauty than by facilitating visits to collections of statuary and paintings, which are quite as likely to influence the passions as to purge the life."

There we have the true and ancient spirit of the Puritan Sabbatarian. I have said that we have not now to deal with the religious argument pure and simple, but with arguments of a social and political character. We are told that we wish to undermine the day of rest for the working-man — that we should, in fact, compel people to work on Sundays. The Sabbatarian thinks it wrong to do anything but sit quiet in one's house all day. Anything but that is regarded as undermining the day of rest. What evidence have the people of this country given of being content to give up the day of rest? What an absurdity to think we are urging them to give up the day of rest, when what we are attempting to do is to make the day of rest more agreeable and more improving. We are told that—"If you could take the spring out of the year, and youth out of life, you would not do a greater injury to the human race than if you took Sunday out of the week." We are told we are compelling people to work on Sunday. There again Sabbatarianism crops up. We are for a day of rest. These Sabbatarian people think nothing of a day of rest, unless it can be on a Sunday. These people who are compelled to work on Sunday are not cared for by the Sabbatarian party. It is we who would give them that rest it impossible to give them all on Sunday. In fact, as the rector of Bethnal Green said, in sending me a letter—

"My object all along is to approach the question from a religious point of view, and to discuss it on the Christian Church ground. Once get it there, and it is no longer the letter of a law to be kept as the Fourth Commandment, but the spirit of the law, the different interpretations, and different customs and liberty regarding it which have from time to time prevailed from 300 A.D. downward."

Now, what work is done? There is something so factitious in the argument of the Sabbatarian. The Sabbatarian plumes himself on refraining from reading the newspaper on Sunday, yet he ought to know that work on Sunday is necessitated in order that he may have his newspaper on Monday morning. All sorts of work is necessitated on Sundays. Our servants work for us; public vehicles work for us; railways work for us; the machinists' department in many establishments work; blast furnaces are necessarily kept alive in order that men may not be kept out of work on other days. All sorts of work is essential. What should be our aim? To make the work as little as possible, and to organize a plan by which those who work on Sunday should have nothing to do on one other day. Is there any other branch on which so few people would be employed as those in the British Museum to accommodate the thousands who would go there? Of course our venerable friend, the Continental Sunday, will crop up again; but I would ask those who know anything of the dens and slums of our crowded cities, and who also know something of the Continental cities, whether, in making a comparison between the two, they have seen anything to make them certain that our course of action is so much wiser than that of the Continent? On that part of the question I would like to make these two quotations. The rev. Stopford Brooke says—

"As many people go to church on the Continent as in England and Scotland; and in Germany and France and Italy the Sunday afternoon and evening is by the greater number of people quietly and joyfully and decently spent. There is but little of the drunkenness that degrades our Sundays; there is but little of the coarse brawling that fills our streets; there is much more happy domestic life seen in the country walks, in the gardens, and among those who loiter through the galleries. All people are on their good behaviour on Sunday, and the true meaning of the day is better carried out on the Continent than it is here."

Then, again, the rev. Dr. Guthrie wrote—

"We counted on one occasion (in Paris) 33 theatres and places of amusement open on the Sabbath day. Yet, although our avocation led us often through the worst parts of the City, and occasionally late in the evening, in that City, containing then a population six times larger than Edinburgh, we saw but one drunken man, and no drunken women. Well, we stepped from the steamer upon one of the London quays, and had not gone many paces when our national pride was humbled, and any Christianity we might have had was put to the blush, by the disgusting spectacle of drunkards reeling along the streets, and filling the air with horrid imprecations. In one hour we saw in London and Edinburgh, with all their churches and schools and piety, more drunkenness than we saw in five long months in guilty Paris."

For those who object to that kind of Continental Sunday, I have really no argument. I have alluded to various kinds of work permitted on Sundays, and last year I road in the papers that

"the Queen, after a short stay at Lochnagar farm, continued her drive by way of Balnacroft, and remained for some time beside a field of oats belonging to Mr. Begg, where about 50 men and women were actively at work binding in stooks the grain which had been spread out on the Saturday. The grain was quite dry on Sunday, and the people in the district turned out with willing hands, and had the whole field bound and stooked by evening, part of the operations being conducted by moonlight. Before leaving Her Majesty signified to Mr. Begg her opinion that the work was one of necessity."

I do not think there are many hon. Members in this House on either side who will deny that Her Majesty did a most gracious and rational thing in making that observation. All the villagers had turned out into the harvest field in order to obtain some little better results from the corn which was going to make bread to feed their bodies, and the Queen approved of what they did. Is it asking much more—is it asking any more—when we ask that a very few persons should be allowed to minister at the British Museum or the National Gallery, in order to garner in a richer harvest for the intellect and imagination of the masses? It is very curious to observe the course America has taken on this question. America is exceedingly like us in many respects, and, descended as she is from the Puritans who left this country 200 or 300 years ago, her regard for the Puritan Sabbath has been, perhaps, a more serious thing than it has been anywhere in this country south of the Tweed; but the lessons of experience, thought, and wisdom have taught them better things. I desire now, if the House will allow me, to read them a piece of evidence of what I may call the unconscious insincerity of the Sabbatarians in putting in the background their religious theory, and endeavouring to substitute for it social and political arguments which have no basis when removed from Sabbatarianism. That is going on in America as well as here. There was a great Convention at Boston last Autumn, at which Francis E. Abbott made these observations—

"It is true that in most of the States all these Sunday restrictions are put ostensibly on the ground of general secular utility, merely protecting a public day of rest, and securing the public quiet. That is the ostensible ground, and yet you and I know this, as well as that we are here to-day, that the real reason in the minds of that part of the people which sustains these statutes and keeps them on the books is a superstitious regard for the Sabbath, the 'Christian Sabbath,' and a wish to compel everybody to pay at least public homage to it. This is the fact of the case, and the disgraceful insincerity of these Sunday-Sabbath laws. They do not represent the secret, real views and opinions even of the orthodox community itself. The very men who would vote down time after time every proposition to repeal these statutes, go and do the very things which they thus formally prohibit, and break themselves the very laws which they lay as a heavy burden on the labourer, the Jew, the free-thinker. How many orthodox persons in this city and State always refrain from travelling on Sunday? How many of them always scrupulously obey these statutes? I think it is safe to say that the orthodox are just as disobedient to them as the average free-thinker."

Now let me cap that with a few lines from a sermon by a rev. gentleman well-known in this country—the Rev. H. R. Haweis. In describing the difficulty we have in opening these institutions here, he says—

"Uninstructed public opinion—ignorant Sabbatarianism alone stops the way. Have nothing to do, I pray you, with the rowdyism of desecration which declares that Sunday is like any other day, and that we have no need of religious worship and rest. But remember there is another kind of rowdyism that is doing, if possible, more harm still, it is the religious rowdyism of the Sabbatarian ring. I would fain convert the ring, but if that is impossible, if its members will neither read the Bible, nor their history, and refuse persistently to study the will of God, or the interests of man in this matter—then, I say advisedly, we must act upon them through public opinion, and through Parliament; we must break up the Sabbatarian ring."

I hope to deal a very small blow to-day towards breaking up that Sabbatarian- ism. No hon. Member can doubt that the proposition I make is at any rate a most moderate one. I have made it also most definite, in order if possible to meet the wishes of the hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope). He seemed, on the last occasion on which I brought the subject forward, half inclined to vote for me, but he complained of the indefiniteness of my Motion. He disclaimed the idea that he could have any Puritan sentiments, but he expressed a fear that a certain museum, owned by a Dr. Kahn, might be opened under cover of my Resolution. I need hardly say that it will be impossible for him to have any fear of that kind now, and I hope therefore he will vote with me. Whether I shall be told that my Motion is so small, that it is only inserting the thin end of the wedge; or whether I shall be told it is so wide and revolutionary, that religion and morality will shrink and shrivel under it, I do not know —probably, I shall be told both. In regard to the assertion that this is the thin end of the wedge, that argument is too late by at least a century. The thin end of the wedge has been put in many long years ago. We are told in the records of the Presbytery of Strathbogie, under June 6th, 1658, that

"the same day Alexander Cairnie, in Tilliochie, was delaitit for brak of Sabbath in bearing ane sheep upon his back from the pasture to his own house. The said Alexander compeirit and declar it that it was of necessitie for saving of the beast's life in tyme of storm. Was rebukit for the same and admonished not to do the lyke."

Buckle however tells of worse than this —The Scotch clergy did not hesitate to teach the people that on that day (Sunday) it was sinful to save a vessel in distress, and that it was a proof of religion to leave ship and crew to perish. One of our more northern ministers, whose parish lies along the coast between Spey and Findhorn, made some fishermen do penance for Sabbath-breaking in going out to sea though purely with endeavour to save a vessel in distress by a storm. Cases of refusing to rescue vessels in danger because of the day being the Sabbath, have occurred more than once in quite recent times. Even in the nineteenth century we see the same spirit of Scotch ecclesiastical rage against fresh air on Sundays. In 1834 the General Assembly issued a pastoral admonition on the sanctification of the Sabbath, which was ordered to be read from every pulpit in the Church of Scotland.

"With deep concern," says the Assembly, "we have learned that multitudes, forgetful of their most sacred duties and immortal interests, have become accustomed to wander in the fields, to frequent scenes of recreation, &c. This is stigmatized as "an impious encroachment on the inalienable prerogative of the Lord God."

Then follow threats of future judgments, worms that never die, unquenchable fire, et hoc genus omne. Who shall say, after that, that it is competent for me to insert the thin end of the wedge now? A curious story in illustration of the old Puritan Sabbatarianism is told by Miss Fanny Wright, in her book called The Views of Society. She says—

"An officer of the American Navy, a native of New England, told me that when a boy, he had sooner dared to pick a neighbour's pocket on a Saturday than to have smiled on a Sunday."

