I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to a correspondence between Mr. H. S. Salt, Honorary Secretary of the Humane League, and the Commissioner of Police, with respect to the ill-usage, overloading, and unnecessary flogging of horses in the streets of London; whether he will consider the propriety of suggesting to the Commissioner of Police the necessity of issuing more precise and stringent instructions, urging the police by their personal authority to put an end to the common practice of overloading and ill-using horses in London; whether he is aware that in Manchester, Leeds, Huddersfield, Liverpool, Wolverhampton, Nottingham, Cardiff, Bradford, and other towns, the police have orders to intervene, and do intervene, in cases of cruelty; and whether a similar practice might be adopted in the Metropolis?

The only powers which the Metropolitan Police have with regard to the ill-treatment of animals are those conferred by the Cruelty to Animals Act of 1849; and I have no ground for supposing that they are remiss in exercising them. In 1894 1,382 persons were apprehended, and 349 summoned, by the Metropolitan Police for cruelty to animals, while the total number of persons apprehended in the same year throughout England and Wales was 2,863. Further, the number of prosecutions under the Act in the Metropolitan Police district in 1894 was 2,817; in the eight boroughs referred to by the hon. Member, 1,530; in the whole of England and Wales, 12,769. These figures do not appear to me to point to the necessity of additional or more stringent instructions being given to the Force.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether instructions will be given to commanding officers to refrain from punishing or reprimanding, as in some recent instances, soldiers who think fit to wear the shamrock on St. Patrick's Day?

General officers commanding districts were instructed in 1893 that the grant of permission to wear a national or other emblem or badge on the occasion of anniversaries was to be left to the direction of officers commanding units. It is not thought necessary to issue further orders on the subject.

asked whether the hon. Gentleman was aware that in 1892 a soldier named O'Grady was sentenced to 48 hours' imprisonment by the commanding officer at Aldershot for wearing the shamrock on St. Patrick's Day?

said, there was no desire to interfere with the discretion of the commanding officer in such matters.

May the men wear the shamrock, then?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what Indian troops have been engaged in military operations in the neighbourhood of Mombasa, under the command of Captain Barratt, 1st Sikhs, and Lieutenant Scott, 3rd Sikhs; who has directed in chief the military operations on the east coast of Africa; whether, in the course of the present year, fighting has been going on in the suburbs of Mombasa itself; and whether the fighting in the immediate neighbourhood of Mombasa and the recent hostility of the Masai tribe have delayed the construction of the Uganda Railway?

The Indian troops in question are Punjaubi Mussulman or Pathan Volunteers from Indian regiments, 300 in number, who belong to the regular police force of the Protectorate. Major Hatch is the officer in chief command. The missionary station at Frere Town was attacked on January 21 by marauders who were repulsed by the native guard without loss to the latter. The construction of the railway has not been interfered with.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education (1) if, in calculating the population within two miles, for the purpose of making special grants to schools for small populations under Section 10 of the Elementary Education Act, 1876, and Article 104 of the Code, the Department have power to exclude residents within the two miles limit, for whom accommodation is provided by other schools more conveniently situated for them, or who are within other school districts than that for the accommodation of which such small schools have been built; (2) if he is aware that considerable hardship is caused to managers of different schools ordered by the Department to be built to supply the educational requirements of outlying parts of school districts, and which would otherwise be eligible for the special grant to schools for small populations, by the practice of including within the two miles limit residents in other school districts or for whose education other schools are more conveniently situated, and who, in fact, make no use of the additional school accommodation provided by order of the Department; (3) if he can state how many schools for small populations are for this reason considered ineligible for the special grant; and (4), if he will take steps to redress this hardship by giving the inspectors power to recommend that in the case of any school built in pursuance of the order of the Department such population shall not be included within the two mile limit as is within another school district, and in their opinion is better provided for by some other public elementary school?

The Committee of Council not only have power, but are bound, by the terms of the section, to include the whole population within two miles of the school in every direction; and the suggestions of the hon. Member could not be carried out except by an alteration of the law. Some schools are, no doubt, in the situation described in paragraph 2 of the Question, but I am unable to say how many.

On behalf the hon. Member for Canterbury, Mr. HENNIKER HEATON, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the present regulations in the "Post Office Guide" for the conveyance of single letters by railway; whether, until letter-post boxes are provided in all through trains, he will abolish all the present regulations, and permit railway guards to carry letters which are properly stamped with the requisite amount of postage for a fee of 1d.; whether, of the 2d. now demanded, in addition to postage, on each letter brought to a railway station for transmission by train, any portion goes to the Government; and, if he can give the date when the present system of exacting 2d. on each letter, in addition to the stamp, was brought into operation?

The Postmaster General is, of course, aware of the regulations for the conveyance of single post letters by railway. Those regulations were framed after negotiation with the railway companies, with a view to provide for a special class of correspondence, and the Postmaster General has no power to reduce the special fee, the whole of which is retained by the railway companies. The arrangement with the companies came into operation on the 1st February, 1891.

On behalf of Mr. HENNIKER HEATON, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any extension is contemplated in the provision of letter-boxes for attachment to through trains, to be cleared at the terminus of the journey, with a view to enable the public to post correspondence up to the latest moment, and to have it conveyed by the quickest and most direct route; and, whether, in the chief countries and colonies included in the Postal Union, letter-boxes are already provided for through trains?

Letter-boxes are attached to all trains in which travelling post offices run, and to a few other trains used for the conveyance of mails in which there is a mail guard. The question of extending the use of letter-boxes of this kind has often been considered, but, judging from the extent to which the existing letter-boxes on the principal mail trains are resorted to, the amount of correspondence which would be posted in boxes attached to ordinary trains would be trifling, and would not justify the special arrangements that would have to be made for meeting the trains and dealing with the correspondence, not only at the terminal but at intermediate stations. The Postmaster General is not aware to what extent letter-boxes are attached to ordinary passenger trains in the colonies and other countries included in the Postal Union.

On behalf of Mr. HENNIKER HEATON, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the officials of the Department have yet seen any mechanical device for preventing the theft of letters from pillar-boxes, which seems to be efficient; whether he is aware that in Germany a simple plan has been adopted for this purpose and found effectual; whether he has personally examined any models of the numerous British inventions of such mechanical checks; and, whether he can promise that after a fixed date the pillar-boxes in the United Kingdom shall no longer be left at the mercy of thieves?

The officials of the Department have not yet seen any mechanical device which would effectively prevent the abstraction of letters from street letter-boxes under all circumstances, and at the same time be free from serious objections in other respects. The Postmaster General has personally examined models of inventions submitted to the Post Office. The plan stated to be adopted in Germany is well known, and is not considered to be effective. There is still no reason to suppose that thefts from street letter-boxes are anything but rare.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether any representations have reached him in favour of extending the Exchequer contribution of 4s. per head, in respect of pauper lunatics in county asylums, to the maintenance of pauper lunatics returned to workhouse wards after curative treatment; and whether he will carefully consider the feasibility of making the necessary alteration in the law with this object in view?

I have received a large number of communications in favour of a grant being made by the County Councils in respect of certain classes of pauper lunatics maintained in workhouses, and the subject is receiving my consideration.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to a pamphlet recently published by the master of the Faringdon Workhouse, in which he describes certain grave abuses under the head of tramping pensioners and short service men; and whether, having regard to the serious increase of vagrancy throughout the country, and to the fact that in the counties of Berks, Bucks, Oxon, and Warwick, it is shown, at pp. 26 and 27 of the Local Government Board Report, 1894–5, to have increased 256 per cent. in the 10 years, 1883–94, he will consult the proper military authority as to the possibility of protecting discharged soldiers and pensioners from the temptations to which they are exposed on leaving the Army under the present system of deferred pay and the quarterly payment of pensions.

I had not seen the pamphlet referred to prior to the notice given by my hon. Friend of his Question. I will bring under the attention of the Secretary of State for War the statements which it contains with regard to the relief, as vagrants, of discharged soldiers and pensioners.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the junction between the Oban Railway and West Highland Railway at Crianlarich, though completed for some months, is closed by interdict to the great inconvenience of the public, and that goods have to be carted from one station to another; and whether he will take steps to have communication opened forthwith?

The Board of Trade cannot interfere in this matter. Certain additional land is required to enable the company to make the junction available for traffic and the company have applied to Parliament for powers to acquire it.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) if he can state how much per annum the police hut of Dromod, South Monaghan, costs the State; (2) what is the valuation of the evicted farms this hut is intended to protect; (3) if he is aware that County Court Judge Orr was presented with white gloves at the assize town of the district of Castleblaney last Sessions; (4) whether he had seen the complimentary address of Judge Orr on the peaceful state of the locality; and (5) if he will take steps to have the hut removed, considering the very orderly state of the district?

The pay and allowances of the police at Dromod Hut amount to about £267 per annum, but this sum does not represent any additional cost to the State, since the services of the police there are used for general public purposes in a large surrounding area, and the reason for the quartering of the men in a hut, instead of a regular barrack, is because no suitable house is obtainable in the locality. Prior to October, 1894, the hut existed solely for the protection of the occupant of an evicted farm, the valuation of which is £18 10s. The fact is as stated in the third paragraph, and the hon. Member has been good enough to send me a newspaper report of the Judge's address referred to in the next paragraph.

asked whether it was not a fact that there were no police at that particular place until the eviction took place; whether it was not true they were put there for protection duty, and whether that was not an extra charge on the district?

said they were put there at first for protection purposes, and were retained for general purposes.

Raise the question on the Estimates.

In the absence of the hon. Member for Central Sheffield (Sir HOWARD VINCENT), I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware that of all Metropolitan employers, many Government Departments give the least facility for Civil servants who are Volunteers to be with their regiments for the continuous training enjoined by the authorities at Easter; and, if he will, by communication with the heads of the several Ministries, endeavour to induce them to make such arrangements as may save Volunteers in the Civil employment of the Government from coming up at their own expense from distant places on the Saturday morning, and take care that an example is set in this matter by the War Office and Horse Guards?