I will go one step further, and will show not only that the thin end of the wedge theory is far too late, but that I am proposing no advance at all, but simply an extension of that which is already done in many towns to all. It is said that this would lead to the opening of theatres. Well, the time was when there was a close alliance between the theatre and religion, and had there been a Sabbatarian party in the Christian Church 600 years ago, which there was not, the probability is, that the one exception they would have made in regard to places that might be open on Sunday, would have been the theatres for the performance of sacred miracles. Since that time the distance between the drama and religion has grown very wide. Whether they will ever get nearer together again, it is not for me to say; but it is enough for me, as an answer on this occasion, to remark that nobody has asked for the theatres to be opened on Sundays, and that in those places where other places of amusement are already open, nobody has suggested that the theatres should be open too. It is a most dangerous principle, and one that has caused revolutions all the world over, to continually refuse to grant that which all hold to be sound, useful, and politic, lest as a result something which nobody desires should come into operation. That that is an unwise thing to do we all find, and acknowledge as an axiom in past history; but it is an astonishing thing that when we come to legislation on any matter under our own noses, we are continually repeating the blunder which our ancestors made. The wisdom would be to open this door just as wide as is demanded for that which all admit to be good, useful, and elevating, lest the time should come when through resisting that too much, the door will be thrown wide open by an overwhelming effort, and much will come through which is certainly equivocal, and which none of us desire. I must now say a word in regard to the places which are opened now on Sundays at home and abroad. In Protestant Germany and Denmark, as well as in France and other parts of the Continent, museums and galleries are open on Sunday. In Boston and other large towns in the United States of America, the public libraries also are open. Near London we have the Crystal Palace, the Albert Hall, and the Zoolological Gardens, which are open on Sundays—to shareholders only. I am informed that in Middlesborough the reading-room and library have lately been thrown open, from 9 till 9. I have a letter stating that the movement is thoroughly successful, and the Press of the North is unanimously in its favour. Then, we have open in the vicinity of London, Kew Gardens and Hampton Court. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Cross), who I am sorry not to see in his place, is understood to have done a great deal towards maintaining the power of the Brighton Aquarium to keep open. As a resident at Brighton, I beg to present him on my part, and on the part of my co-residents, with sincere thanks for what he has done. Some of us think he might have attempted to do it in a little more bold and obvious manner. If he had introduced a Bill for repealing an old Act passed really for other purposes, and under which no action can be taken now but what is mischievous — if he had done that, instead of merely framing a law enabling him to remit penalties after they had been inflicted, he would perhaps have been better and more completely meeting the conditions of the case. But let me remind the right hon. Gentleman and the House, that in attempting to keep open the Aquarium for the people of Brighton, he has gone a great deal beyond anything which I am now proposing, because in that case you have the evils such as they are, of payment at the door, and of there being a private company seeking to make profits by their Sunday exhibitions. Although, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman did what was quite right, and I thank him for it, yet he was going a very long way beyond what I am asking. Then, again, in Birmingham, the Free Library and Art Gallery are open. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) is here, and I trust he will tell the House his experience in the matter. The Botanical Gardens in Dublin are open on Sundays, and that under the threat that if they were not so opened, the Government allowance would be taken away. The Zoological Gardens in Dublin are also open. The hon. and gallant Member for Southwark (Colonel Beresford), is going to move an Amendment against me; and he is going to tell his constituents that it is not expedient that places of amusement should be thrown open to the public on Sundays. What does he mean by places of amusement? Some people regard the open fields as a place of amusement. Does he object to that? Some regard the streets as a place of amusement. Will he oppose their going into the streets? Some like the Parks with the bands playing. Would he prevent them from having that enjoyment which they have now had for many years, notwithstanding the vigorous opposition of those religious gentlemen who are now endeavouring to keep the museums closed? I will proceed to give a few facts as to the places already open, because facts are the most powerful arguments. Dr. Hooker wrote me the other day—

"Sunday is one of our fullest days, and it is impossible for people to behave better than they do on that day. As regards the museum visitors I do not remember an instance of anyone having to be turned out of any of the three museums since their establishment, now nearly 30 years ago, and they are so often densely crowded that it is difficult to move in them. On one day last year we had 68,000 visitors, and not a case of bad conduct."

Now, it is a pleasant thing to notice not only how well these masses of people behave, but to observe that the very sight of the gardens as they enter seems to modify and refine the coarseness of their demeanour. Dr. Hooker says—

"Not a year passes without my being warned of the advent of large and rough bodies of visitors from the East and South of London, who certainly do arrive after a very disorderly fashion, but who on entering the grounds often, after a few exclamations of surprise, spontaneously assume a different demeanour, and are reported by the police and patrols as having been samples that certain Saturday visitors might well imitate."

I cannot refrain from reading a few words from the Chairman of the Birmingham Free Library, because what he says is so precisely germane to the question on every point raised against me. He says—

"The members of the staff of attendants are allowed a day's holiday during the week in return for their six hours' duty on Sunday. The great opposition which at first existed to the Sunday opening has completely died out. … Indeed, I know for a fact that some who held strong and conscientious objections to the movement at its commencement are now willing to admit that the evils they feared have not happened, and that on the whole the result has been very beneficial to the town. A short time ago I was informed by a lady that the wife of a workman had just told her that she blessed the day the Free Libraries were opened on Sundays, as her husband who often used to spend his Sundays at the public-house was now a regular frequenter of the library, which he never quitted until it was closed."

The Secretary of the Royal Zoological Society, Dublin, writes—

"Without in any way offering an opinion as to the general effect of opening museums, &c., on Sundays, I can only give my individual opinion that the opening of our Zoological Gardens at a nominal price has had a most civilizing effect, and tends much to keep the working classes out of the public-house.'

Dr. Moore, curator of the Glasnevin. Botanic Gardens, Dublin, writes—

"No injury whatever has been done by the visitors; on the contrary, they appear to take great interest in examining the plants, &c., of foreign countries."

Now the House will allow me to read a short extract from a letter sent to me specially in reference to the Bethnal Green Museum by a most respected clergyman, the Rev. Septimus Hansard. He writes—

"In the month of November last 260,000 visitors, almost entirely of the humbler class of society, came to see the works of art in the Bethnal Green Museum. The police and officers on duty there assure me that not a single person misbehaved him or herself. You never see any rudeness, nor hear any of the foul language of the street. In the face of what is beautiful the roughest is made gentle, his very language is purified, and his demeanour reverential. I have seen on week-day holidays men whom no sermons ever reach, and who have long since forgotten the Bible lessons of their childhood, gazing with wonder and interest, not unmixed with awe, on the pictures of great artists, representing some scene in the life of Christ, or discussing with one another in animated language the merits of Rembrandt's or Reynold's portraits, or questioning the reality of the bright life of Murillo's beggar boy. I should like to mention a circumstance which was reported to me on the best authority, which bears on the great question of recreation versus public-houses. On the day of the opening of our Bethnal Green Museum there must have been congregated in the streets of the East-end of London nearly 500,000 people, men, women, and children, and yet there was not a single case of drunkenness brought before the magistrates the next day arising out this event, and why? Because the people had something else to do and to look at and to amuse themselves with. I wish you would tell Sir Wilfrid Lawson this. I am certain that a great proportion of drunkenness in the humbler classes is caused by their having nothing else to do on a holiday but to get drunk."

I do not know what people will say about this matter 50 years hence. They will probably say that in the year 1877 there was a tremendous "to do" raised against the drinking habits of the people; that meetings were held, and every evil and every crime that existed was traced to those drinking habits. Whether the evils of drink are exaggerated or not I will not say; but for my part I believe that if the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), went to Italy, and saw the leaning tower at Pisa he would come to the conclusion that its peculiar position was caused by alcohol. However that may be, people 50 years hence will tell how we fought and quarrelled and turned out one Government and put in another on the question whether public-houses should be opened half-an-hour sooner or later; but that a large majority declared—for I fear that will be the case—that let what may be open, every avenue to improvement and recreation should be closed on Sunday. The working classes require and must have the stimulus of change and recreation. We have plenty of it. We have the Derby Day; the 12th of August, and the 1st of September; and I suppose many of us have amusement and excitement for every day in the year. The poor man must have something to look forward to at the end of his week's work—some change, amusement, and recreation. As it is, he looks forward to the public-house with its warmth, its comfort, and its gossip; and I for one am not prepared to take that way. I do not believe in raising people by taking away a lower-class excitement, but rather by giving them something better and higher. This has been so well put by a high dignitary of the Church—I find myself supported on all sides by the clergy; it is a new sensation for me—that I must quote his words. At a meeting at Liverpool of the Chester Diocesan Branch of the Church of England Temperance Society, the Dean of Bangor said—

"That to compel public-houses to be closed on Sunday by Act of Parliament, before the people were willing that it should he done, would be very undesirable, even if it were possible. The question arose, however, if they were going to close public-houses on Sunday, what were they going to give the working-classes in exchange for them? One element of the case was the convivial or the social character of the gatherings at public-houses, and they ought to provide some counter-attractions. They must find something to replace the public-houses—something to ennoble and not debase the people."

The rev. Septimus Hansard, from whom I before quoted, concludes his appeal in words compared with which any language of mine would be weak. He says—

"In the name of my Master, and for the sake of the religion most hon. Members of the House profess, I ask that all places of healthful recreation for mind and body under the supervision of the Government should be opened on Sunday afternoons."

I shall now ask the House to permit me to tire it once more by reading an account of what they have done in America in this matter. This account, which is not without its interest, was given by Mr. Gannett at the Boston Convention. He said—

"There is the public library reading-room on Sundays; there it was not till three or four years ago, thanks to some of the working man's good friends. But in Boston, after 10 separate struggles during a 17 years' campaign, it lots stood open to him since February 9, 1871. He has scanty time for papers or magazines through the week, and there he will find a feast of them. If you go there you will see him any Sunday afternoon or evening. According to the last report of the Boston Library, at the central reading-room it takes on the average, that day, 476 periodicals to feed him and his fellows—the winter average, apart from the summer, much exceeding this—and on full Sundays the congregation overflows into the next room. A very considerable proportion are persons who do not or cannot visit the library on week-days—reporters, mechanics, and those who work early and late. At the Christian Union reading-room, at Boston, they read books as well as papers. When that institution was re-organized in 1868, without a word said to anyone, it simply left the bookshelves free on Sundays, and no one said a word against the liberty. Probably three times as many readers go there as on the week days; before the morning church, and through the afternoon and evening. 'I would rather close it any other day than Sunday,' says the President. The Milwaukee Library ventured to do the same in 1869 or 1870. In Philadelphia, also, the Mercantile Library followed suit in 1870. Before the second year was out the attendance averaged 700, nearly all young men, and it reports generally increasing numbers ever since. The Cincinnati Public Library, opening its doors on a March Sunday of 1871, has the past year, averaged over 1,100 in its Sunday reading-rooms. 'How many were genuine, how many are loafers in search of a warm place on Sunday, I know not,' writes the friend I quote. 'But where might the loafers have been otherwise?'"

It is better, I take it, even to loaf and idle by the shelves of libraries than in other places to which I need not more particularly refer. Mr. Gannett continues—

"In New York the Mercantile Library began with a Sunday of May, 1872. The St. Louis Public School Library was only a month later. 'It is always as full as its generous accommodation permits.' In even a small city like Worcester, 200 visitors find Sunday shelter in the Library, besides a librarian, who makes it a part of his personal Snnday service to minister to their individual book wants."

What is the experience of individuals in this country—such men as the Duke of Westminster and Mr. Bicknell? All honour to them, I say, for what they have done. Some friends of ours in this House may think otherwise, nor do I very well see why the Duke of Westminster should be permitted to endanger the souls of many thousands of his fellow-creatures simply because that house is his private house. However, let us see what he writes to Sir Henry Cole—

"Visitors numbered in the two months 10,560, and the applications were so numerous that the clerk's time was so entirely taken up with this work that we had to say that no more could be entertained, or tickets issued. I had no idea that there would have existed so great a desire to see these things, and I am heartily glad of it. It shows that if the opportunity could only be given, thousands would gladly avail themselves of visiting, to their benefit, such collections on, with many of them, the only available day—namely, on Sundays—and thereby improving their taste and assisting towards the instruction required. Another year we may make better provision before hand. Among other applications (refused) was one for admission for the Thames bargees."

I received a letter yesterday from a foreman at a large tailoring establishment— Poole's—and he says that seeing that the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council (Viscount Sandon) had said that working men were opposed to the Motion, he canvassed 900 working men, and found only 12 opposed to it. He adds—

"I shall be very glad to introduce to those shops either Lord Sandon or any other Member of the House of Commons who supposes that working men are opposed to the Sunday opening of museums."