So far as the War Department is concerned, instructions will be given to the heads of the various branches to afford, subject to the exigencies of the service, all reasonable facilities to Volunteers who may wish to serve with their corps on the Saturday before Easter. The Secretary of State will issue a circular to other public Departments inviting them to act in a similar manner.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the case of so-called town-parks in Ireland, whether he is aware of the strong feeling existing in Ireland as to the exclusion of these holdings from the benefit of the fair-rent provisions of the Land Acts; and whether, considering that the Cowper Commission recommended that, in order to exclude them, the town should have 5,000 inhabitants, and that in the Land Bill of 1887 adopted by the House of Commons it was provided that there should be no town-parks where the town did not exceed a population of 2,000 inhabitants, he will extend to the inhabitants of towns in Ireland the fair-rent provisions of the Land Acts in respect of the lands which they hold adjacent to such towns?

The question of town-parks has been considered in connection with the coming Land Bill, but it would be premature to disclose the provisions of the Bill prior to its introduction.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, if five influential firms of merchants established on the West African Gold Coast have recently sent a petition to the English and German Governments asking for a heavier duty on liquors in view of the next revision (1897) of the Convention between these two Powers; and, if so, what answer has been returned to them by Her Majesty's Government?

The petition has been received and the matter is under consideration.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether, in Scotland, churches and mission-halls, hitherto exempt from property tax, are now being assessed by the Inland Revenue authorities on the ground that they are used for purposes other than strictly Divine worship, although no profit is derived therefrom; whether he will state if this be the reason for their present assessment; and, if he will favourably consider an amendment, either in law or practice, to permit of their exemption from payment of this tax, as formerly?

Churches are never assessed to Income Tax, and the same is the case with buildings used exclusively for Divine worship. But where the building is not so exclusively used, the mere fact that Divine worship is occasionally held there has not been considered as exempting it from assessment. The Tax under Schedule A of the Income Tax Acts is a property tax, and the liability to it does not depend on profit being made from the property. There has been no change of practice, as the hon. Member seems to suggest. It is of course possible that in particular instances buildings formerly exempt have recently been charged owing to some change in the circumstances. If the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of any such case I will inquire into it.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether his attention has been called to the case of No. 4,443, Private Benjamin Ball, aged 62 years, who served 9 years 262 days in the Rifle Brigade, of which he spent 1 month at Malta, 13 months in the Crimea, including siege of Sevastopol, and 2½ years in British North America, being eventually discharged as unfit for further service, and only received 6d. a day for 2½ years; that, having endeavoured to earn a livelihood since his discharge, he is now certified as being totally incapacitated from earning a livelihood, owing to chronic bronchitis and lung disease; and that he has been refused any compassionate allowance on the ground that he did not complete the necessary period of ten years' service; whether it was through the exigencies of the Service and not his own fault that he did not do so; and whether the Government will consider the advisability of considering this and all such cases on their merits, irrespective of the length of service?

This case has not been brought before the Treasury. The matter is one primarily for the consideration of the War Office.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to a letter of District Inspector Sharpe, of Piltown, bearing date 22nd February, 1896, which was published in the Dublin Journal of the 7th instant, and from which it appears that a man named John Egan, who died suddenly while in the custody of the police in Mullinavat on the 4th of April, 1875, had in his possession 1s. 3d., which was retained by the police authorities until it was handed to the deceased man's relatives by Inspector Sharpe on the 22nd ultimo; whether he can explain how this property was held by the police for 20 years; and is it usual for the police to hold for like periods large amounts of personal property which may come into their possession under similar circumstances; or what is the police Regulation in such cases?

The sum mentioned was handed over, not to the relatives of the deceased, but to the Board of Guardians, at whose expense he was interred, as it was considered they had the best claim to the sum under the circumstances. Had the Guardians claimed payment of the money, it would no doubt have been handed over to them long ago. The police are not in the habit of retaining such moneys, be they of large or small amount, except in the absence of claimants or of persons who have a legal right to receive them. The sum of 1s. 3d. referred to in this Question has all along been placed to the credit of the public account of the Inspector General.

Why was not the interest handed over?

I do not think there was any legal claim.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether his Dispatch of 14th February to President Kruger has been received; and, whether any reply has been received; and, if so, if it is consistent with public interests, will he give the tenor of that reply?

No reply has yet been received?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, how much money has been spent by the Congested Districts Board in the county of Donegal up to the present, distinguishing the amount spent in each barony?

This Question has been referred to the Congested Districts Board, with a request that they will, so far as possible, afford the information desired by the hon. Member. Perhaps he will repeat it on Monday next.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware of the small salaries paid to assistant teachers under the National Board in Ireland; if he will explain why they are not now paid according to their classification, notwithstanding that their teaching duties are the same as performed by principal teachers; and, if he will favourably consider the matter in connection with the Vote for National School Teachers in Ireland?

I am aware of the remuneration received by assistant teachers in ordinary National Schools, and of the different sources from which it is paid. The average incomes of assistants, according to the latest Returns available, are, in the case of male assistants, £62 14s. 8d., of which only £2 7s. 3d. is locally contributed, and in the case of female assistants £50 18s. 9d., of which only £2 2s. 8d. is locally contributed. It is not, I am informed, the fact that assistants discharge the same round of duties as principals, neither have they the same responsibilities cast upon them. The position and duties of assistants are quite subordinate to those of principals, and the difference is signified by the difference of relative incomes. Upon the information at present before me I see no reason for reconsidering the question of the income of assistant teachers.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, what is the contract price of oats now paid by the Government for the supply of the mounted branches of the Service at Aldershot and in the Home District respectively; and, are these oats home-grown or imported?

As has been previously stated in the House in reference to the supply of forage, it is not usual to disclose contract prices. As regards Aldershot, oats are bought in the London market. They have been mostly Russian oats of good quality, averaging 42 7/100; lbs. per bushel. English oats have averaged 40 lbs. per bushel. For the Home District oats are not obtained separately from other forage, all being included in one contract. The place of origin of the oats is not known in this case. As I have already informed the House, the whole question of the supply of forage to the Army is under consideration.

asked if Irish contractors were given an opportunity of tendering for large contracts for great military centres in England.

said there was nothing to prevent a contractor in any part tendering for the supply of forage. Of course the question of carriage arose, and it was a serious consideration.

inquired if there were any means of differentiating between foreign and home-grown oats, as oats could not well be stamped grown in Germany or grown in Russia.

asked if advertisements for tenders were inserted in Irish newspapers.

That question does not arise out of that on the Paper.

believed there was a difference between home and foreign grown oats, which could be detected by those acquainted with the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware that it is contrary to the practice of the Post Office to take note of requests clearly printed on the address side of envelopes for the early return to the senders of undeliverable correspondence orginating abroad; and, whether he will take steps to see that such letters are promptly returned to the senders.

Letters from abroad which cannot be delivered are retained in the Returned Letter Office for a week or a month, according to the distance of the countries of origin; and as letters so retained are frequently applied for by the addressees, it is believed that the rule, on the whole, is a convenient one. Letters bearing such requests as the hon. Member mentions are returned unopened to the country of origin. As, indeed, in this country the addressee, and not the addressor, is regarded as the rightful claimant of a letter, it follows that any request of the addressor must be disregarded till the addressee has had every opportunity which the Regulations afford him of claiming the letter.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate—(1) if he can state how many of the 53 spoiled ballot papers at the recent election for the Montrose Burghs were not spoiled by the voters but by the neglect of the polling sheriffs in failing to stamp the papers; (2) where the neglect occurred; and (3) whether any notice has been taken of it with the view of preventing its recurrence?

I would refer the hon. Member to Part I of the First Schedule of the Ballot Act, which prescribes the rules under which alone the information asked for can be obtained. The answer to the last paragraph is in the affirmative.

In the absence of Sir HOWARD VINCENT, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, if the reference to the Select Committee on Stationery Contracts and their conformity to the Fair Wages Resolution of 1891 was intended to be confined to the contracts for printing and binding only, to the exclusion of the larger contracts for papers, pens, pencils, and other articles of stationery alleged to be largely obtained from abroad; and, in such case, if the Inquiry can be extended?

Two successive Committees have already been appointed under the present reference, and it is, therefore, too late to alter it. The question of its interpretation is one for the Chairman to decide.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he can say what class of detaching safety hooks were in use at West Leigh Colliery, where an unfortunate accident, resulting in the loss of eight lives, recently occurred; whether he is aware that it was stated at the inquest that the hooks had been in use three years, and had never been taken off for the purpose of examination and cleaning during that time; whether general Rule 5 of the Mines Regulation Act, which makes imperative the examination once at least in 24 hours of the state of the head gear, ropes, chains, and other similar appliances of the mine, had been carried out at this colliery; and, whether any reason can be assigned why the hooks did not come into operation to prevent the sad accident which took place?

I am informed that the detaching hook was that known as Bryham's. It was stated in evidence at the inquest that the hook had been in use for three years, but was scraped and wiped three months before the accident took place. It seems, however, that the accident was not due to any fault in the hook, which is designed to prevent accidents from over-winding, and which acted properly, but to the fact that the engine was started wrongly, with the result that the cage was raised instead of lowered, became unloosed through the operation of the detaching hook, and, as the safety catches failed to act, fell to the bottom of the pit. The catches appear to have been examined daily by the banksman to see if they were free, but subsequent examination showed that they had not been fixed so as to be effective. I understand that the owners of the mine intend to adopt a safety hook which does not depend on catches. I have asked the Inspectors of Mines to consider, at their annual meeting next month, what can be done to prevent similar accidents in future.

asked the right hon. Gentleman, whether he would intimate to his inspectors the possibility of inquiring in this, as in many other cases, whether the engine driver had duties other than looking after the engine at the time of the accident?

said he would make inquiry.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether Junior Captains of the Royal Navy receive only 12s. 6d. a day half-pay, while officers considerably junior to them in rank receive 16s. to £1 5s.; and, should this be the case, on what principle the difference is based?

The rates of half-pay as well as of full pay of Captains are governed by their seniority on the List, and range from 12s. 6d. to 16s. 6d. a day. Half-pay is not regulated in any way by relative rank, but by the merits of the case, depending upon such considerations as the relation of the rank, in which the half-pay is payable, to the highest rank open to the recipient. It is, therefore, quite possible that Junior Captains in the Navy may be in receipt of half-pay at a lower rate than other officers who have attained more nearly to the highest rank open to them, but whose relative rank may be junior.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the required pier and harbour works at Newcastle, County Down, whether he is aware of the very poor districts inhabited by small farmers and agricultural labourers running from Newcastle along either side of the Mourne Mountains; and, whether, considering the inability of the inhabitants of the adjoining districts to bear any additional taxation, and the necessity for the harbour works, he will now state whether the Treasury will advance the amount required to construct there such works as the Board of Trade recommend?

I am afraid that the Government would not be justified in asking Parliament to vote the whole of the large sum necessary for reconstructing the pier at Newcastle. The county authorities who have been so largely responsible for its ruin must assist substantially in the work of restoration; but, so far as I am aware, they are not bound to confine the cost to the neighbouring districts only.

asked the right hon. Gentleman to give a favourable consideration to the case?

In any case, I am afraid the Government would not be justified in asking Parliament to vote the whole of the large sum required for the construction of the pier.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he is aware that rioting, with loss of life, has occurred in the Island of St. Kitts; that extensive sugar-cane plantations have been deliberately destroyed by incendiary fires; and that the industry of the island is paralysed by the disturbances; whether the Administrator of the island has expressed sympathy with the rioters; and, what steps are being taken to restore order in the island and give insurance of safety to life and property?

I received from the Governor on February 19th a telegram reporting that serious riots had broken out in St. Kitts, that houses had been set on fire and looted, and that two of the rioters had been shot, and that Her Majesty's ship Cordelia was at St. Kitts. On February 21st and 25th the Governor sent further telegrams reporting that the state of affairs was quieting, and I was informed by the Admiralty on February 21st that the officer in command of the Cordelia had telegraphed that the riot had been suppressed. There has been no time for the Governor to send by Dispatch the full information which I shall receive by next mail. The presence of one of Her Majesty's ships will, doubtless, prevent any recurrence of disorder.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether it is his intention, before paying over the £10,000 recently voted by this House for public works in the Island of Dominica, to have laid before him, for his approval, a definite and comprehensive scheme for the expenditure of that amount; and, does he intend to appoint an independent and responsible officer to look after its expenditure, and to see that the work is carried out in a desirable manner?

The House has not voted £10,000 for public works in Dominica. Fifteen thousand pounds has been voted to meet outstanding liabilities on the general revenue account of the island, which amount to more than £10,000, and to cover the cost of public works urgently required to the extent of about £5,000. The particular public works have been approved by the Secretary of State, and will be carried out according to plans and estimates submitted for his approval under the local supervision of the Colonial Engineer and the Administrator of the island.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether there is a full and complete survey of the Crown lands in the Islands of St. Vincent and St. Lucia in the possession of the Colonial Office; and, if not, if he will cause such a survey to be made by a responsible and qualified officer, sent out from this country with special powers to inquire into the matter?

There is no full and complete survey of the Crown lands in the Islands of St. Vincent and St. Lucia in the possession of this office. There has been for some years past in each of these islands a department created by law for the purpose of preparing such a survey, much of which has been already effected. To take the additional steps suggested would involve an expenditure which the Colonies are not in a position to incur.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the condition of the Clongorey evicted tenants, whose late holdings are all at present in the hands of the landlord, he would be prepared to lend his co-operation in order to assist in bringing about an amicable arrangement, by which these poor people would be reinstated in their holdings in time for them to make preparations to crop the land during the coming season?

It is not in my power to intervene in a matter of this kind, but if my co-operation were invited by both parties I would gladly do what I could to promote a settlement.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he can state, even approxi mately, the date at which he hopes to introduce the proposed legislation with reference to the Irish Land Question; and whether provision will be made in the proposed legislation to ameliorate the condition of the evicted tenants?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether it is true, as stated in Saturday's newspapers, that he intends to introduce the Irish Land Bill on next Monday; and, if not, can he definitely state on what date he intends introducing the Bill, and will its introduction take place with or without explanatory speech?

I am not in a position to state the date on which the Land Bill will be introduced. When it is introduced I certainly hope to accompany it by an explanatory statement. The Bill will contain certain provisions dealing with the condition of the evicted tenants.

Will the Bill be introduced before Easter?

That will partly depend on the progress of public business.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, as the 25th March is the gale day of thousands of Irish tenants, and the commencement of the judicial abatement of rent is determined by the gale day when the originating notice is served, he will arrange that the Land Bill shall be introduced before the 25th March, so that tenants who are awaiting its provisions before serving their notices may not lose an entire half-year's reduction in their rents?

With regard to the date of the introduction of the Bill I have nothing more to say. I do not know to what class of tenants the hon. Member refers in his Question, nor how any class can be prejudiced by a few days delay in the introduction of the Bill.

There is a large class of tenants waiting for the introduction of the Bill, and if the Bill is not introduced before April they will lose half a year's gale.

I see nothing to prevent them making application before the introduction of the Bill.

Ignorance of the Bill will prevent them.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the law that provides from time to time for the inspection and examination into the administration of any hospital or infirmary, supported in part by Grand Jury presentments or Parliamentary grants, authorises the Local Government Board when making an examination of the administration of these institutions to inquire whether the public funds voted for its support are expended in accordance with the provisions of the law?

If this Question refers to the audit of accounts of County Infirmaries by the officers of the Local Government Board, I am afraid I can only repeat what I stated in reply to a previous Question of the hon. Gentleman, that the Local Government Board have carefully considered the whole matter and are clearly of opinion that as the duties and powers of their auditors are all expressly defined by Statute, and as there is no enactment in force giving them authority to deal with the accounts of County Infirmaries, an audit of these accounts could not be carried out by the Board's officers under the existing law.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, if he is able to state what places on the west coast of Scotland H.M.S. Northampton will visit during her cruise; and if he can give the time and date of visit at each port of call?

The Northampton will visit Oban from the 12th to the 15th of May next; Tobermory from the 15th to the 19th; Portree from the 20th to the 26th; Rothesay from the 28th May to the 1st of June, and Campbeltown from the 1st of June to the 9th of July. The long stay at the last named place is to allow of rifle practice being carried out there.

asked whether the Admiralty had any intention of sending the Northampton to my of the ports in Ross-shire and Sutherlandshire?

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether Her Majesty's Government have information confirming the report of the intended arrest of Mr. Cecil Rhodes by the Cape authorities or others; and whether, in view of the great interests involved, and of the serious injury caused to industry, and of the belief entertained in certain quarters that the people of Johannesburg were induced to disarm under a misunderstanding, Her Majesty's government will take steps to put an end to this period of disquiet by urging upon all responsible a general amnesty for recent events in South Africa.

I am informed that there is no truth in the statement as to the action of the Cape authorities. I have no information as to such action by any others. In reply to the second part, I have to say it appears to me that any such representations would be premature and unattended by good results at present.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very great anxiety which prevails and that serious injury is being done to large and important industries?

I cannot answer as to the anxiety of individuals, and, as to the injury to industry, I have already answered that.

And the right hon. Gentleman, agrees?

declined to answer.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, having regard to the fact that London is able, without inconvenience, to do without the delivery of letters on Sunday, he is prepared to put an end to Sunday deliveries all through the country, allowing, under proper safeguards as to identity, letters to be delivered at post offices during one hour of the morning to those who apply for them.

This question has from time to time been under the consideration of the Department; and in 1888 the then Postmaster General endeavoured to obtain some indication of public feeling upon it by inviting the Town Councils of several of the largest provincial towns in England to consider whether they were prepared to ask for the total discontinuance of the delivery and dispatch of letters on Sundays. The result was that of the eight Town Councils so invited, six—among them being Liverpool, Manchester, and Birmingham—decided by large majorities to reject the offer. Bristol declined to express an opinion, and one only—namely, Nottingham—replied in the affirmative, but only by a small majority.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the British engineers formerly in the employment of the Mala Real Portugueza Company have not yet been paid the wages amounting to several hundreds of pounds due to them at the time of the bankruptcy of that company more than three years ago; and that the late Portuguese Minister of Foreign Affairs stated nearly a year ago that he had received from the company's assets money for this purpose; and, if so, why the money has not yet been paid; what step the Government propose to take in the matter; and whether they will be willing to lay upon the Table the correspondence on the subject?

The answer to the first two Questions is in the affirmative. Her Majesty's Minister at Lisbon has continued to urge the settlement of this case on the Portuguese Government, and a Dispatch, dated the 2nd instant, has been received from him stating that three weeks ago the Portuguese Government renewed this formal engagement that the money due should be paid without delay. Her Majesty's Government cannot doubt that this assurance will be carried out, and Sir H. MacDonell will of course not lose sight of the matter. There would be no objection to laying the correspondence before the House, but it is hoped that the promised arrangement may render this unnecessary.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) if his attention has been drawn to the fact that on 5th March sheep were almost unsaleable in Dublin Market, and that some of those sold were bought in October last and sold to-day at less than was paid for them in October and loss of feeding besides, and that bullocks bought in Athy Fair on the previous day, were sold in Dublin at £2 per head less than cost price delivered in Dublin; and (2) if, in framing this Land Bill for Ireland, he will remember the low prices that prevail for cattle, sheep, horses, and farm produce?

The hon. Member has forwarded to me a newspaper report in this matter. The Land Commissioners, whom I have consulted, inform me that they have received no information as to the statements respecting repeated losses incurred in the sale of sheep purchased in October 1895, and of bullocks purchased at Athy Fair, on re-sale in the Dublin Market of the 5th instant, but it is observed that in the columns of a Dublin newspaper, several lots of sheep stated to have been bought at the October fair at 47s. each were said to have been sold in Dublin on the 5th instant at 56s. It occasionally occurs, especially at this period of the year, that sellers of fat stock find a particular market of a disappointing character, and on the whole the Commissioners understood that the market of the 5th instant was so. I replied to the second paragraph yesterday.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he will inquire into the number of prosecutions which have been instituted in Ireland during the past five years for the sale of liquors adulterated with water, and cases in which the adulterations were of a poisonous nature dangerous to public health; and, in how many cases convictions were obtained?

I informed the hon. Gentleman yesterday, in reply to a similar Question which he put to me, that I hoped to be able to give him the figures he requires in some 10 or 12 days hence. Perhaps he will be good enough to put down the Question for the 20th instant?

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, if he is in a position to inform the House what progress has been made in the matter of the proposed Royal Commission on "Tied" Houses and the Licensing Questions?

I understand that a large measure of agreement has been arrived at with regard to the terms of reference, and I cannot believe that any further difficulty will arise on that score. The Government will therefore proceed to consider how the Commission is to be composed, and I hope there will be no long delay before the Commission sets to work.

Will the matter be brought before the House in any way?