Last year, I am told, a procession of 20,000 persons walked through the streets of London quietly and knocked at the doors of the British Museum and the National Gallery, and requested to be admitted to their rights. They were very properly told that the Trustees of the British Museum had carefully considered the application, and had come to the conclusion that the question was one for the decision of the Government. With the Government and the House of Commons, therefore, it depends whether the people should have the advantage of visiting those places on the Sunday. Mr. Wornum, of the National Gallery, replied in the same way. I am struck with an impression almost of terror at the awful waste of human intellect and human enjoyment which is the result of our mode of dealing with Sunday. When you reflect that every man who lives to be 70 has passed 10 whole years of Sundays, and that there are tens of thousands of workmen in our great towns who have no opportunity of study or culture, who, perhaps, have not half-a-dozen books to go to, and who are shut out from these centres of knowledge and intelligence, I say it strikes one with terror. I cannot credit that there are many mute inglorious Miltons who would arise to bless the country; but I am convinced that the general enjoyment and intelligence and re-active force of tens of thousands would be infinitely raised if we could take a more sensible action in this matter. There is another point of view which I would urge on the House. I would ask it to reflect that we are voting on a matter which interests, individually and personally, no single Member of the House. Not a Member cares whether museums and libraries are opened on Sunday or not. It is Dives legislating for Lazarus; and I only say we should be very careful what decision we come to. It is a division of labour, and not one of a wholesome character. We, wealthy, and it is to be hoped pious, pass a sort of self-denying ordinance; but those out-of-doors, away from us, and away from our vote, will suffer, and not ourselves. I cannot understand how hon. Gentlemen can take on themselves the responsibility of giving an adverse vote. I imagine somebody going along the worst streets in London or in Birmingham, and seeing drunkenness and brutality and hopeless apathy—the alternation between deadly apathy and the excitement of the gin palace. Let him go a year afterwards, say to Birmingham, where the public libraries and art gallery have been opened, and into which he sees working-men with their wives and children entering, sober, well-dressed, and happy, and I defy him—however he may be going to vote tonight—to prevent an involuntary "thank God" rising to his lips. But every man who votes against this Motion is doing his utmost to prevent a consummation which, if it came about without his intervention, he would deem worthy of gratitude to the Almighty for. I will only give the House one more extract, and it is from a letter, dated June 6, from the incumbent of the Bedfordbury Mission Church, St. Martin's-in-the-Fields. He says—

"As the clergyman of a very poor district within one minute's walk of the National Gallery, I wish you success. It is a very rare thing for a family in my district to have more than one room for all domestic work. It is wicked, indeed, to refuse the people the use of a place like the National Gallery; it is no further from them than a gentleman's picture gallery from his lawn. I wish Members of Parliament and other religious people who oppose your Motion could spend one Sunday afternoon where I always spend mine, and I am sure they would vote at least for the opening of the National Gallery. What the people's rooms are on a wet Sunday, when they cannot break the Sabbath by walking in the parks, let medical men say."

People oppose this Motion as virulently and vehemently as if you were going to pass a law to compel them to go to museums and picture galleries. All we desire is to free those persons who do desire to go from the inability to gratify themselves; and I do think it would not be more tyrannous to compel those to go who do not want to go, than to declare by law that those who do desire to avail themselves of the British Museum, and other great collections, shall not go. What is the right to coerce? And what is more monstrous than that the Dissenters should take up this law? I am told the strongest opponents of my Motion are the Dissenters. Whether that is so or not, I cannot say. I represent a constituency of Dissenters, and they do not seem very angry with me. I have personal friends largely among the Dissenters, and I know very few indeed who are opposed to it. But if it be true that there is a section of Dissenters who are opposed to this Motion, their conduct is most flagrantly inconsistent—to demand the separation of Church and State, and to say that they will not permit any bond of the State to interfere between them and their conscience, and then to say they will not allow the right of private judgment to those who differ from them. I make an earnest appeal finally to the House to pass this Resolution. It is on the face of it natural, reasonable, and moderate. It only brings up London to where many large towns at this time already are, and it only brings up London as far as the British Museum is concerned to where it is as far as Hampton Court and other gardens are concerned. It infringes the conscience of no man, except it be a conscience of that delicate texture which will not be satisfied unless it infringes on that right of private judgment in others which it demands for itself. I beg leave to move the Resolution.

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

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

Sir, it is by no means an agreeable duty I have to perform in rising to oppose a Motion brought forward by my hon. Friend and Colleague, and supported by hon. Members of this House, and also by some gentlemen out-of-doors for whom I entertain feelings of respect and esteem. But my hon. Friend is aware that we entertain widely different views upon the Sunday question, and respecting the best means of maintaining and using an institution, which has been characterized by one of his friends as "an effete system which is fast losing its hold on the respect of thinking men," but which has been, I think, more correctly described by another of his supporters as "the greatest institution the country possesses for the purposes of the religious and moral education of the people." My hon. Friend thinks the policy he advocates is right, and would do good, that it would be an advantage to the public, and that it would especially benefit the working classes. Now, Sir, I give my hon. Friend and many of those who sympathize with him full credit for pure motives and good intentions; but I am fully persuaded in my own mind that the course he recommends us to take is a dangerous one—that it would be a step in the wrong direction—that it would not be an advantage to the public, and that instead of benefiting artizans and the working classes, as he has persuaded himself, and tries to persuade us, it would on the contrary bring about a state of things which might be subversive of their liberty, and would be highly injurious to their truest and best interests. I therefore feel it my duty to oppose the Motion, however unpleasant it may be for me to have to do so. Sir, I observe that the Motion proposed by my hon. Friend in 1874 differed in some respects from the one he now invites us to consider. He then moved—

"That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable to give greater facilities for recreation of a moral and intellectual character, by permitting the opening of Museums, Libraries, and similar institutions on Sunday."

He now asks the House to affirm—

"That it is desirable to give greater facilities for the recreation and instruction of the people by opening for some hours on Sunday the National Museums and Galleries."

Now, Sir, I do not imagine that the members of the Sunday League have changed their minds, or modified their views, upon this question; but they probably think that limiting their demands to opening the national museums and galleries for a few hours on Sunday, will make the Motion more acceptable to the House, and give it a better chance of support. And they are perfectly satisfied that if they can succeed in obtaining what they at present ask, all that they desire must inevitably and speedily follow. Sir, I trust that the difference in the wording of the Resolution will not deceive hon. Members, or induce them to look more favourably upon it than they did upon the Motion of 1874. To me the proposal submitted to us is even more objectionable than the former one. I am aware it has been argued that a broad distinction should be made between such public institutions and those maintained by companies or private individuals over whom we have no control. Now, Sir, I do not think we have either disposition or the right to interfere with the liberty of private individuals in this respect. We all know that a highly respected nobleman, actuated, we doubt not, by pure motives, has thrown open his galleries to the public on Sunday at certain periods. We may regard this as mistaken kindness, and think the object he has in view would have been better accomplished had he opened them on Saturday afternoons and on Mondays, but no one ever dreams of interfering. We are also aware that in Birmingham and, perhaps, in other places, certain corporate institutions have been opened on Sunday, and, I am willing to admit, with some advantage to a limited number of persons. In the town so long and ably represented by my hon. Friend, where he is so deservedly popular, the propriety of opening the museum and free library has been discussed for many years past, and if the corporation of Leicester think it would be an advantage to the inhabitants to open these institutions, I do not apprehend there would be the slightest disposition on the part of this House to interfere in any way. But what we are now asked to do is, in my opinion, vastly more important and much more objectionable, than the opening of such places in a dozen provincial towns would be. Sir, we are now asked to give the sanction of this House to the opening of national institutions on Sunday, and thus publish to the world that England has changed her views respecting the observance of the day. That would be a signal triumph to my hon. Friend and his supporters, who, as I have already intimated, know perfectly well if they can succeed in the effort they are now making, that the opening of all other institutions throughout the country would soon follow, and that one of the strongest barriers for the defence of our English Sunday, with all its inestimable privileges and advantages, would be broken down. But we are informed by the very rev. Dean who has now the honour of being President of the Sunday Society, and whose generous sympathies and benevolent intentions none who are acquainted with him will question, that "they desire only to go as far as they thought to be right, and not one step further." Well, Sir, if the very rev. gentleman were always to be president, and if all would submit to his judgment, we might be tolerably certain that he would not go further than he has indicated, unless his extreme good nature should lead him to concede a little more when urged to do so. But can he depend upon having all his own way? Is he not fully aware that what he proposes is only a small instalment of that which his new allies desire and are earnestly contending for? Can it be that he is unconscious of the danger of encouraging men to go as far in a wrong direction, or, at all events, in carrying out what many regard as a dangerous experiment as they think they could go with safety? Sir, that is a delusion which has proved fatal to many. There were doubtless some men of generous impulses and good intentions who identified themselves with the Communistic movement in Paris a few years ago, under the impression that they were advocating the cause of liberty, and with the determination that they would go as far as they thought to be right, and not one step further; brave men like Rossell and some others fought for what they believed to be the rights of the people, and imagined they could control the movement. But we all know how sadly mistaken they were, how soon they lost all control, how even women were transformed into demons, how all Europe was horrified at hearing of that diabolical crime, the murder of the hostages, including the Archbishop of Paris and several men of high character and position, and of the attempt to destroy Paris by fire, an attempt which was so far successful that a large portion of the Tuileries, the Hotel de Ville, and several other public buildings were actually destroyed, and the Pantheon, under which a large quantity of gunpowder had been stored for the purpose of blowing it up, was only saved by the bravery of a soldier who, at the risk of his life, rushed forward and extinguished the fusee which had actually been ignited. I am aware we are happily free from all apprehension of such atrocities being committed in London; but I give this as one illustration out of scores that might be given to show how difficult it is to control a movement in a wrong direction when once a certain impetus has been given to it. But, Sir, we are told of the wonderfully good effect the sight of paintings, sculpture, and other works of art will have, especially if they are seen on Sunday; how people will desert the public-houses and flock to such institutions for intellectual improvement. Well, Sir, I am not one of those who despise or undervalue the refining influence of art. On the contrary, I would wish to see artistic tastes more cultivated and encouraged in every legitimate way; but I have yet to learn that art has ever done much for the promotion of good order, morality, or civil and religious liberty. We all know something of the histories of Greece and Rome, and I need not occupy the time of the House by referring to them. I may, however, remark that we have a more modern illustration, and I must add warning, in our neighbours across the Channel. I am aware my hon. Friend and his supporters are quite tired of hearing about a Continental Sunday. It is by no means an agreeable subject, and they would sooner keep it in the background. I recollect a few weeks ago reading an article in a paper which strongly advocates the opening of museums and other places of a similar character on Sunday, but which I am bound to acknowledge has freely admitted arguments on both sides of the question. The writer, after referring to the well-meaning, but withal intolerant Sabbatarians, who offer the people no alternative between the church and the public-house, observes—

"And what are the chief obstacles? The objections upon the score of the comparatively infinitesimal attendant superintendence and expense being happily obviated by the promoter of the reform, the sole impediment seems to be that dead mass of religious Pharisaism and prejudice which has ever proved an almost insuperable barrier to the impartial consideration of this important subject. And what is the chief plea upon which the non-church-going masses are now condemned to abandon to the public-house that Sunday leisure which might otherwise be devoted to innocent amusement and rational recreation? That irrepressible bugbear of the Continental Sunday, upon which there is really more quietude and less drinking, is of course trotted out, likewise the equally plausible but still ill-timed scarecrow extreme of theatre opening; but this species of Sabbatarian intimidation has long ceased to alarm."

Well, Sir, it may be very stupid on the part of this mass of religious Pharisaism and prejudice that they cannot see just as the members of the Sunday League see in this matter, and that they will learn wisdom by the experience of our friends on the Continent, and endeavour to avoid the evil which their mode of Sunday observance has entailed upon them. But however inconvenient and unpleasant it may be to my hon. Friend, I fear we must not close our eyes to what is going on in the world around us, or ignore the danger which threatens us. Sir, Paris has for ages past enjoyed the wonderful advantage of having her museums, picture galleries, theatres, and other places of amusement open on Sunday, and her races and reviews are generally on that day. Has the result been so satisfactory as to induce us to follow her example; or is it not a fact that thoughtful men both there and in other parts of the Continent, are conscious of the evil consequences of such desecration, and are endeavouring to bring about a better state of things? Will any one who knows both places assert that there is more morality, more social and domestic happiness, or more civil and religious liberty in Paris than we have in London? And, above all, will any one argue that working-men are better off, or have more rest and enjoyment? Is my hon. Friend and Colleague aware that a society to promote the better observance of Sunday has been established on the Continent, and that a Conference was held last year in Geneva, at which I believe I am correct in stating that there were delegates from almost every country in Europe? Pére Hyacinthe was one of the speakers, and, after alluding to the value and importance of Sunday from a religious point of view, he is reported to have said—

"But the Lord's Day is not the day of God alone, it is the day of humanity. This is the true democratic festival, this day of God and man. And yet this is the day which certain friends of the people wish to deprive them of. False friends that cheat them with the name of liberty, thinking only of their bodily needs, and not wisely even of those."

Another gentleman who has seen more of the world than most men living, and who is well qualified to form a correct opinion, writing upon this subject observes—

"Often have I wished that all the working men of England could see the toil and frivolity of a Parisian Sunday. I am sure that the most thoughtful of them, however opposed to Christianity, would be ready to say, as was once said to me by a Leicester rationalist who met me in one of the streets of Paris one Sunday, 'I don't like this, it is so unlike our system of finishing a week's work, taking rest, and then beginning again. Here there is no cessation. Look at those carters how sluggish they seem, as though their life was one endless toil and drudgery.'"

Will the House permit me to read one other extract from a letter written by Mr. Hill, the Secretary of the Working Men's Lord's Day Rest Association—

"On the Continent the Sunday is secularized. They have a so-called free Sunday, a kind of freedom that involves the Sunday slavery of the great mass of the labouring population. The religious observance of the day is ignored. My first Sunday in Paris I shall never forget. I awoke in the morning to the sound of workmen's tools. On going to the window I saw a glazier tapping at the sash with his hammer and knife. A carpenter was also hard at work with his planes and saws. At eight o'clock the roar of the traffic of a great city was in full operation; vans of timber, lime, coal, railway luggage, and numberless other vehicles were driving along. The postman was loaded with newspapers and letters, the scavengers were hard at work, the newspaper kiosks were all open selling the newspapers that are published on every day in the year. I counted 100 men working at the Hotel Continental, which was being erected on the Rue de Rivoli. These men worked not a part, but the whole of the Sunday. Hundreds of women were washing clothes in the washing barges on the river. Shops in all directions were open; hatters, hosiers, mattress makers, gun shops, scientific instrument shops, jewellers, drapers, and umbrella shops, picture dealers, furniture shops, toy shops, in the grandest streets were wide open as on other days of the week. In one of the papers dated 10th Sept., 1876, there were no less than 65 places of amusement advertised as open on the Lord's Day, including 21 theatres, concerts, gymnasia, Palace of Industry, panoramas, museums, skating rinks, circuses, and balls. In addition there were notices of fetes and amusements in many of the suburbs, and of the Sunday races at Boulogne. The cafés and public-houses were open all day long, and all amusements are intensified. The nation has no day of rest. The labouring classes have no Sunday."

Hon. Members who are familiar with Paris must recognize the truthfulness of this description. To the rich, Sunday is there a day of dissipation and amusement, but to young men and women in shops and offices, and to the working classes generally, life is, as described by a Leicester rationalist, one endless toil and drudgery. And yet I have heard my hon. Friend argue that there is more quiet and decorum in Continental cities than we have in England, and he quotes the late rev. Dr. Guthrie to prove this. Well, Sir, Dr. Guthrie stated that he counted 33 theatres and places of amusement open in Paris on Sunday, and he met many other things which made him almost exclaim with Abraham "the fear of God is not in this place." But he saw only one drunken man and no drunken women; while his Christianity was put to the blush by the disgusting spactacle of drunkards reeling along the streets, and filling the air with horrid imprecations in London and Edinburgh. But does my hon. Friend imagine that Dr. Guthrie attributed the greater sobriety of the Parisians to the influence of the picture galleries and the 33 theatres and other places of amusement he saw open, or that he would have advised us to make a similar experiment. Would he not, like a practical and sensible man which he was, rather come to the conclusion that in Paris the great bulk of the population drink light French wines, while the masses of this country drink strong ale or spirits of some kind. Sir, my hon. Friend and his supporters are very anxious to impress upon us the evil consequences of Sunday drinking, and also to persuade us that opening museums and libraries would lessen the evil by inducing people to forsake the public-houses and seek for higher and more intellectual pleasures. Sir, I do not believe that any appreciable good would be accomplished in that way. My decided conviction is that instead of diminishing, it would greatly increase the quantity of intoxicating liquors consumed, and, perhaps, one of the best proofs of this is that the publicans are almost all in favour of the Motion. But, Sir, who is responsible for all the evil of this Sunday drinking? I and many others think it would be one of the greatest blessings that could be conferred on working men to close public-houses altogether on Sundays, or to provide British workmen public-houses where refreshments for bonâ fide travellers might be provided, but my hon. Friend and his supporters will not allow us. Their argument seems to be—yes, we admit that Sunday drinking is doing a vast amount of harm; that it is robbing unfortunate women and helpless children of the money which ought to be spent in procuring them better clothes and food; that it is increasing crime, and producing poverty, disease, and death. Still, we must oppose all at- tempts to close public-houses on Sunday; but it is a crying shame that you should allow them to be open and refuse to open museums, picture galleries, and other places of amusement to counteract the injurious influence they are exerting upon the public. It must also, I think, be evident to all those who really look at the question in all its bearings, that just in proportion as you open public institutions and places of amusement, there will very naturally be a demand for additional refreshment stalls and dining-rooms, where intoxicating drinks will be freely consumed, and where large numbers must be employed as cooks and waiters—with their assistants. I want also to ask who is to fix the standard, or draw the line where we are to stop, and not go one step further down the inclined plane on which we are invited to travel? Sir, I doubt not I have the honour of being included in that mass of "religious Pharisaism and prejudice" alluded to "which prevents the impartial consideration of this important subject." Well, Sir, I do not admit the justice of the imputation, for I really have felt it my duty to endeavour to understand the question, and to give it my most careful and impartial consideration. In order that I might be able to do so, I have read a great number of pamphlets that have been sent to me, a great number of articles that have appeared in newspapers, and a great many reports of speeches made at public meetings both by supporters and opponents of the Motion of my hon. Friend, and perhaps an argument used by a rev. gentleman at one of these meetings may help us out of our difficulty. The rev. gentleman is reported to have said—

"They did not wish to destroy or degrade the Sabbath, but they believed to open free libraries and museums would be a good thing. If it was right to go to the museums on Saturday, it could not be wrong to go on the Sunday."

Now, I think if we follow out this line of argument, it will lead us further than I hope the rev. gentleman would like to go, though not one step further than I believe a great many members of the Sunday League would wish us to accompany them. Sir, there are many hon. Members of this House who think horse-racing a harmless and very enjoyable amusement, that it helps to improve the breed of horses, and should be encouraged. I do not know how far my hon. Friend shares in that opinion, for he always votes against the Adjournment of the House on the Derby Day; but according to the principle laid down to which I have alluded, if it be right to go to the races on Saturday, it cannot be wrong to go on Sunday. Again, there are many who think that theatres, ball rooms, and music saloons are innocent and enjoyable places of amusement, which, if it be proper to attend on weekdays, it cannot be wrong to attend on Sunday, especially as we are informed they have been so successful in promoting quiet enjoyment, good order, and morality in Paris. Well, Sir, I hope we shall not try the experiment of endeavouring to improve our English Sunday by such means. I am perfectly aware that many who agree with the proposal of my hon. Friend have no wish to go so far, and some would perhaps be shocked at the idea of such a thing. But I am equally certain that that is the road along which they are invited to travel, and if they once commence the downward journey, they may find it more difficult to stop than they imagine. We are also informed, on the high authority of the President, that the object of the Sunday Society is, on the one hand, to maintain the value and importance of the English Sunday, and, on the other hand, to do the best they can to improve it. Well, Sir, we have heard of a certain painter who once sent in a bill of a guinea to the churchwarden of Liddington for mending the Commandments, altering the Belief, and making a new Lord's Prayer. The objects proposed by the Sunday Society are not quite so comprehensive, but they are in the same direction. We have also heard of improving people off the face of the earth, and I trust we shall not try the experiment of endeavouring to improve our English Sunday by adopting Continental customs that have done much harm there, and have resulted, not in the liberation, but in the enslavement of the working-classes. Sir, we hear a great deal said about sympathy with the working-classes; but it seldom assumes a very practical form, and we are sometimes tempted to think that, in many instances, if it were not for the pound, shillings, and pence argument, and the desire to pay good dividends, we would hear much less about the good effects of opening such places on Sunday than we are in the habit of hearing. If there is this wonderful sympathy, why should not the directors of the Brighton Aquarium give us some proof of it by admitting the working classes free on Sunday, and thus manifesting their interest in them and liberality towards them. Again, it is argued that the national museums are the property of the nation, and should, therefore, be open to the public. Sir, I hope my hon. Friend does not imagine that he and his supporters constitute the nation. If so, I believe he is greatly mistaken; and if they do not, he will, I trust, admit that those who differ from him are entitled to some consideration, especially if they form the majority, as I believe they do. At all events, whether I am right or wrong in this opinion, I think it must be admitted we have very little evidence to show that working men as a class have any strong feeling in favour of the Motion of my hon. Friend. Certainly, the demonstration attempted to be got up last night in Trafalgar Square, would not warrant us to come to such a conclusion. And my conviction is that the great majority of them are too well aware of their own interest to approve of any measures the tendency of which is to increase their labour without increasing their income. I think I may safely add that those who desire to preserve the rest of Sunday are amongst the most sober, industrious, loyal, and law-abiding portion of the working men of this country. Sir, it has been said that cleanliness is next to godliness, and I think that even in a sanitary point of view our English Sunday is exceedingly valuable, for its proper observance tends to create and encourage habits of cleanliness, good order, decency, and self-respect. There are few more pleasing sights to be seen than the cottage of a respectable artizan or working-man on Sunday morning, where everything is as clean and comfortable as circumstances will permit—

"And sweetly steals the Sabbath rest

Upon the world's work-wearied breast;

Of heaven the sign, of earth the calm,

The poor man's birthright and his balm,"

when his wife and children are neatly, though inexpensively, dressed, and when he is enjoying with them the rest of the day that God has given him—the only day he can call his own—and which, if he is wise, he will let no man take from him. Sir, I am not unconscious of the great value and importance of the rest and quiet of Sunday to the religious portion of the community. It is not, however, my intention to detain the House by dwelling upon this part of the subject, except to repeat what I have said on a former occasion—that I believe Christianity has made us what we are as a nation, that Christianity and the Sunday are inseparably connected, and that if we abolish or secularize the latter we shall soon have comparatively little of the former left worthy of the name. But there is another aspect of the question upon which my hon. Friend has not said much, or perhaps thought much, and which I regard as quite too important to be lost sight of in a debate like the present. I have already alluded to the statement made by the President of the Sunday Society respecting the best means of maintaining and using what he very properly regards as the greatest institutution the country possesses for promoting the moral and religious education of the people. Well, Sir, my conviction is that, next to the pulpit and the Press, there is no other institution which has done so much to promote the moral and religious education of the people of this country as the Sunday School. At a period when education was not so popular, or so much cared for as it happily is at present, hundreds of thousands of children were taught to read, and received moral and religious instruction, the value and importance of which to them and to the nation it would be impossible to estimate too highly, and I believe it is to this that we are indebted for much of the order, good feeling, respect for the law, and respect for religion which prevail even amongst many who do not attend any place of worship. Almost innumerable instances might be given to prove the beneficial effects of Sunday Schools, but I must not enlarge upon the subject. Some idea of the extent of Sunday School work, may, however, be formed from the fact, that it is estimated there are in England and Wales about 30,000 schools and 500,000 teachers, who are zealously, laboriously, and faithfully instructing between 3,000,000 and 4,000,000 of children and young persons in our Sunday Schools. But it is said Sunday Schools are not now so necessary as they formerly were. I believe the reverse to be the case. The tendency at present is to ex- clude from day-school teaching all religious instruction, except what is of an elementary and undenominational character, and the strong argument in favour of this is that such instruction ought to be given in the church and the Sunday School. I think it must, therefore, be apparent, that if we desire to promote morality and religion among the masses we must encourage our Sunday Schools. Well, Sir, I believe one of the greatest evils likely to result from adopting the policy advocated by my hon. Friend would be the serious injury it would inflict upon our Sunday Schools and the children who attend them. I have stated that I do not believe opening museums, picture galleries, and similar places would induce men who are in the habit of frequenting public-houses to forsake them, or that it would at all lessen the evil of intemperance; but I do think it might induce men of a better class who now spend their Sundays at home with their families, and send their children to school, to go out and take the youngsters with them to places of amusement, where they would witness scenes and receive instruction that would be injurious to their best interests. Sir, I think all who feel interested in this question, and have noticed the statements made by many of those who advocate the opening of museums and similar places on Sunday, must have been struck with the singular inconsistency of the arguments used. The very rev. President of the Sunday Society, after referring to the fact that ordinary work is carried on in Spain and on the Continent on Sunday, just as upon other days, goes on to state that—