I should think that there will be no discussion in the House on the subject; but I shall be ready to state to the House what the terms of reference are.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he is aware that, in view of the great differences between the Licensing Acts in England and Scotland, and nothing having been done to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission of 1878, the advocates of temperance legislation in Scotland desire that it should not be retarded by reference to the proposed Royal Commission?

The information which I have received is not quite in harmony with the statement of the hon. Gentleman. I have received a great many applications that Scotland may be included in the reference, and I think that that will be the best course to adopt. Nor do I see that such a course can delay legislation as far as Scotland is concerned.

asked the Leader of the House whether the Employers' Liability Bill was likely to be introduced before Easter.

replied, that so much time was being taken up by discussions in Supply that he was anxious as to the time that would be available before Easter. In a few days he hoped to give a more explicit answer.

said, he wished to ask the Attorney General for Ireland a question with reference to the Bill of which he had given notice, to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Local Government Board for Ireland under the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, relating to the Urban Sanitary District of Armagh. He wished to know whether, before the hon. and learned Gentleman proceeded with the Bill—the second Bill of the kind—he would be good enough to make inquiry as to whether the Catholics were adequately represented in Armagh, and, if not, make provision in the Bill for it, Catholics forming about half the population.

said, he had communicated with the Local Government Board and the local authorities in reference to what took place before the Provisional Order was made, and he would like to defer his answer until he heard from them.

said he supposed fair notice would be given before the subject came again before the House.

signified assent.

rose to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the national museums and art galleries in London should be open for a limited number of hours on Sundays, after 2 p.m., upon condition that no officer shall be required to attend on more than six days per week, and that any who have conscientious objections shall be exempt from Sunday duty."

After presenting petitions in support of the Resolution from Aldermen and Common Councillors of the Corporation of London, the County Council, and a public meeting held at Queen's Hall on Monday night, he said the princpal obstacle he should have to contend with in this matter was a mysterious and yet actual feeling that the Resolution in some way might infringe the sanctity of the Sabbath. That was not his view. He had been told that the Church of this country was opposed to the Resolution, but he could not believe it. A committee appointed by the convocation of the Archepiscopal Diocese in which the Metropolis stood, and consisting of the Bishops of Exeter, St. Asaph, Rochester and Lichfield, the Deans of Rochester and Windsor, the Archdeacons of Buckingham, London, Kingston-on-Thames, and Birmingham, Canon Erskine Clarke, and the Rev. E. Carr Glynn, had unanimously decided that in no way would the opening of museums, art galleries, or public libraries on Sunday infringe upon the sanctity of the Sabbath which they all revered. He would make one or two quotations from the speeches of the Bishops upon the occasion when this subject came before them. The Bishop of Winchester, who was then Bishop of Rochester, said that it was stated by the opponents of the change—

"That the working classes did not really want it; that it would involve an immense increase of Sunday labour, and that it was the thin end of the wedge, and that we should soon have in England what was popularly known as a continental Sunday."

To this the Bishop replied:—

… "To me the evidence before us shows conclusively that the cause of religion has nothing really to fear from the reasonable and careful extension of the principle to which we have referred. Some of those who read the Report may think that its compilers have suppressed the evidence furnished to them by the clergy and others opposed to such Sunday Opening. On the contrary, we have endeavoured to make the most of it, and have anxiously wished for more, but we cannot obtain it. There must certainly be many who feel strongly on the subject, but they have neither replied to our circulars nor answered the appeal we made through the newspapers for the benefit of their help. I confess to have been greatly surprised by the overwhelming preponderance upon one side of the clerical opinion furnished to us. Scarcely any disapproval is expressed by anyone, and this notwithstanding our endeavours to elicit it wherever it exists. We do believe, my Lords, that the Church has nothing to fear, or rather that the deposit entrusted to her keeping will be in no way harmed if more institutions than now should be opened for a time upon Sunday."

Thus it was plain that this great leader of the Church did not fear the opening of our museums and art galleries on Sundays. Then the Bishop of Lichfield said:—

"He thought they ought to be glad to think that there were places of resort such as these for young people during their leisure hours on a Sunday. There was no portion of the community so difficult for the Church to deal with as their young people."

The Bishop of Southwell thought the the time had come—

"When they ought to express the opinion that there was nothing unholy, unsacred, or unworthy, after going to Church, in paying a visit to these different places. His own impression was that these places being opened, in themselves would not be any discredit to the spirit of Sunday. On the contrary, to many people they would be a very distinct gain."

The opening of museums on Sunday had not affected the religious tone of the towns where this change had already been introduced. Had Birmingham been affected for the worse by this opening of museums? Was there less religious fervour? Were there fewer Churchmen in that town than formerly? Was there any sign that out of the portals of the museums came any irreligious miasma or agnostic chill? If Birmingham could open its museums on Sundays without evil results, surely similar institutions could be opened in London. The people were anxious that the working classes should have the advantage of spending the Sabbath in a rational way. His Resolution was so worded that it could not possibly interfere with religious services on Sunday. His proposal was that museums should be opened from 2 to 6. Those who desired to attend service would thus have every opportunity of doing so. In old days there was very little in the way of amusement for the working classes on Sunday, but latterly there had been some progress in this matter. The parks were open, and music was played there on Sunday. In former times this would have been considered a heinous crime, but public opinion had undergone a change. One of the chief objections urged against this opening of museums was that it would cause extra labour. As a matter of fact, the extra labour caused would be infinitesimal. The authorities stated that an increase of one-third in the staffs was all that would be required if the South Kensington Museum and similar institutions were kept open on Sundays. As things stood at present, a large number of policemen and other officials were employed in museums on Sundays, and surely they would prefer to have numbers of their fellow-countrymen enjoying themselves in their company than to find themselves perambulating empty halls, melancholy and miserable. Those who were in favour of this change were sometimes taunted on the ground that they were not in sympathy with Sunday. He claimed that his Resolution was coloured with every sympathy for Sunday. It could not be said to be in any sense founded on irreligion, or to be couched in terms likely to be harmful to the morality of this country. People could not be in church all day, and in the interval between services they ought to have opportunities of rational enjoyment. At present, what was there for the working classes to do, especially on a rainy day? Were they to walk in the streets in the pelting rain? Were they to remain indoors in their miserable homes, listening to the harmony of squalling children, or were they to go to a far worse place, the drinking-shop or public-house? Would it not be far better to place another alternative in their reach, by saying "Open sesame" to the portals of our museums? The upper classes, it should be remembered, had their museums and amusements at home, and they had their clubs to go to. The working men were part proprietors of the museums, as they were taxed to support them. Why, then, should they not have the opportunity of enjoying them? They had not the opportunity of enjoying them on week-days; why, then, should they not enjoy them on Sundays? The opportunities afforded by the weekday extension in the Amendment were no opportunities at all, because a working man when he returned home tired, weary and dirty did not care to wash and dress himself in his Sunday best and go to a public institution in the evening. It was said that the working man was indifferent. He denied that this was so. He had received a petition from 109 trade unions of the metropolis, representing every imaginable trade carried on in London, and they all united in asking that reasonable concessions should be granted to them and that the museums should be open on Sunday. Advocates of Sunday opening were twitted with the fact that the opening of museums in the larger towns had not reclaimed drunkards. That was not the question. Those who might become drunkards would, if the museums were left unopened, likely be more to take to drink if they had not rational amusements to occupy them on the Sunday and to keep them from wandering through the streets into the public-houses. It was further said that the working classes did not take an interest in museums. The return of attendance at Bethnal Green Museum, in the centre of a working-class population, showed that 595,422 working men visited the museum last year, while the attendance at the more fashionable museum of South Kensington was less than half as much again. The museums on Bank Holidays were crowded by the working classes, not only of London but from a great distance. Kew and Hampton Court were also well attended, and when the great magnates of the country gave the working men an opportunity to visit museums and picture galleries the advantage was fully accepted. The attendance was large where the Duke of Westminster, the Duke of Sutherland, and the Duke of Wellington generously opened their houses on Sunday, so that their galleries might be seen by those who could not come any other day. But it was urged that the opening of museums would lead to the opening of theatres and workshops on Sunday. He denied this. There was no cry for the opening of theatres or workshops in any of the large towns in which museums had been opened. Even on the Continent workshops were being gradu- ally closed on Sunday, while the museums remained open. It was said that the working men ought to walk in the parks on Sunday. No doubt a walk in the park was enjoyable in fine weather, but when the weather was bad the only alternative for these people on a Sunday was the public house, or a return to the misery of their homes. In the Colonies and in foreign countries museums were open on Sunday, and no evil result followed. Were the churches abroad less frequented? He did not think so. The churches in Paris were more crowded than our own, and more men attended them than was the case in London. The museum and Botanical Gardens in Dublin had been open for years on Sunday, and year after year the attendance mounted by leaps and bounds. The Botanical Gardens in Edinburgh had also shown a very large increase in the attendance on Sunday. If the movement was not a success then let the museums be closed. He believed, however, that the moment for opening museums on Sunday would be a vast success, and working men would thank the House for the opportunity afforded to them for rational amusement on that day. The question of expense would be covered by a sum of £2,000 to £3,000 a year. He knew there were thousands throughout the country who were anxiously waiting for the result of this Resolution, and he hoped that hon. Members would think twice before they voted against a Resolution which would confer untold benefits on thousands and thousands of people, and would in no way, he was certain, affect the religious atmosphere, which he was as anxious as any others should continue to be supreme in the Empire. He asked the House most seriously to take this question into consideration. He knew that great pressure was brought to bear from many quarters on hon. Members respecting this question. He knew that there were some who had a feeling that he was going to do something that would unsanctify the Holy Day. He did not believe that for a moment. Why should it? When this question was brought before the House in days gone by, the clergy had not inquired into it. They had now had a Committee which had unanimously reported in favour of the proposition he made. The opinions of all kinds of great personages were quoted against the proposition. He had seen Mr. Gladstone quoted as being opposed to it; but when this question came before the House in 1891, it was a significant fact that before the Division took place Mr. Gladstone walked out of the House. That did not show that he was very seriously opposed to the opening of museums on Sunday, There were Members of the Government who were strongly in favour of it, and one in particular would, he believed, have spoken in favour of the Resolution had he not been laid up by serious illness. He would, however, quote a paragraph from a speech of the right hon. Gentleman because he thought it explained a good deal of the opposition. The right hon. Gentleman said:—

"I can find no other meaning in it than this—that if you are rich enough to become sole proprietors of books and gardens and pictures, may, if you are rich enough to hold a share in a company that has such possessions, the law will not be against you, public opinion will be with you, and a religions scandal will not be created. If you can buy a share in the Crystal Palace, or if you can subscribe a guinea to the Edgbaston Botanical Gardens, you can enjoy art and nature righteously; but if you are so poor that you can possess books and pictures and gardens in the only way in which the poor can hope to possess them, namely, in their corporate capacity, then such engagements become oppressive to the consciences of certain other men, many of whom, by their own confession, derive the utmost delight in doing in their own houses that which they strongly object to be done in the public libraries and art galleries of the town."