"In the hurry and constant pressure of English life, and with English feelings such a practice would be absolutely impossible and intolerable; and in this respect the Fourth Commandment was even more applicable to the present state of society in England than to the Jews, because rest was more necessary to us than it was to them. On the Continent, not only was work carried on on Sunday, but all kinds of amusements were provided even more copiously than on other days. He must, however, decline to sit in judgment on the consciences of others; hut they must all feel that it was an immense gain to the solidity and seriousness and elevation of the English character that there should be one day in the week of interruption to those occupations which tended to enervate the body and. impair the mind. He thought the general character of the day should not be interfered with by an undue extension of the hours during which museums and similar institutions should be open on Sunday, nor should the repose of the public servants, who must be employed, be unduly curtailed. The objection to the unnecessary employment of labour was one of the most praiseworthy scruples existing on the subject, and that version of the Fourth Commandment which most commended itself to his mind was that which, after forbidding the work of male and female slaves and beasts of burden, added, Remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt.'"

Another friend of mine who has ably advocated the views of my hon. Friend commences one of his papers by stating that, if it can be shown that the opening of museums and similar places would increase Sunday labour, it would be objectionable. Now, Sir, how gentlemen who entertain and express such views can advocate a proposal, the acceptance of which would inevitably lead to the opening of museums, picture galleries, and places of amusement on Sunday all over the Kingdom, which would tend to secularize the Sunday, destroy the rest and social and domestic enjoyment of the day, and enormously increase the amount of Sunday labour is to me a mystery which I cannot solve. Sir, I hope it is scarcely necessary for me to repudiate the idea that I have any desire to deprive artizans and working men of any legitimate pleasure and enjoyment, and I believe that on reflection the great majority of them are too generous and right-minded to wish to deprive large numbers of their fellow-labourers of their just rights for their own gratification. Nor do I think this at all necessary. We have an old adage, "Where there is a will there is a way," and I believe there never was a time when it was less necessary to open museums and picture galleries on Sunday than it is at present. People do not visit such places every week, and some of us find it difficult to visit them more than once or twice a-year. The Saturday half-holiday is now customary; we have more general holidays than we formerly had, and very large numbers of our operatives take Monday to themselves. They ought, therefore, to find no great difficulty in visiting museums and galleries occasionally, as other people do. And even if these national institutions were open on Sunday, we all know that the number they can contain would be only an infinitesimally small portion of the working classes. Of one thing, however, I am quite certain, that we have sadly too much Sunday labour already; that there are tens of thousands in London, and hundreds of thousands throughout the Kingdom who have to work like slaves —who never have a Sunday for rest or enjoyment, and who, in this respect, are positively in a worse position than even our convicts. I have before me an estimate, or rather a list, of the number of men already employed in various ways on Sunday; but I must not trouble the House with the details. I think, however, we may safely infer that there are upwards of 1,000,000. Every additional institution you open will add to the number of those who must work on Sunday, and who will enjoy the privilege, as many do at present, of giving seven days' work for six days' wages. I have already referred to the Parisian Sunday —will the House permit me to give one other quotation upon the subject from a letter written by a Gentleman who is a large employer of labour, and who was a Member of this House during the last Parliament. The writer was obliged to spend last Winter in Algiers for the benefit of his health, and the letter was addressed to his brother, on the occasion of his son coming of age, when there was a festive gathering of the workmen in honour of the event—

"Please remember me to the workmen. Tell them how glad I should have been to be present, and what pleasure it would have given me if I had found myself in possession of sufficient voice to say a few words to them about the country I have been visiting. Amongst other advantages which they enjoy over the working people of Algeria is the day of rest. Labours goes on here almost without intermission. Artizans, labourers, tradesmen, all at work. Algiers is worse in this respect than Paris. If the workpeople are spoken to upon the subject, they reply, as they have done to me, we are helpless. If we were to refuse to go to work on Sunday, there are others to take our places. I have heard people at home dilate upon the thraldom of the English Sunday. I have thought about it since I have been here. Thraldom! Why, it is liberty itself, compared to the thraldom imposed by the incessant demands made upon labour in this country, I have never held a Puritanical view of the Sabbath. I take Mr. Dale's view that it is a privilege. If I had had no previous experience, I have seen enough here to convince me that no portion of the population has so deep an interest in the maintenance of the day of rest as the working class."

Sir, when I state that the extract I have read is from a letter written by Mr. James Howard, of Bedford, I think it will be admitted that he is a good authority, and that there are few men in England better qualified to form a correct opinion upon this question than he is. But we are assured by another able advocate of my hon. Friend's Motion, that "working men have learnt tolerably well how to take care of themselves." Sir, I rejoice to believe that working men are becoming more intelligent every year. But is it not a fact that large numbers of them are even now altogether unable so far to take care of themselves as to avoid Sunday labour and incessant toil? I was speaking, a few days ago, to a conductor on one of the tramway cars, and he told me he worked 15 hours every week-day and 16 upon Sunday, which was the hardest day he had. I know the case of a man who for upwards of five years has never had a Sunday to himself, and when asked why he did not insist upon one occasionally, his reply was—

"Some of the men get tired and take a Sunday, and when they return to work on Monday they are informed that their services are no longer required; but," he added, "I have a wife and four or five children to provide for, and I cannot afford to be independent."

I know of another case of an omnibus conductor or driver who for 15 long weary years never had a Sunday's rest, and who at last, broken down by incessant toil, sunk into a premature grave. I do not want to trespass unnecessarily upon the time of the House, or I might give hundreds of similar illustrations. Let me, however, give just one more. We are told that men engaged on Sundays should always have some other day of rest. That is very good in theory, but how is it in practice? I visited Kew Gardens a few days ago to ascertain what was the rule there, and I was informed by one of the officials that he never had a Sunday to himself, or a day in lieu of it. I said, in reply—"But you have the morning; as I observe, you don't open until two o'clock." "Yes, sir," he said, "but even one Sunday in the month would be a great boon to us." Sir, it is just as I have stated. In nearly all such cases of Sunday work it is incessant toil, and six days' wages for seven days' work, and I cannot help arriving at the conclusion that those who advocate the policy recommended by my hon. Friend would prove themselves greater benefactors and truer friends of the working classes if they would devote their energies to the amelioration of the condition of the over-worked, downtrodden and oppressed who so greatly need sympathy and help, instead of advocating a policy which must increase the burdens and be injurious to the best interests of the classes whom they desire to serve. I must not detain the House longer, and I will conclude in the eloquent language of Emerson, a man who will not be accused of narrow-mindedness or want of sympathy with the masses, by any of those who are acquainted with his writings—

"Two inestimable advantages Christianity has given us—first, the institution of preaching, the speech of man to man; and secondly, the Sabbath, the Jubilee of the old world, whose light dawns welcome alike into the closet of the philosopher, into the garret of toil, and into prison cells, and everywhere suggests, even to the vile, the dignity of spiritual being. Let it stand for evermore a temple which new light, new love, and new hope shall restore to more than its first splendour to mankind."

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

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

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

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

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

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

, who had on the Paper a Notice—

"To move for a Select Committee to inquire and report as to the best system of Currency Laws calculated to secure a safe and uniform money circulation throughout Great Britain and Ireland,"

which he was prevented by the Rules of the House from bringing forward, said, it was undoubtedly a scandal and a shame that a different system of money laws should exist in different parts of the United Kingdom, and he was induced to call attention to the matter from a conviction that the laws which it referred to required revision. There were two kinds of money, one "hard money," as the Americans called it, the other credit or paper money. In England there was a mixed currency, and hard money circulated along with paper, because in England, as in France and Ger- many, no small notes were allowed to exist. In France they had no notes of less than 100f.; but the Bank was allowed to issue notes to a much larger extent than was allowed in England. He did not at all approve the restriction placed upon the issue of notes in England, because if, you had a metallic basis, it was quite sufficient security for convertibility. There were no small notes in Ireland up to 1797, when the Bank Restriction Act was extended to Ireland, and no country ever advanced more in prosperity up to that period. If anyone were to take up the description of Ireland given by Arthur Young, and compare it with his description of France, he would find that Ireland had progressed far more than France in the same time. That circumstance he (Mr. Delahunty) attributed to the fact, that in Ireland exchanges were free, specie being allowed to flow into the country with the addition of large notes. When cash payments were resumed in 1822, under the Act of 1819, small notes were not abolished, and the consequence was that both England and Ireland suffered to an immense extent. The agricultural and manufacturing interests were struck down in both countries; but Ireland being the weaker, her banks failed soonest; and in 1822, owing to such failures and the deficient currency circulation, famine broke out and numbers perished It was then that the necessity for an ample currency was seen. In 1825, when the English banks failed, Mr. Huskisson declared that England could not have commerce, trade, and manufactures without money, and she could not have money as long as £1 notes were in circulation. It was held that gold could only circulate with the repression of the £1 notes. Canning, moreover, said it was impossible to have credit money without a metallic basis. When the currency laws of England and Ireland were the same, the circulation of Ireland was equal to one-fourth of that of England and Wales. In 1825 the Bank of Ireland had double the circulation it had now, over £6,000,000 in notes, the entire circulation being over £9,000,000, or fully a fourth of the circulation at that time of England and Wales; whilst at present the circulation of Ireland was not more than one-twentieth of that of England. In illustration of his argument, he would refer to the case of France, which had been able to pay so enormous a war indemnity to Germany, and would ask whether any country with a small-note currency could have done that? Since the late war, Germany had taken a lesson from the French, and was getting rid to a great extent of its small notes, introducing coin in their stead. The Germans, he believed, would see the policy of "going the whole hog," and would adopt the system which existed in France and in England. He only asked for Ireland that which England now enjoyed, and would be satisfied with any currency that could be devised for the two countries. If it was deemed best that Ireland should have £1 notes, let England have them also. But he did not believe that John Bull would accept anything of the kind. They had only to look at the extreme depreciation of property, and especially of railway property in America, and the widespread ruin that had resulted from it, as the consequences of "soft" money, a result which was further borne out by the experience of Ireland in 1822, when the people starved in the midst of plenty, simply because there was no money in the country, and therefore no means of giving them employment. If all the gold money in the world was doubled tomorrow, the circulation in Ireland would not be 6d. better of it. He hoped the Government would do the right thing for Ireland in this matter. The late Government had behaved abominably. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was, he believed, a man who had given some attention to financial questions. He told the right hon. Gentleman that from this time forward he should often hear him (Mr. Delahunty) in advocacy of the prosperity of Ireland and of England also, as long as the two countries were united. He only asked for Ireland the same law as England enjoyed. If the right hon. Gentleman did not wish to grant that equality in respect to the currency, let him give Ireland Home Rule, and leave the question to the decision of the Irish people. Mr. O'Connell would certainly have taken up the currency question, when it was debated in 1826, had he not been prevented from doing so by the excitement arising from the Catholic Emancipation agitation; the opinion of that great man, at all events, was known to be strongly in favour of gold. The views which he (Mr. Delahunty) expressed had been held by all great authorities that he was aware of, including Adam Smith, J. R. M'Cullagh, and John Stuart Mill. Dr. Thomas Cooper, President of the South Carolina College, for instance, held that "no notes ought to be circulated that were not for a greater sum than the highest denomination of coin," the reason being that when there were notes and coin of the same value side by side, the bankers found it to their interest to force the former into circulation. He contended that Ireland had been prejudiced and sacrificed by the financial policy imposed upon her by Dublin Castle legislation since 1825, when the exports of Irish manufactures to England exceeded the exports of England to Ireland. Since then the population and the manufactures of Ireland had declined, and there was no hope of improvement except in the change he had indicated. It was the circumstance of having plenty of specie and plenty of paper money secured upon the gold that had made England, France, and Germany what they were in regard to financial position. That was what other countries were trying to achieve; but they could not achieve it so long as they did not follow the example of England, France, and Germany, and abolish £1 notes. What he asked of the Government was a verdict which should either establish a uniform currency for the Three Kingdoms, or do away with all notes under £2.