That was an expression of opinion on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham, and it was of the highest importance. It went to the very root of the opposition to this scheme. People were not troubled by the thought of Sunday labour when their own comforts were concerned; but when the advantage of other people was taken into consideration, then the Sabbatarian Pecksniffs cried out. In conclusion, he would urge the House to support his Resolution. In supporting it he felt certain they would give pleasure and enjoyment and religious and moral advancement to the people of this country. He begged to move the Resolution which stood in his name.

said he was very glad to have an opportunity of saying a few words in seconding the Resolution. He could not but think that they were very fortunate in the hon. Member who had moved it. He was well known as one of the most distinguished connoisseurs of art in the country. There were a large number of exhibits at the Bethnal Green Museum belonging to the hon. Member, and there were other museums to which he had contributed. He ventured to suggest that there was no principle that could be urged against the Motion. They had got Kew, Hampton Court, and other places in the neighbourhood of the Metropolis open, which entailed a railway journey and resort to refreshment houses; whereas the particular institutions dealt with in the Resolution were so conveniently situated that numbers of people could visit them without travelling or using refreshment houses. If there was no principle to be urged against the Resolution, so there were very few practical difficulties in the way of carrying it into effect. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the institutions affected should be open for only a short number of hours; but it would be a great advantage to have them open, if only for those few hours. He had lately received a telegram from a country town where a museum was opened for three hours on the Sunday, and he was informed that 3,000 people on the average attended it every Sunday. So far as the employment of labour went, the hon. Member had provided that no one who was un- willing to work on Sunday should be asked to do so, and that no one should work more than six days in the week, and he hoped that the hon. Member would go the length of saying that they should not work more than 48 hours in the week. He ventured to put the matter on a somewhat broader ground. They did not object to Sunday labour, for the cook and the milkman had to work. What they ought to ask was, whether the labour undertaken was of a sufficiently important character to justify its being done. Who would question that the work necessary in this case would be as sanctified as any done anywhere on Sunday? He believed the existing staffs of the institutions affected were, speaking broadly, in favour of the Motion. It must, therefore, be agreed that there was no great practical difficulty in the way. What were the objections that were urged against the proposal? He believed that an Amendment was going to be moved which pointed attention to the fact that these institutions might be opened in the evening, and that that ought to satisfy anybody. He was talking to a working man only yesterday, who said he knew plenty of working men who had to carry 50 tons weight on their backs during the day and that, if they had to do that, they would be in no humour to go to a museum in the evening. The returns they had before them did not encourage them to hope that evening opening would be a sufficient substitute for opening on Sunday. He had heard a point put in this connection that evening opening did not enable poor people to take their families to museums. Many young people who might learn useful lessons from visiting museums ought to be in bed during the hours of evening opening. The toiling classes throughout the country had not so many opportunities for taking their children about with them that the House should deny the opportunity this Resolution would give them. A further objection urged by those opposed to the Motion was that the ascertained wishes of the working classes were against the opening of the museums on Sunday. He was always suspicious of that kind of argument, and he thought the far better and more straightforward course to take was to ask themselves whether the thing desired was right, and if they believed it to be right to do it regardless of the wishes of any class. [Cheers.] It was an extraordinary thing to him that, in a matter which had reference to London alone, they should be threatened with an incursion of opposition from the lowlands of Scotland. [Laughter.] He would make this suggestion to the hon. Baronet the Member for Kirkcudbright, that if the question arose in his own constituency, and there was a desire on the part of the people to keep such local institutions closed on the Sunday, he would help him in seeing that their wishes were respected. In the same manner and in the same spirit he asked the hon. Baronet to assist the people of London on that occasion in getting the museums and art galleries of the Metropolis opened. [Hear, hear!"] Another objection brought forward was that after the experiment had been tried in a certain few places the institutions had been again closed. But there was no difficulty in that. There might have been a dozen reasons why those institutions were closed again. They might not have been very interesting or attractive institutions. But the institutions in London in regard to which they were now speaking, were among the most interesting and attractive in the world. ["Hear, hear!"] At the same time, he was quite ready to respect local feeling and wishes in this matter; the people of each locality should be their own judges as to whether their local institutions should be opened on the Sunday; and he claimed the same privilege for the people of London. ["Hear, hear!"] Those were perhaps small objections. A more important one was the suggestion that if the Motion was assented to they would be militating against the safeguards of the Sunday. If he believed the Motion would have that effect he would not second it. Of all the institutions which were invaluable to the social life of the people generally, Sunday was the greatest, and on no occasion would it become the House to take any step that would tend to weaken the observance of the day. ["Hear, hear!"] He believed that the action proposed would really tend to a better, rather than a worse observance of the day. It should not be forgotten that there had been a great deal of progress in recent years in the direction of the spirit that prompted those who were moving in this matter—the brightening of the Sunday for the benefit of the people. There was a time when it was even deemed wrong to have instrumental music in churches and chapels; but recently a great deal had been done in connection with places of worship to attract and interest the population on Sunday afternoons. He might instance the efforts of the Society known all over London as the "P.S.A.," and he had heard that some churches in the City had resorted to magic-lantern entertainments for the same object. He hoped that hon. Members would not be influenced by the efforts of certain Sabbatarian Societies, which sent round circulars on the subject. In one circular so distributed—he believed it was issued by the Lord's Day Observance Society—attention was drawn to the effects of the opening of museums and similar institutions on the Continent on Sundays, and it was suggested that if a similar course was adopted in London an increase of murder, drunkenness, illegitimacy, and other evils would follow. [Laughter.] This was simply gross exaggeration, and nothing but harm was done by it. ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members should judge the matter entirely on its merits. He believed the opening of the institutions in question would greatly strengthen respect for the observance of the Lord's Day in the minds of the people; and, after all, he thought that in this matter they might take some notice of the opinion of the civilised world. There was no other country in which, with such splendid institutions as the Metropolis possessed, the people would be deprived from visiting them on Sundays. ["Hear, hear!"] The alternative to keeping them closed was to condemn thousands of people to the open streets, to go to the public-house, or to attend some skating rink or other inferior entertainment open to them. He would appeal to the Government on the matter. They held the keys of the institutions in their pockets, and it was only for them to express a benevolent wish that they might be opened on Sundays and great good would result from their action. He appealed, in fact, to Members of all parties and nationalities in the House—Scotchmen, Welshmen, and Irishmen, as well as to Englishmen. In the constituencies of many hon. Members the local museums were thrown open to the public on Sundays with avowedly good results, and he would ask them to respect the wishes of the people of London, and to express by their votes that their opinion on the subject was in consonance with that so well expressed by the Committee of Convocation, namely:—

"That the Committee was of opinion that the religion of Christ had nothing to fear from a reasonable and careful extension of Sunday opening."

[Cheers.]

seconded the Amendment. He said he listened carefully to the speeches of the Proposer and Seconder of the Motion, but they did not carry conviction to his mind, and he did not think they carried conviction to the minds of others who heard them. A certain amount of ridicule had been attempted to be thrown on the Lord's Day Observance Society, a society composed, he believed, largely of working men, who held strongly that the Sabbath should be kept inviolate, and that no concession whatever should be made to those who wished to impose Sunday labour on any portion of the working classes of this country. He rose in support of that particular view. The Mover of the Motion spoke in the Queen's Hall, Langham Place, on Sunday, 5th January, and stated that he intended in the House of Commons to champion the cause of the National Sunday League. That League, he was informed, was a group of societies federated together for the avowed purpose of abolishing the Theological Sunday. He stood before the House to advocate the cause of the Theological Sunday, and he ventured to say that the Theological Sunday, as laid down in the Sinaitic Law, at which the proposer of the Motion had ventured to sneer, had made this nation great above all the other nations of the world. Now he would venture to put before the House a physiological fact which perhaps might not be known to all of those whom he had the honour of addressing. It was this, that during the week's work which men went through who laboured with their brains and muscles, the work they had to do during the six working days somewhat overtaxed the vital functions of the body; notably, the action of the heart was overworked by the six days' labour, and it had, as it were, to drive the fly-wheel of the human body by beating more than its proportion of beats during the time it worked. But by the Sunday rest the fly wheel was enabled to calm down overpressure, and on Monday morning the fly-wheel of the human body was working at regulation speed, and all the functions of the body were in normal condition and able to take up the labour of the week. The Mover of the Motion said the young should be guided in the way they should go on the Sunday, and the way he indicated in which the young should be guided was that they should go to museums and picture galleries. He himself did not for one moment say anything against museums and picture galleries. He was a great admirer of art, and he was proud of the collections which we owned in this country. But he thought the way of training the young would not be altogether attained in the best manner possible by teaching them to spend their Sundays in picture galleries and museums. Indeed, it appeared to him that the object of those who opposed this Motion was to prevent the Sunday being spent in what he called a Sinaitic manner, and to introduce the Continental or Roman Catholic Sunday into England. It was stated that Sunday opening would involve the extra services of one-third increase of staff in the museums and picture galleries. But why were these people to be made to labour at all on the day set apart for rest? Why were tramcar men, omnibus men, and attendants at public-houses to be robbed of their legitimate Sunday rest? The hon. Member who introduced the Motion had referred to the feeling of the working classes, but he must have alluded to those of London, for the feelings of about 12,000,000 working class men in all parts of the country had been carefully tested by those who were best able to feel their pulse, and ascertain their views, and the result was 95 per cent. of the 12,000,000 were decidedly against Sunday opening. He represented one of the largest constituencies in England, in which the bulk of the people were of the working class, and he had not had a single request from a working man to support this Motion. There was a museum in his constituency, and he had not heard of a single working man who wished it to be opened on Sunday. Sunday had been compared with a Bank Holiday, but the people of this country did not wish to make them parallel; they did not wish that our Sunday should approximate to that of the Continent, because they knew that the public opening of resorts of pleasure, such as museums and picture galleries, would be followed by the opening of theatres and race-courses; and they would be followed by more general Sunday labour, and the day of rest would be gone. He, therefore, trusted the Amendment would be accepted, as indicating that the House and the country still wished to ''Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy."

said, he wished to explain in a very few words, his position with regard to this Motion. He had always held the opinion that the Sunday opening of museums and picture galleries would confer a great benefit on the working classes. But in the two first Parliaments of which he was a Member he remained neutral on the question. He had stated to his constituents that, seeing a religious question in which he had no personal concern was involved, he preferred to abstain from voting. In 1892, however, he made inquiries in Whitechapel, which he had represented since 1885, and found a general desire for this change, even among many opposed to him politically. He also felt that he was partially disfranchising his constituency by abstention; therefore, he promised to vote for Sunday opening. Another reason also influenced him. In 1891 a similar Motion was introduced and debated in this House, when Whitechapel was specially mentioned. The late Sir Robert Fowler, then Member for the City of London, misinterpreted his absence from the Debate; he referred to Sabbath observance in the Jewish community as an argument against Sunday opening of museums, whereas it should have been used in its favour. There was no objection, even among the most observant in his community, to visiting museums and picture galleries on Saturday. In fact, that day was often preferentially chosen. He therefore advocated granting this great boon in the interests of the labour- ing classes in his constituency to brighten somewhat their dull lives by an intellectual enjoyment for which Members had many opportunities. His constituency, if not the very poorest, was among the three poorest in London. The bulk of its inhabitants could not afford to lose working time, and were too tired in the evening to visit our great national collections, however much they might desire to do so. Whitechapel was situated within a walking distance from the British Museum, the National Gallery, and Bethnal Green Museum. He believed that some of the stalwarts would even walk to South Kensington and back, if they were permitted to see the treasures in South Kensington Museum on Sunday, their only available day. He felt sure that such a facility would be highly appreciated by the working classes in Whitechapel and neighbouring districts, and would tend to make them more contented with their lot. This was no mere assertion on his part; he spoke from actual experience extending over the last ten years. In 1886, the Rev. Canon Barnett, then Vicar of St. Jude's, Whitechapel, established a loan exhibition of pictures for 20 days at Easter, in connection with Toynbee Hall, also in his constituency. That exhibition had been continued annually ever since, and was open on Sundays. The number of visitors had greatly increased in latter years. During the last three Easters the attendance had ranged from 62,000 to 73,000 for the 20 days; that would be an average of 69,000, or 3,450 a day. In the last three years the exhibition was open nine Sundays; the total of visitors was 36,000, or an average of 4,000 each Sunday. The comparison in favour of Sunday attendance would have been more striking were it not for the fact that Jewish residents visited the exhibition by preference on Saturday—their Sabbath. This local exhibition was one of pictures lent for the occasion; and it was located in school rooms insufficiently lighted and somewhat difficult of access. Of course, it could not be compared with even one room in our splendid National Gallery; yet, the result was so satisfactory that Canon Barnett had offered to raise £20,000 for a Town Hall in Whitechapel, on condition that a temporary exhibition should be held once or twice a year, of course open on Sundays. He should like to read a very short extract from a recent letter he had from Canon Barnett:—

"People do not know higher pleasures, because the places for higher pleasures are closed on their holidays. As long as the galleries are closed on Sundays, people will prefer the pleasure of bed and public-house, and they will not demand things which are good for them The Archbishop of Canterbury opened the Exhibition in 1890."

Hon. Members would notice that some dignitaries of the Church of England did not oppose Sunday opening of museums, etc. The only difficulty, if any, lay in the employment of extra people in museums and galleries on Sundays. He said extra people, because policemen and other guardians were now very rightly employed on Sundays to protect our art treasures, although the public were excluded on that day. He believed very few extra men would be required in London on Sundays, and they could be chosen from those who had another day of rest. Supporters of the movement cited provincial towns where museums were opened on Sundays, but Government were not directly responsible for that fact; nevertheless Her Majesty's Government were directly responsible for what was done in our Indian possessions, and he found that in Calcutta the Great Indian Museum was open free to the public on Sundays. Of course it might be said that those employed there were not Christians. But that course could be adopted in this country if necessary. British subjects, either Mahommedans or Jews, could be had as volunteer guardians on Sundays, or at the cost of a few shillings each. Jews were so employed at Birmingham, in the reference library, as special assistants on Sundays. He need not refer to the Government employment of people on Sundays at Post or Telegraph Offices, because he held that what would be required in the museums and such institutions if opened on Sundays was not work at all. At the South Kensington Museum, visitors were not troubled to surrender their sticks or umbrellas, and no mischief had arisen. If that course were generally adopted, no one employed on Sundays need work at all. He did not call sitting down or walking in a picture room work. If it were work it was the pleasantest kind of work known to him, and he would be glad to undertake it himself. There remained only the objection that working people did not desire this reform. He did not believe that; and if it were even true that the labouring classes did not love art, then create the taste for it, or otherwise it would be monstrous to have collections worth millions simply for the gratification of those who could buy pictures themselves. He yielded to no one in the desire that every person should enjoy a weekly day of rest, and he was glad to know that on the Continent that feeling was spreading; but certainly on the Continent they would never close their museums and picture galleries on Sunday. He need only add that he was convinced that by giving reasonable access to our splendid national collections on Sundays, even if only when public houses were open, they would strengthen the observance of religious and secular laws, they would make the labouring classes more contented, and would promote the intellectual improvement of the masses of the people.

said, he hardly thought that this question had been treated by the Mover and Seconder of the Motion from that high standpoint from which alone many persons thought such questions should be approached. He hardly thought that the question of expediency should be allowed to influence judgment in a matter which, in the belief of many people, threatened the very foundations of religious observances. He thought that in the abstract there was no harm in the opening of museums and picture galleries on Sundays; but in practice many evils might result from such a course. The displacement of a very small stone might start an avalanche which in its course would sweep away the monuments of centuries. Once sanction the interference by law with the Church's teachings of centuries, and where could they draw the line. Once sanction the interference by law with the Church's teachings in regard to the most serious aspects of the Sabbath Day—once sanction by law the feeling that Sunday might be regarded, as much as a holiday as a holy day—and they embarked on a course which would inevitably result in the loosening of the ties that in this country bound Church and State so intimately together. If it were the fact that the working classes had not sufficient leisure to enable them to appreciate our art collections, make Saturday or Wednesday or some other day a compulsory half-holiday, but let the law leave the Sabbath alone. Already public bodies all over the country had the power of opening their local institutions on Sunday if public feeling in the locality was in favour of having them opened. Why, then, not leave the question to local opinion to decide? This was not a matter for collective action, but for each individual to decide for himself. Let every individual decide for himself according to his conscience as to how his day of rest was to be spent. This Motion would, if carried, be the first step towards introducing the Continental Sunday into this country. He had seen in Rome, which for centuries had been considered the headquarters of Christianity, that business and pleasure were conducted almost the same way on Sunday as on the other six days of the week; and the only result of such a course could be that many persons must forget there was such a thing as Sunday at all.

said the hon. Member for Kirkcudbright, quoting a very distinguished authority, said this question had lately been decided by an overwhelming vote. The question was so decided by the Parliament elected in 1886. This Parliament, however, was elected in 1895, and it was extremely important they should know what it thought about this most important question. He was inclined to put aside at once all appeals that were made to popular feeling either on one side or the other. They were told by people very well qualified to judge that the immense mass of the working men of the country were opposed to the Motion, and they were told, on the other hand, by people equally well qualified to judge that the immense mass of working men were in favour of it. It had been said in the course of the Debate that every man should decide for himself how he should spend his Sunday. It was not desired to force any man to do what he thought wrong, but it was desired to enable every man to do what he thought right. This was not a measure of local option; it was a measure of personal option; it was a measure which would enable every man to go to these galleries if his conscience allowed him, if his taste directed him. That was the reason why he did not think they should trouble very much as to whether the majority of the working men were on the one side or the other. There was another reason why he would not be too particular about one class of the community, it was that this was a matter which did not concern one class at all. These museums and art galleries appealed in a great degree to the middle class, to the less wealthy of the upper and professional class, men and women who could not go to these places upon any day except one in the week, and men and women who had the very greatest reason to go. When they considered how much of the very best of our modern literature was connected in the closest manner with art, and how impossible it was for any one to enjoy the works of Ruskin and Browning unless they had an opportunity of seeing these works of art—that alone was an argument in favour of allowing them to go on the only day on which they could go. He had been struck by the insistence with which hon. Members opposed to the Motion had argued that a comparatively small number of people attended art galleries. To Hampton Court 1,200 went on Sunday and on the week day 490 went; 1,650 people went to the Sheffield art galleries during the three hours on which it was open on Sunday, but on a week day, when it was open nine hours, 900 went. In Birmingham, 1,583 people went during three hours on Sunday, and in Newcastle, Lord Armstrong's gallery of statues, a severe, even though a beautiful and instructive form of art, was attended by 300 on Sunday. The art gallery in Bradford was open for three hours on Sunday, and well attended. He admitted that these exhibitions did not appeal to the multitude, but they did appeal to the choice people of every class to whom attendance was a great education of the very highest order. No one denied that a large number of people went to the libraries which were open on Sunday. The people went there to read books. What was the difference between reading a book and looking at a picture for the purposes of education? But to read a book when people were tired with the work of the week was a serious matter; whereas to look at pictures and statues, especially pictures, was not only an education, but a rest. It must be remembered that some of the most highly-cultivated communities of old days and of mediæval days read scarcely at all, but got all their cultivation through pictures and through art, and that was a cultivation which hon. Gentlemen practically denied to the mass of their fellow-countrymen. [Cries of "No, no!"] He was willing to admit that hon. Gentlemen did not deny it by intention; but when men were tired with a long day's work they could not take advantage of what was offered to them by the Amendment in a right spirit, and spend their evenings looking at pictures. He did not believe there was any more religious way of spending Sunday afternoon than in looking at good pictures in our art galleries. ["Hear, hear!"] Two or three hon. Gentlemen who had spoken, such as the hon. Member who had just sat down and the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment, hold the strongest views about Sunday, and he deeply respected their opinions. But he would ask hon. Gentlemen who had a different sort of practice not to do that which was fit to be called by a not very flattering epithet, by denying to their less-favoured fellow-countrymen what they themselves enjoyed. One Sunday last year he went to a famous gallery of Flemish and French pictures possessed by a very well-known gentleman on the Chelsea Embankment. That gentleman this year had sent all those pictures to a public gallery, and among them was a replica of Millet's "Angelus." What better way of spending a Sunday afternoon could there be than looking at that picture of Millet's. [Cheers.] Lately at the National Gallery he was standing in front of Crivelli's "Annunciation"—a picture which every one who knew the Gallery would admit to be one of the most beautiful there—when a poorly-dressed working lad came, dragging a comrade to the picture, saying

"Here, I will show you the best picture in the gallery."