said, no one could deny the importance of the subject and the care bestowed upon it by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Delahunty), whose views deserved careful consideration, although they might not be able to accept them. Our present system of circulation, though variable, might be fairly described as a safe one. It might admit of some improvements, and unquestionably it was not uniform. He entirely agreed with the hon. Member in saying that it would be a convenience if we could see our way to introduce a uniform money circulation; but when we had got so far, we should find ourselves in a difficulty which the hon. Member hardly seemed to have given sufficient attention to. He had proposed, as the first step of a uniform circulation, to abolish small notes. In doing that, however, the hon. Member would have to vie with Scotland, and there would be found very considerable difficulty in getting the Scotch to agree to the remedy thus proposed. And although, doubtless, the hon. Member was well qualified to speak on the subject, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was not quite sure it would be found that the hon. Member represented the opinion of the whole of Ireland in suggesting that the small notes which now circulated there should be done away with. A good deal of curious evidence on the subject was taken by the Committee on Scotch Banks two years ago. He agreed, of course, with the hon. Member in the general principle that a circulation ought to be secure in having a metallic basis, and a proper law as to the convertibility of notes; but the hon. Member said it was an inconvenience to have so much small paper money in circulation, because we had less gold currency in consequence, and there might be occasions when the possession of a large stock of gold would be convenient. No doubt, but to keep up a purely or a mainly metallic circulation was an expensive arrangement; and a certain amount of paper circulation was a convenience and an economy, if you did not push it further than was required, and if it represented and corresponded with the internal wants of the country. In the case of Ireland there was evidence that such paper circulation did not unfairly represent and correspond with such wants. Going back 30 years and more, in spite of the change in the population of Ireland since 1841, there was some curious evidence of the fluctuation in the total amount of notes issued yearly by the Irish banks. The circulation had continued to be subject to nearly the same fluctuation as between one month of the year and another during the last 30 years; it was lowest in August and September; it expanded in December; it diminished again in June and July; the fluctuations, indeed, corresponded much with the theory of Scotch and English provincial circulation; and from these facts was drawn the conclusion that the issue of provincial notes in Ireland depended much upon the internal trade of the country, and that it was fairly proportional to such trade. If paper money was fairly proportioned to these internal demands, there was no doubt it was almost if not quite as convenient as gold; it had some advantages and some disadvantages; but, upon the whole we should gain very little by doing away with it. But when they came to the external demands of a country, as had been referred to by the hon. Member with respect to France, no doubt it was convenient, in case of a sudden demand from any cause, to have a large amount of gold available, and it was the great strength of this country; but if we were to provide the stock of gold that would be required to meet small notes, that would be a financial luxury that would have to be paid for. The hon. Member had referred to the distress and inconvenience caused by the return to cash payments both in England and Ireland in 1822. But although he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not doubt that much of the distress which there was in 1822 arose from the return to cash payments, he must remind the hon. Member that that was a step in the direction of the substitution of a metallic for a paper currency. The hon. Member had asked why, in 1822, the Government did not come to the aid of Ireland, as Huskisson came to the aid of England in 1825. The way in which Huskisson came to the aid of the Bank of England was not in suspending the issue of £1 notes, but in promoting that issue for a time. What he would impress upon the hon. Member was that the circulation of a country regulated itself, and that it was impossible to say they could bring prosperity into a country by dealing one way or another with its circulation, and especially by withdrawing compulsory from it a convenient and economical mode of exchange. The hon. Member had referred to France, and had said that there was a greater amount of money circulating in France than in England. It did not, however, follow that a country was the richer, because of using a larger amount of coin as a circulating medium. It might be that by improved means of credit, such as the Clearing House system and others, a country might be enabled to dispense with the use of a large amount of capital as a circulating medium and to apply it in some other way, and this would be so much gain. While, however, admitting the importance of the question, and the undoubted right of the hon. Gentleman to speak upon it, he could not think that he should be consulting the feelings of the House if he were to enter further into the interesting argument which the hon. Member had presented on the occasion. The discussion for the present could have no practical issue, for, although it was well for the hon. Member to have called attention to the subject, it was not possible to have a Select Committee upon it in consequence of the manner in which hon. Members were occupied at this period of the Session. Moreover, it was the less necessary to have one in consequence of the large amount of evidence on the subject which was taken by a Committee which sat only two years ago.

, in rising to suggest—the Forms of the House preventing his moving—

"That, in order to lighten the load of business which now weighs heavily on the High Court of Justice, and also with a view to public convenience, it is expedient to provide more facilities than at present exist for the trial of civil actions in the great provincial centres of England and Wales,"

said, that the matter was important, and that, as things were, it was impossible for the Courts to discharge their duties. From statistics which had been placed before him, it appeared that there had been a large increase in the number of actions in the High Court of Justice since the passing of the Judicature Acts, 1873 and 1875, and that there were now 2,739 actions on the papers waiting to be disposed of before the Long Vacation, but, without greater facilities being provided, it would be quite impossible that that could be done, or that they could be disposed of in a reasonable period of time after the Long Vacation. This involved suitors in much additional expense, and he would urge that additional facilities should be provided. He would call attention to a case which was set down for trial at Manchester on the 10th of last March. The trial could not be concluded in a day, and the Judge was obliged to go to Liverpool to open the Assizes in that town. Ten of the jurors volunteered to go there, but when the case was called, only nine appeared, and counsel declined to go on, and it had to be postponed. That was an instance in which great expense and delay were incurred, and it plainly showed that some alteration in the present system was absolutely required. Under all the circumstances he hoped his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General would see the necessity of applying some remedy to this very great evil. Great complaints had been made, and much dissatisfaction had been expressed in memorials to the Lord Chancellor from the Liverpool Incorporated Law Society and the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, and there was a strong feeling on the matter throughout the country. After quoting at length from these memorials, the hon. and learned Baronet went on to give some statistics showing the state of things at Manchester and at Liverpool. At the last Spring Assizes in Manchester there were 76 causes entered for trial, 39 of them Common Jury cases and 37 Special Jury eases, and only 10 days were allowed for their trial. Only 35 of them were tried, the remainder being referred, withdrawn, or otherwise disposed of. Parties were often obliged reluctantly to consent to have their case referred to arbitration on account simply of want of time to try it. The people of Liverpool and Manchester were perfectly justified in asking that further facilities should be given for the despatch of their legal business. The recommendations contained in the Report of the Judicature Commission of 1872 had been only partially carried out, but no attempt was made to carry out that portion of their recommendations which stated that there should be four sittings in Liverpool and Manchester each year, the duration of which should not be limited. Under the present management the dead-lock which now existed would increase considerably, and he would extend the jurisdiction of such Courts as the Passage Court at Liverpool and the Salford Court of Requests, and also enlarge the area of those Courts, so as to comprise a larger radius. He would also make the sittings for the despatch of civil business in the great provincial centres to be of longer duration than the limited period now given by the Assizes in those places, and in these days of rapid locomotion it would not be difficult to find Judges and counsel, who, by holding continuous sittings, would greatly lessen the expense and delay in the administration of justice, now so reasonably and universally complained of. This, he thought, would do away with a considerable amount of the present inconvenience. With regard to the business in London, the New Courts would not be ready for some time, and as complaints were made that the Judges could not find suitable places in which to sit, the suggestion that Serjeants' Inn might be utilized for this purpose deserved attention. After adverting to the recommendations made by the late Lord Brougham and by Lord Selborne for improving the mode of carrying on the civil and criminal business of the country, the hon. and learned Baronet said he agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. Forsyth) in thinking that the cases of burglary and forgery which were now tried at Assizes should be tried at quarter sessions. As a Recorder of 20 years' experience, he thought that if this were done, and if coining and Post Office cases were also transferred to the quarter sessions, the work of the Judges at Assizes would be much relieved. This would also get rid of the injustice of keeping persons who might be innocent in prison for so long a period as often occurred now between committal and trial. The time had now come when the matter must be dealt with; and the present Government, which was really powerful enough, ought to take some steps to remedy this defect. The time allowed for civil causes at the Assizes was quite insufficient, and not unfrequently caused a scandal in the administration of justice. It was the interest alike of the Bench and the Bar to put an end to the present unsatisfactory state of things.