What harm would it do that boy to look at such a picture on Sunday? He had noticed on week-days that a great many people, and especially many children, went to the picture galleries and museums for the sake, apparently, of the bright surroundings. Working men who could not go there during the week would go on Sunday for that reason. They might not be great art critics, but in walking about the galleries they would acquire higher tastes. They were told,

"If it were possible to take a vote of the working classes throughout the country, we believe that vote would show an overwhelming majority against every Sunday-opening movement which involved Sunday labour,"

and it was urged that, if once the floodgates were opened, there would be Sunday travelling in every way. What did that mean? Many people thought it wrong to travel out of the great cities on Sundays. Then were the dwellers in those cities, who were excluded from the sight of country scenes, to be deprived of the only brightness and beauty which a great city could offer—that of the art galleries and museums? Where could art joined with science be better seen than in our glorious Gallery at South Kensington? And he was glad to hear from Sir William Flower that, by an addition of only £300 a year to the Estimates, it would be possible to throw that unequalled collection open to the people who had paid for it. [Cheers.] For the people had paid for all these advantages; and who were Members of the House of Commons to deny them? Some hon. Gentlemen had galleries into which they could go on Sunday, and the wiser of them had the pictures in the rooms in which they and their families habitually lived. Just as much as those pictures belonged to the hon. Members in whose houses they hung, the pictures in the public galleries belonged to the great public who had paid for them with their taxes; and let the House give them the right to enjoy their own. [Cheers.]

in a maiden speech, said that, as Kensington would be very closely affected by the success of this Motion, he felt he ought not to give a silent vote. He protested against the idea which had been hinted at, that in opposing this Motion he and others were actuated by any motive of bigotry or religious intolerance. Similar motions had been rejected over and over again by both Houses, sometimes with an overwhelming majority and sometimes without a division; and the names of gentlemen who had spoken against such motions on former occasions—Mr. Gladstone, Lord Beaconsfield, Mr. W. H. Smith, and Lord Cairns—ought to be enough to guarantee them against the insinuation of intolerance. [Cheers.] No doubt that among those who held his views on this matter might be found some whose opinions would be regarded as narrow-minded and puritanical; but then, among the supporters of the Motion, there were many whose open and avowed object was the complete secularization of the Sabbath. [Cheers.] The opposition to this Motion was with no particular view as to the way in which Sunday should be observed by individuals—with that the House was not concerned—but simply and solely because the logical outcome of the acceptance of these proposals would be a still further advance in the direction of secularization. [Cheers.] That consequence would be regarded as disastrous by the vast majority of this House; and he was sure, in spite of all that had been said to the contrary, that it would be bitterly opposed by the religious feeling of the country. The opponents of the Motion were entitled to ask its supporters to show not only the advantage they expected the community at large would derive from the adoption of the Motion, but they should also explain, and not content themselves with mere assertion, where they proposed to draw the line between the opening of museums and the opening of other places of amusement on Sunday. ["Hear, hear!"] There was only one ground, in his opinion, for the interference of the State in the matter of Sunday observance, and that was the Fourth Commandment. He believed it to be most mischievous to put forward the physical advantage to be gained by one day's rest. No doubt it was an incidental advantage just as health was an advantage incidental to morality. But neither the health in the one case, nor the rest in the other supplied reason or justification for the action of the individual or the State. If it was true that the object of the State was that there should be a guarantee of one clay's rest out of seven, even that was not secured by the pro- posal. To say that no official was to be compelled to work on the seventh day unless he liked it was not sufficient, and, in their opinion, the State was bound to say that no man in its employment should work on Sunday whether he liked it or not, except in cases of absolute necessity. The fact that that provision had been inserted showed, to his mind, confusion of ideas. For if it was the liberty of the individual to work or not work as he pleased that was at stake, there was no longer any justification for the interference by the State with Sunday traffic of any kind provided that it was voluntarily engaged in. To his mind there was a great difference between a holiday and a holy day. ["Hear, hear!"] A great deal was said about the State setting an example in the matter of wages to their workmen. If hon. Members were right in that argument, it seemed to him the State should observe an equal duty by setting an example to employers in the matter of Sunday observance. ["Hear, hear!"] The figures as to the attendance at these museums and other institutions showed that they were becoming smaller on Sundays as compared with week-days, and that a large proportion of those who did attend on Sundays were boys and girls. ["No!" and "Hear!"] It had been suggested during the Debate that boys and girls would be well employed in museums, but he did not know whether they constituted the most eligible class of the community to which reference had been made. He did not wish to weary the House with statistics, but he would point out, with reference to this question, that a paper had been recently circulated which contained what purported to be answers given to questions put by the hon. Member for Central Finsbury, the Mover of the Motion; but the hon. Member, however, had not supplied the House with the number of adverse answers which he had received. ["Hear, hear!"] It was obvious, nevertheless, that there were only 13 answers on four large pages which gave any statistics of the average attendance on successive Sundays. Out of those 13, only four were museums or public galleries. He was perfectly prepared to deal with the question of the libraries; and he knew that in at least 12 cases, and probably more, libraries which had been opened in the country had proved failures. Manchester had only succeeded in 20 years in raising the attendance to 7,773, of which 2,926 were boys and girls. At Wigan the increase was very gradual indeed, being only 400 in a population of over 55,000. The report from Birmingham showed that the average attendance on Sunday had dwindled from 2,365 in 1888 to 1,188 in 1894. On Museum Sunday in 1885 it was stated that the attendance was 4,706, while in 1894 it had fallen to 1,193. At Stockport the Sunday attendance was 276 in 1891, and was only 220 in 1892. It did not appear to him that these figures showed that the opening of museums at the places to which they referred was a success. He had already mentioned the fact that a large portion of those who attended these places on Sunday were children, and that fact was of much importance, because the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Trevelyan) had remarked that children would be well employed on Sundays if they attended these museums. In his opinion, however, the places to which children should go on Sundays should be the Sunday schools, and not free libraries. ["Hear, hear," and laughter.] He thought that no temptation should be held out to prevent children from attending Sunday schools. ["Hear, hear!"] The additional labour entailed by opening these institutions on Sundays was not confined to that of the officials in charge. There were other consequences that would follow the opening of museums on Sundays that were to be deprecated. For instance, the population in the neighbourhood of South Kensington Museum was of the well-to-do kind, and if that museum were to be opened on Sundays for the benefit of the working classes there must necessarily be a great increase in the traffic upon the railways and the tramways, which was amply sufficient at present. They were asked to believe that all the disadvantages to which he had referred were to be counterbalanced by the moral elevation which would result to the people as a whole from the opening of these institutions on Sunday. But museums had been open on Sundays for years on the Continent, and did anyone pretend that the people of foreign countries were more moral, more religious, or more refined than our people were? ["Hear, hear!"] If the educational value of an institution was to to be made a test of its claim to exemption from the universal rule of Sunday closing we should be plunging into the region of speculation, where there was no appeal except to individual opinion. Many people believed that the Stage was capable of imparting quite as much education on Sundays as the picture galleries, and if they were to open such institutions on Sunday in order to relieve the dulness of Sunday afternoons, they would soon be asked to open the theatres also. ["Hear, hear!"] They had been told that this was a purely local and individual question, but, in his opinion, it was a national question. They would be taking quite a new step if they opened a national institution on Sunday. If the State were to go any further in the direction of abolishing the distinction between the Lord's Day and other days of the week it ought to do so upon some higher ground than that of affording additional comfort and amusement to a fraction of the population at the cost of depriving others of the one holy day of the week which this country alone amongst Christian nations continued resolutely to observe. ["Hear, hear!"]

said, that the opening of the Botanic Gardens in Edinburgh had certainly not demoralised the population in any way. Speaking not the opinions of working men, but as a working man himself, who had worked at the bench not only until the last Election, but all through last Recess, he contended that they had a right to claim their share in those elevating influences which were contained in the national museums. As to the argument that the numbers who now attended Sunday-open museums were not sufficiently great to encourage an extension of them, was it not the duty of the House to give the people the opportunity of visiting and enjoying those places? And what was there in the contention that so many boys and girls frequented museums and art galleries on Sundays? Were they not better employed in looking at art treasures than in wandering about the streets? [Cheers.] When he was giving evidence before a House of Lords' Committee on this subject, a noble Lord asked him whether he did not think the Sunday opening of public gardens would lead to a good deal of courting in those gardens, and his reply was—"It is better that the courting should be done in a public garden than in a close house in the high street." [Laughter.] He had pleasure in assuring the Mover and Seconder of the Motion that they should have at least one vote from Sabbatarian Scotland. [Cheers.]

I wish, in the first place, to dissociate myself entirely from any Ministerial capacity in the words I am going to address to the House to-night. I am going to speak, like the noble Lord (Lord Warkworth) who has addressed the House a few minutes ago in a manner which has justly won the high appreciation of the House—[cheers]—entirely as an unofficial Member, and to state the views which, though I cannot be sure they are those of my constituents, still, from all that reaches me, I believe are the views which animate them. It was said by the right hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow that this was not a question on which the House ought to listen peculiarly to the view of the working classes. I differ from him in that respect. ["Hear!"] I should be guided in my vote to a great extent by the wishes of those who would be able to avail themselves of those facilities if they were offered to them. I believe I express the views of four-fifths of the House when I say when I say that our minds have been peculiarly exercised as to the side on which we ought to vote on this question. On the one hand, there is the strongest desire, shared by every class in the country, that the British Sunday should be maintained in its essential conditions. [Cheers.] Some maintain that view as my noble friend (Lord Warkworth) has done, mainly from the religious standpoint; others from the social point of view; but I believe we are all agreed that if we were to see in the Motion a tendency that the Sunday should be made a day of labour, or that the rest which that day affords to the community should be sacrificed to any considerations whatever, there is scarcely an hon. Member who would not vote against any Motion which might have that effect. And so I believe the working classes, the middle classes, and all classes in this country would be against any Motion which seemed to imperil the sanctity of the Sunday as regards the increase of labour. [Cheers.] The argument that we may, by a Motion such as this, encourage the idea that we are on the downward path, and moving in the direction of an exchange of the British Sunday for the Continental Sunday—that argument, if sound, would weigh greatly with this House, and justly so. On the other hand, we have to remember that this is no new proposal. Museums and libraries are open on Sundays in many parts of the country. They are open in Birmingham, in Liverpool, in Manchester, and so far we have had no sign that the opening of museums in those provincial towns has led to that which I should be one of the first to deplore—namely, any desecration of the Sabbath. ["Hear, hear!"] Then in London we have Kew Gardens, which are open, and other places of public resort to which recourse is had by those tramways and railways which unfortunately do necessitate Sunday labour. I have had a number of appeals from working men in my own constituency that I should vote in favour of this Motion, and it would be difficult for me to resist those appeals—["hear, hear!"]—knowing, as we do, what has been done already in the provinces, and the little harm that has there ensued from the opening of public institutions on Sunday. Has it led to far to the desecration of the Sabbath? Surely the Sabbath is desecrated as much by many of the amusements in which all classes habitually indulge on Sunday. ["Hear, hear!"] What will be the feelings of the working man who calls upon me as his representative to vote for the opening of South Kensington Museum if I refuse to do so? Supposing I tell him that I think this Motion would lead us on the downward path and open the floodgates to Sunday labour; will he not reply: "Is not Niagara open on Sunday?" ["Hear, hear!"] "Are there not many clubs, so-called clubs, organised so that those who have more opportunity than we have to enjoy themselves on weekdays may also enjoy themselves on Sunday?" To that I have no answer. If the Legislature is prepared to shut up all places of public amusement and to take such measures as would stop every kind of amusement on Sunday, I could understand the position, but I find great difficulty in drawing a distinction between those places which are now open and the places which we are called upon to open by this Motion. I agree, to a certain extent, with the right hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division. I believe that it is far better that men and women, and boys and girls—["hear, hear!"]—should have recourse on Sunday afternoon to places like South Kensington than that they should be driven to seek excitement and amusement elsewhere. If it were a question of choosing between the Sunday-school and the museum I grant that it would be a great advantage that they should have recourse to the former. But if that is not the question, if they prefer the more frivolous occupation, then I say that the national institutions with their refining influences should be open to them. ["Hear, hear!"] Attention has been called to the work of Canon Barnett in the East-end of London, and he has told me himself that the refining influence he has been able to exercise through the opening of museums has often had greater effect than any religious power which he could bring to bear upon individuals. For my own part, although I wish to secure to the Church, to all Churches, to all denominations, as much attendance at their services as can possibly be secured on Sunday, I also wish that every kind of refining influence should be brought within the reach of the masses of this country—["Hear, hear"]—if that can be done without increasing Sunday labour to the extent which many friends of mine fearfully anticipate. If I thought that this change would lead to the breaking down of the sanctity of the Sabbath I would sacrifice all the refining influences that you might secure through its operation, because I believe it would be a social calamity of the most serious kind to sacrifice Sunday rest. But I think the sober sense of Englishmen, the ingrained feeling of the great majority of the people that Sunday must be kept as a time of rest, the influence which will be exercised by all the leaders of labour to secure that Sunday shall not be interfered with in the way some hon. Members fear—these are guarantees with which we may embark on an experiment of this kind without running that risk which I would be the last man to wish to run, namely, that after six day days of labour the Sunday rest should be sacrificed. I hope the view I take is clear to the House. If working men appeal to me and ask that they, like other classes, should have the opportunity on one day in the week to visit our great public galleries and museums, and if, at the same time, I know that the influence of the Labour Leaders will be so great that it would not lead to that which we should all deplore, I cannot help saying that I shall join my voice without hesitation to those who are in favour of opening the museums. [Cheers.]

thought that the speech just delivered removed some fears and misgivings he entertained after the speech made by the noble Lord the Member for South Kensington. He joined in congratulating the noble Lord on his maiden effort, and his only regret was that so good a speaker and so excellent a champion should be identified with so bad a cause. [Laughter.] But, fortunately for London, St. George's, Hanover Square, had come to the rescue of South Kensington, and, with that magnanimity which characterised a First Lord of the Admiralty asking the nation for a large sum of money—[laughter]—the right hon. Gentleman had dispelled the unfavourable impression created by the noble Lord's speech, and the Sunday opening of museums would be carried with practical unanimity. ["No, no!"] The great mass of the working classes who were in favour of opening the museums and picture galleries were not in favour, as a consequence, of holding that view of the secularisation of the Sabbath to the extent which the noble Lord indicated. Satisfactory statistics could not be obtained on this question until it had been put to the test, and until the test had been applied it was ridiculous to take a small town of 20,000, 30,000, or even 200,000 inhabitants, with a small museum, mostly consisting of the industrial products of the district, and which the men were sick and tired of making six days a week—[laughter],—and apply that test to the best and richest museums in the world, and deduce arguments there from. The noble Lord did not seem to regard boys and girls from the point of view of a young Member of the House. To anyone who knew London the saddest sight was to pass through the streets in March, April, October, or November, and even in July and August, and to see the swarms of boys and girls with positively no place to go to. They would not go to Church because the service was dull, and the advice was not always acted up to by the parson himself. They would not go to Sunday school, and he ventured to say that the noble Lord himself, when he was a boy, did not practise as he now preached. [Laughter.] He wished to point out to the noble Lord that those who did not go to Sunday School unfortunately walked about the streets, hanging round about the corner posts and in and out the public house doors; and if the noble Lord would go to the father of a family, say a member of the A Division of the police, who looked after the interests of hon. Members so well, and asked him his straightforward opinion as a policeman first, as a citizen second, and as a father third, ho would tell him that it would be a godsend to the police and to the boys and girls if there were more places where the boys and girls could go for recreation. The noble Lord said that the opening of the museums on Sunday meant a larger use of the tramways, but surely the noble Lord knew that South Kensington was the centre of a radius of three miles from which 500,000 visitors to the museum could be drawn, who would walk leisurely over the bridges to the museum; and when they visited the Natural History Museum he sincerely hoped they would see the pliosaurus in a glass case and mark the evolution of the politician who opposed the opening of museums on Sunday, and avoid him in future as an awful example. [Laughter.] The hon. and gallant Member who represented the Medway Division of Kent certainly scored a point against the Motion when he contended that this was a matter which ought to be left to the localities; but this was mainly a London question and the Imperial Parliament kept the keys of the London Museums. The only bodies that could voice the opinion of London in this matter were the London County Council and the Vestries, and the London County Council had decided with almost absolute unanimity in favour of Sunday opening, while many of the Vestries had taken a similar line. No one could go down to Toynbee Hall, where he had seen Canon Barnett's exhibition, or to the Tower Gardens, even when the weather was not particularly good, without seeing swarms and crowds of people, even to an extraordinary and inconvenient extent. If that was so, what reason had the House to assume that, if the same regulations which affected the Tower Gardens were applied to picture galleries and museums, the same result would not be obtained. He believed it would, and nothing would convince him that people would not visit the museums and galleries if opened, until they had been opened for six or 12 months and the fact proved by application. He thought the motion was too moderate. The hours it proposed were from two to six o'clock, and it seemed to him that it could not be framed more in the interest of the publican. On Sunday morning, the father of the family was generally engaged in domestic duties. The single man went for a walk in the parks; but there was a class not well dressed enough to come into the light of the streets, many of whom, he believed, would sneak from the slums and alleys of Seven Dials, just round the corner from the National Gallery, would find their way there if they go and visit it by gaslight, and if it was only for that class alone, he thought the museum ought to be kept open later than 6 o'clock in the evening. He did not see why they should not be open till 8 or 9 o'clock. But he wanted to urge another point. London was rapidly becoming in many respects a cosmopolitan city. There were in London at this moment from 10,000 to 15,000 visitors, who would welcome Sunday opening as a distinct boon. There were thousands of men, too, passing from and to the colonies who now looked on Sunday as a blank day; and beyond that how many thousands of young fellows from places round London would get on their bicycles and ride up to town and visit the many places of recreation, access to which was now denied to them. There were between 50,000 and 60,000 men in London—policemen, pensioners, post office employés, and others—who, in consequence of evening and night duty, could only conveniently visit such institutions on a Sunday. He believed Sunday was certainly also the most convenient time for shopkeepers and shop assistants to visit them. As to the question of Sunday labour, he was free to confess that if he thought the Motion would lead to an increase of such labour he would oppose it. But Sunday labour and the demand for it were diminishing in all countries. One of the chief features of each of the International Congresses of workmen that had been held had been that the excellent institution observed in England of having the six days' work and the seventh day for rest had been again and again brought before the workmen of Belgium, Germany, France, Switzerland, and other countries with good results. He had recently had an opportunity of discussing the value of the six days' work with three German Imperial Commissioners, who had come here to investigate the question of Sunday labour, and the information he received was that on the Continent an unmistakable desire was being shown to follow England's example in this matter. With regard to the argument of cost he did not think there was much in it. It would involve comparatively very little cost to carry out the object of the Motion; for he was confident that, if the Chief Commissioner was appealed to, he would be able to make arrangements for the attendance of the few extra policemen who would be required at the museums and art galleries without calling for any additional men or money in consequence. He supported the motion as one, perhaps, as closely connected with labour as any metropolitan representative, and as one, too, who had always opposed the Sabbatarian party at his elections. He believed there was a much stronger feeling in London in favour of this motion than hon. Members opposite seemed to suppose. Whether that was so or not, the House was the guardian of those museums and picture galleries; it alone could give access to them on Sundays, and therefore the great body of ratepayers in the metropolis appealed to hon. Members to give them, for one day at least, a convenient opportunity of enjoying them. He was confident that, if the museums were opened as desired, they would prove a strong counter-attraction to the public-house, and would exercise a great moral and educational influence on thousands of men, women, and children who now had no reasonable way of spending the Sunday afternoon and evening. [ Cheers.]