said, it was a great mistake to suppose that the effect of the Judicature Act had been to create a great block of business in the Law Courts. He was prepared, on the contrary, confidently to assert that in the greater number of the departments of the Law, the state of things was now far more satisfactory than it had been at any time since he was called to the Bar. Three or four years ago, if in any trial a point of law was reserved, it was at least a year before it came on for decision. But what was the state of things now? There was not at that moment a single case waiting judgment upon points reserved in the Court of Queen's Bench. It was just the same in all other classes of cases; and there were none on the new list but cases that been set down since the Whitsuntide Recess. Appeals from the inferior Courts usually took six months, and perhaps a year before they could be heard. But what was the case now? There was not a single case of appeal of this kind down for argument which had not arisen within the last two months. Again, in the old Court of Appeal, after the decision of the first Court, months and months might elapse before a man could get his case decided in the Court of Appeal, and two or three years before it could be decided in the House of Lords. Now, however, he believed there would not be a case set down before April 1st standing for argument in the Court of Appeal, while he ventured to say that at the termination of the Session there would not be a dozen cases in the House of Lords for argument. Still the list of cases standing for trial by jury was longer than one would like to see it; but the evil was, he had no hesitation in saying, diminishing, and would be still further diminished when some further modifications and improvements, which he admitted were necessary, had been introduced into the system. In short, he felt convinced the system would work if it only got a fair trial, instead of the whole thing being thrown every year into a state of confusion. With respect to the Provinces, and especially the cases of Manchester and Liverpool, he had no wish to conceal that the state of things was by no means satisfactory. At the same time he thought it right to say that there was a class of cases which were entirely unfit to be tried by a jury, but there were litigants and their solicitors who would insist on those cases being entered for trial. Some of the cases alluded to by the hon. and learned Baronet (Sir Eardley Wilmot) were of that description, and ought to have been referred. In the beginning of the last sittings there were 900 cases for trial by jury in Middlesex, whilst at the beginning of the present sittings there were but 800 cases, showing that some progress had been made. Admitting to some extent the existence of the evil complained of, what was the remedy? One remedy was to give a much longer time to the Assizes. But that, no doubt, would bring attendant evils. He thought if the present system were fairly tried with a few modifications—such as a few more Judges sitting at Nisi Prius, and arrangements to this effect were being made—there would be comparatively little complaint in London. It was a mistake to treat great towns like Manchester and Liverpool, where there were so many causes to be tried, just as they treated any small town where the causes were few. But what appeared to him an adequate and easy remedy would be to send three instead of two Assize Judges. One Judge should take the criminal work, and attend to it himself. A second Judge should take the Common Jury cases, and the third Judge the Special Jury cases. Parties might then at once arrange their business, and instruct their counsel, and there would be no clashing of cases. There was a good deal to be said in favour of more frequent Assizes. There were at present three Assizes at Liverpool; but they had there a Court practically of unlimited jurisdiction which sat four times a-year, where the Judge was a lawyer and a gentleman of ability, and where pressing matters might be heard. Many advocated a fourth Assize, and the subject well deserved consideration. It was said reforms were objected to because they were against the interests of the Bar; but, in his opinion, the interests of the Bar, properly understood, were the interests of the country, and for himself he must say he would not object to any reform with reference to the interests of the Bar, except so far as the interests of the Bar and the suitors were identical. He believed, however, that it was not in the interest of the public that they should localize the administration of justice too much; and they must be careful not so to alter the existing system as to incur the danger of producing that result.

said, the question raised by the hon. and learned Baronet (Sir Eardley Wilmot) was one of great importance. Trial by jury was one of the most valuable institutions of the country. Its principle was that questions of fact were to be determined on the belief of 12 men; but he must say that the principle of reference which had long existed in this country was a scandal to the administration of justice; and ought to be abolished. What was that system? A party gave a special retainer to his counsel; he got his witnesses together, who attended him at great expense to the Assize town; but after all the case was not tried because it was not convenient for the Judge to hear it, because he had to proceed to the next Assize town, or for some other reason. If the case was one that should be referred, there should be some process by which that should be known before the parties had incurred all the expense and trouble of bringing their counsel with special fees and witnesses to trial. After all, the case was referred, not to one of the Judges of the land, but to a barrister, perhaps, without much experience, who heard it day after day in London at an enormous expense. A system like that was an abuse and a scandal to the administration of justice, and it would be better if those cases were placed before men of experience and of ability, but those were the very men who had been retained in cases, and therefore were unable to sit either as Judges or arbitrators. A great difficulty had arisen from the Judicature Act. Pleading had been thrown aside; questions of fact and law were so mixed that the Judge had to pick out the issue. That was a great evil, and he did not know where it would end. It would not be worked out in our time, but it showed that some system lay ahead. The system of administration of justice at the Assizes must be changed. He had no doubt that the time was approaching when there must be a system of local Courts in the great centres of industry and manufactures, such as Liverpool and Manchester, and that more time must be given, in the shape of local Assizes, to decide the questions which arose in those centres.

said, that the improvements effected in the Courts in London had not extended to Lancashire in any degree, because the recommendations of the Judicature Commission had not been carried into effect. That Commission recommended that there should be at least four Commissions of Assize in Lancashire, and the present Lord Chancellor refused to sign the Report, because he did not consider that it provided sufficiently for the immense amount of work to be done. The way in which cases had been referred after all the expense to which suitors had gone was a downright scandal, and the number of references had certainly not diminished. On the contrary, it had increased. The public in Lancashire felt this system to be a real grievance, and they hoped the Government would take some measures to abate the nuisance.

, as representing the largest commercial district after Lancashire, desired to endorse what had been said on this subject by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Rathbone). Yorkshire had not felt the benefit of the improvements effected by the Judicature Act any more than Lancashire, and nothing that he knew had caused greater dissatisfaction than the state of things, now almost chronic, which prevailed over the North of England. These who came before Commissioners, as distinguished from Judges, were not satisfied, and could not be expected to be satisfied, with what was done. It was useless to expect that they could actually carry out the Judicature of the High Court of this country, unless they had more Judge power. If anyone, however eminent, not appointed a Judge, were nominated to act, some one would be dissatisfied. That dissatisfaction would be expressed, either with the judgment, with the summing up, or something else, and the case would almost certainly appear in the appeal list in London, where it was very difficult to prognosticate at what time it would be heard. That was a state of things which, in the interests of justice and of the reputation of the Bench, ought not, in his opinion, to be allowed to exist any longer. He would support any reasonable proposition that would afford facilities to the suitors.

said, the effect of the proposal of the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for South Warwickshire (Sir Eardley Wilmot), to increase the jurisdiction of the County Courts, of the Recorder's Court, and the quarter sessions, and to establish a local Court for Liverpool and Manchester would be to undermine the existing Circuit system, and gradually to get rid of it altogether. The suggestion as to Liverpool and Manchester would involve the appointment of an extra Judge, and for his own part he protested against an increase of Judges for the sake of Lancashire at the expense of other parts of the country. Practically, the proposal was to do away gradually with the Circuits, and to establish local Courts on the French system—a change for which he could perceive no solid reason. He thought the Business of the country might be done without any material alteration of the Circuit system. The difficulties might, to a great extent, be overcome by an increase of the existing judicial force; but he thought that something might be gained also by a better arrangement of the Circuits and by grouping together some of the smaller counties for Assize purposes. Provision should also be made for the trial of cases in the district within which the cause of action arose, so that it might not be left to chance whether an action should be tried in one part of the country or in another. The principle of local venues should be adopted, and the place of trial should not be changed except for good cause. Such provisions would tend to spread the business over the whole country, and prevent the accumulation of business in London which had been found so detrimental to the suitors.

felt sure that it was very profitable to consider how far the whole system had been affected by recent changes. He was very hopeful as to their utility. No doubt, the fact that they were reforms which at the outset cast new burdens and new duties upon the Judges had caused seine little difficulty, but a great step had been taken and the reforms had been accepted by the Judges with a complete desire of giving effect to the intentions of the Legislature. Very great results had already been obtained, and the Appellate system of the House of Lords had worked most beneficially. Formerly a delay of two or three years before cases could be heard was not uncommon, but that disadvantage had been removed, and the interval of delay before the appeal was now not more than a few weeks. The system, he thought, was very satisfactory. Although these appeals had increased in number and importance, there was a satisfactory account of them, and the final Court of Appeal, the House of Lords, had been relieved from much of the burden cast upon it. A suitor could now have his case heard both in the intermediate Court of Appeal and in the House of Lords within a comparatively short period of time before Judges who were fully capable to deter- mine his case with great discrimination. Considering the short time these tribunals had been in existence, that result ought to be very satisfactory to the public. There might be some complaints yet that had a good foundation, but such complaints must inevitably arise when a new system was commenced. A good deal of inconvenience had arisen from the existing defective accommodation in the Courts, but, notwithstanding such drawbacks, considerable progress had been made in the different Courts; and there was reason for anticipating that when the changes which had been effected had had some further trial, the difficulties that had to be encountered would be dealt with as satisfactorily as cases had been dealt with in our Courts of Appeal. The principal difficulties were experienced in regard to the Chancery causes and the trials at Nisi Prius. It might be that we should have to consider whether it was not necessary that an addition should be made to our judicial Staff. If it should be necessary to appeal to the House, he was sure that, supported by public opinion in its determination, it would not grudge an addition to our judicial Staff. It would be a poor and weak economy in this great commercial country if there should not be found for suitors a sufficient judicial Staff to try cases. But much would depend on the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Some economy might be effected in our judicial arrangements. The four gentlemen who had been appointed Official Referees cost the country £6,800 a-year. It appeared from a Return in the Library that in 12 months they had tried 45 cases between them, and that one gentleman—to whom he did not wish to refer, for he was not going back to the question which was discussed last year as to the appointment of Official Referees—during 365 days had devoted himself to the purposes of his office for 80 hours. Allowing six hours for each day he sat for that purpose, that would make 13 days. The system of Official Referees was originally instituted in order that persons who had special knowledge—such as chemists and persons of that description—might sit as assessors and hear certain cases. That system had been tried for 12 months. The public did not choose to go before these assessors. They did not go before them 'unless they were compelled by a Judge, and the fact was the Judges sent them a little work to do. But what they wanted was more Judges. The Prisons Bill now being passed through Parliament would show that they required more judicial strength, and he thought some economy might be found in the direction of the £6,800 paid to these Official Referees, who between them had tried only 45 cases in 12 months. That sum would pay the expenses of clerks to do work in Chambers under the direction of a Vice Chancellor, and would also pay the salary of an additional Judge to try cases in Lancashire and other commercial centres. That increase in the judicial Staff would remedy an admitted evil, for the House had recognized the justice of bringing accused persons to trial as speedily as possible, instead of detaining them in gaol for several months until the Judges went on Circuit. Another direction in which they might look for some relief was the Privy Council. The Admiralty appeals had been taken from the Privy Council, and Ecclesiastical matters which used to go before it also to a great extent now went to the Court of Arches; and it being proved already that our Courts of Appeal were sufficient to meet the demands on them, he trusted that as the Members of the Judicial Committee passed away, the Primary Courts would receive such additional strength as they required, and that before long our judicial Staff would be able to meet all the necessities of the public.

said, that as the subject had been so thoroughly discussed, he should not occupy the time of the House at any great length. He could not agree with the hon. Baronet the Member for Wexford (Sir George Bowyer) in his ecstatic admiration of the ancient system of pleading, nor in his sweeping condemnation of the Judicature Act. Indeed, he had always thought that the old system of pleading was an impediment to the administration of justice. It was a highly artificial system, no doubt, and it had some excellent characteristics, but it certainly did not secure the most expeditious administration of justice. With regard to the Judicature Act, he agreed with those hon. Members who thought that very great good had been effected by it. It had rendered our system of pleading more symmetrical, more harmonious, and more reasonable; and if no advantage had been secured by the Judicature Act beyond the great improvement it had introduced into our Appellate system, it would have done excellent service. But he believed that other important advantages had been secured by that Act—advantages which would be seen before long when the Act had had more time to work. He quite concurred with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) that the Judges had earnestly and honestly endeavoured to carry out the provisions of that Act. It was very difficult all at once to get into working order an entirely new system or rule. As to the load of business which, as the hon. and learned Baronet who had brought forward that question (Sir Eardley Wilmot) stated, burdened the High Court of Justice, no doubt it was very considerable; but he thought there had been a good deal of exaggeration on the matter. With respect to the block of business which had occurred in the Nisi Prius cases and in the Chancery Division, the figures contained in the Returns on the subject were taken at the end of the Recess and when the Courts had not been sitting for a period; and from those figures he did not think they could come to the conclusion that the number of cases standing for decision in Banco was at all considerable. No doubt the number standing for decision in the Chancery Division was very considerable. But a remedy had now been applied, and the Government had in the course of the Session agreed to the appointment of an additional Judge (Mr. Justice Fry) for the disposal of those cases in Chancery. That Judge was a Judge of the greatest ability; his appointment had given the greatest satisfaction to the Profession and the public, and by his aid those arrears would, he believed, speedily disappear. The experiment had been made of appointing him at first without a Staff; but, of course, if it became essential that he should have a Staff, he must have one. As to what the hon. and learned. Member for Taunton had said about the Official Referees, no doubt the system of appointing them had not so far proved successful. It was generally thought when the Judicature Act was introduced by the late Government, that there ought to be some tribunal before whom, if necessary, the Judges should be able to send various points arising in the course of actions, which embraced more numerous questions than they formerly did. That system seemed to be approved, and Official Referees were appointed; but a Return which had been laid on the Table of the House showed that these gentlemen had not been overburdened with work. This, however, was no fault of the Referees themselves, but resulted from the fact that the suitors did not care to have their eases decided by them. At the time when it was proposed to appoint these Referees, considerable objection was raised to the scheme in the House; and it was afterwards found that the system was somewhat costly, and that it was intended to be made self-supporting, and the fees were somewhat heavy in consequence, and had created a considerable amount of dissatisfaction. The Treasury, however, had assented to lower fees being charged for the services of the Referees, and it was possible that they might in future meet with more approval, As to the block of legal business which existed in the large commercial centres, it arose from the delay which necessarily occurred in the disposal of Nisi Prius causes in the London Courts. If these causes could be cleared out of the way, it was obvious that more Judges would be available for the business which was in arrear in the country, and he saw no reason why this end should not be attained by allowing Judges to try such causes singly, as was done by the Vice Chancellors in the Equity Courts. He also thought time would be saved, to the extent of one-half, by the more extensive employment of shorthand writers in Nisi Prius causes, instead of compelling the Judges to take their own notes slowly and laboriously in long-hand. He could not agree with the observation of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone), that the advantages of the Judicature Act had not made themselves apparent in Manchester and Liverpool. It might be that in those places the trial of Nisi Prius causes was not facilitated; but it should not be forgotten that points of law were decided much quicker than formerly, new trials were more speedily obtained, and a more satisfactory and speedy appeal was brought about. What were the remedies which it was proposed to apply? Something had been said about Commissioners; but suitors expected to have their causes tried by the Superior Judges of the land, and they had a right to have them so tried. To his mind it was very unsatisfactory to have them tried by Commissioners. A suggestion had been referred to, that while the civil cases were left to the ordinary Judges, the criminal cases might be tried by Commissioners; but it seemed to him of great importance that the criminal business should be dealt with by the regular Judges, in so far as it came within their jurisdiction, and that there would be serious distrust felt if that was not done. The true remedy for the evil which existed, and which he owned was of considerable magnitude, particularly in Manchester and Liverpool, and perhaps other large places, was that which had been pointed to by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Herschell). More Judges ought to go to those places—three, perhaps, instead of two—and if that was done he believed it would be a complete remedy for the evil complained of.

said, he wished to add his testimony to the satisfactory working on the whole of the Judicature Act. No doubt in working new machinery some hitches had occurred, but everybody, Judges, counsel, and solicitors, were becoming more at ease, and were setting to their new duties with a determination to secure the success of the Act. In the Chancery Division he could say of his own knowledge that much of the delay complained of had been caused by the novel introduction of Nisi Prius trials into that Court. But the main reason for these arrears was the great increase of litigation, and the probability was it would continue to increase. It was difficult to see how this could be met. Just in proportion as they gave greater facilities for hearing and settling suits, the number of causes would increase. In the Chancery Division that had been the case already, and he anticipated a continuation of that pressure, as long as all cases in that Division had to be heard in London. He did not mean that litigation was not expensive. On the contrary, the cost was too high, and, in his opinion, the evil which pressed on suitors was not so much that of delay as that of expense. To the Chancery Division witnesses were now brought from all parts of the Kingdom for the purpose of vivâ voce examination, and the expense of keeping them in London was a very serious matter. Sooner or later it would be found, he believed, that the country would not submit to it. No doubt in the other Divisions of the Court the same evil was more or less felt. The present system with its elaborate machinery and its highly-finished accuracy, with its refined pleadings and its numerous appeals, had approached to a logical perfection, and to those who could afford to resort to it secured a highly satisfactory result; but it could not, at the same time, be denied that it pressed very hardly on those who, being poor, could not either assert or defend their rights except at a cost out of all proportion to what was gained. At some time or other a remedy must be found —either by an extension, as suggested by the hon. and learned Member for South Warwickshire (Sir Eardley Wilmot), of the jurisdiction of the County Courts, or in some other way—for an evil which had increased, was increasing, and ought to be diminished. At present, however, public opinion was not ripe for the adoption of such a remedy.

, in rising to call attention to what he considered to be the faulty arrangements in connection with the postal service in certain districts in Ireland, said, that in that country many of the routes of postal communication run from East to West by main roads and railways. In order to keep up the proper work of communication there were cross-country posts, and it was respecting the inefficiency of these that he wished to complain. He knew of cases in which a letter to go four or five miles had to make a circuit of 50 or 60 miles, and there was a tract of agricultural country 57 miles in extent which was totally unprovided with postal facilities. He hoped these representations would elicit a reply from the noble Lord the Postmaster General.

, from his own personal experience, supported what had been said as to the inconvenience resulting from the defective postal arrangements. In one instance a letter from Dublin had occupied six weeks in travelling a distance of 123 miles.

said, he could assure hon. Members from Ireland that complaints as to the deficiency of postal and telegraphic communication were not confined to that country alone. The postal arrangements in Nottinghamshire were extremely unsatisfactory, and he thought it was necessary that there should be greater expedition in the postal and telegraph communication throughout the country.

urged upon the Government the absolute necessity of improving the postal and telegraphic communication in the West of Ireland. He would call the attention of the noble Lord the Postmaster General to a suggestion that had been made that those places where telegraphic communication was deficient should, in the first instance, provide the poles and wires, and must observe that such a condition would be a great hardship upon the inhabitants.

gave instances of the unsatisfactory postal and telegraphic arrangements in different parts of the county Limerick, and expressed a hope that a general inquiry would be instituted with regard to postal communication in Ireland.

said, he must remind the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Captain Nolan) that on two or three occasions he had gone fully into the question in the House, and that he had further expressed his willingness to consider the matter with him outside the House. The Notice of the hon. and gallant Member was to draw attention to the faulty postal arrangements "in certain parts of Ireland," and how could he expect an offhand answer to so indefinite a Notice? When a detailed account was laid before him, inquiries would be made, and a remedy applied, to remove the want of a proper postal communication. [Captain NOLAN said, that the complaint had reference to the north of Galway.] The proposal made by the hon. and gallant Member last year was in effect that one mail car should be taken off and another put on a different line, but that proposal had been carefully considered, and it was found that the proposed change would not benefit the district, while it would involve increased costs over and above the dead loss to the Department arising from the present arrangement. The postal system in Scotland was, as regarded cross posts, exactly similar to that in Ireland, and yet no Scotch Member complained of it. However, if the names of the places referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway and the hon. Member for the county of Limerick were sent to him, he should be glad to go into all the complaints, and, if possible, to provide a remedy, but he must have ample time for consideration.

thought if a little more attention were given by the Postmaster General to the postal arrangements in the West and South of Ireland, the results would be satisfactory to the Revenue. He also had to complain of the present system of making appointments to local post offices in Ireland, the patronage being practically given to the Members of Parliament representing the county in which the office was situate, provided he belonged to the Party which was in power.

stated it was his intention to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the whole matter, especially after what they had heard from the hon. and gallant Member for Leitrim (Captain O'Beirne) that a letter took six weeks to travel a distance of 123 miles.

knew that a letter posted in one town in the county Roscommon could not be delivered in another town five miles distant before the second day. He hoped the Government would grant the facilities of postal communication asked for.

rose to call attention to the Petition of John De Morgan, praying to be heard at the Bar of the House; and to move the following Resolution:—

"That there be laid before this House, a Return of the expenditure in relation to the Tichborne prosecution, specifying separately the sums paid and expended on account thereof, as was done in the case of the Welsh fasting girl, and especially the sums paid to or expended in respect of such persons as were subpœnaed or retained as witnesses on the part of the prosecution but were not called upon to give evidence on the trial, with their names and addresses, and the sums paid to or expended in respect of each person."

No satisfactory account had been given of the expenditure at that trial, and if they wished to calm the agitation out-of-doors, that account should be faithfully rendered. What was the amount paid for witnesses not called? Dr. Kenealy did not call some of them, because he believed they were in the pay of the Government. There were millions of people in the country now who believed that the claimant was the real Tichborne. The Petitions which had been presented to the House showed the Petitioners believed there had been gross corruption and injustice on the part of the Judges who tried the case, and he was prepared to the best of his judgment to prove that there was ample ground for the complaint. ["Oh, oh!"]

desired to ask Mr. Speaker, whether the hon. Member was in Order in making such observations, the Notice on the Paper being for a Return of expenses?

said, that the Question before the House was that the House should go into Committee of Supply, a Question on which great latitude was allowed, but the hon. Member was very severely trenching on the privileges allowed to Members, and taxing the patience of the House. Although the hon. Member was not, strictly speaking, out of Order, yet it was unbecoming to charge the Judges with improper conduct, as he had done, for if he desired to challenge their conduct his proper course was to move an Address to the Crown for their removal.

, amid great interruption, continued, that he was about to accept the challenge that had been made to him to test the feeling of a public meeting in Birmingham as to this "atrocious conspiracy." The question the House of Commons had to decide was whether the Home Secretary should or should not grant those Returns. He wanted to know how the money had been expended. The particulars of the expenditure were necessary, because, as he understood, the right hon. Gentleman objected to receive any other evidence than that which was laid before the Court. Here was the letter of one of the jurymen who tried the case, in which he stated that he had been deceived, and that he as well as others desired the information asked for, the names and addresses, and where they could be found, of the witnesses subpœnaed on the part of the Crown to give evidence against the defendant, and who subsequently turned their backs and refused to do so, stating that in the person of the accused, represented as Orton, they recognized Tichborne. These persons had been sent away. If he could not prove these facts, then he should give up his case. That case he rested on the miscarriage of justice. Let the Government give a statement of the expenditure in that trial. That was a reasonable request. The conduct of the Government and of the trial was indefensible. The poor man was even prevented by the Judges to go about to meetings, and to obtain, by a statement of his case, to get even a few pounds to aid him in his difficulties. The vast amount of the public money expended in paying adverse witnesses was to be decried as most unjustly misapplied. He would ask the Government whether they were doing their duty in the cause of order in exercising their mechanical majority, who followed them, without regard to their conscience? ["Order, order!"]

said, the hon. Gentleman was not justified in saying that hon. Members did not act according to their conscience.

expressed his regret that he had so expressed himself, and read a letter from one of the jurors who conscientiously declared his feeling of regret for the decision he had come to. He also called attention to what he alleged as facts—the Government having kept Charles Orton, the alleged brother of the Claimant, two years at the public expense, and their having failed to call him on the trial. What he asked was that the Government should give an account of the money expended in the trial.

deeply regretted that the hon. Member should have taken advantage of the Privilege of the House to speak in the way he had of Her Majesty's Judges.

said, the hon. Member had made a long speech and imputed corrupt motives to those who had faithfully discharged their duty.

rose to Order. He had not said anything of the kind; he had only referred to the Petitions, and had expressed his readiness to support their demand for inquiry.

said, the hon. Member had, in the recollection of the House, charged Mr. Gray, the late Solicitor to the Treasury, and others with corrupt motives and with acting carelessly.

again rose to contradict the statement.

said, emphatically, that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury was in possession of the House, and must be allowed to proceed to the end of his speech without interruption.

said, the accounts of the expenditure were prepared by the late Solicitor to the Treasury, and had been audited and presented to the House. He deprecated these constant appeals to the House to re-try a case which had already been disposed of by a Judge and jury, and added that there was a limit even to the time, patience, and endurance of the House. It was again his duty to refuse this application, which, with the one exception of the Welsh fasting girl, was without precedent.