ly beneficial. The workingmen who prefer spending their Sundays at home would not be injured by their brothers visiting museums and art-galleries; while, in so far as the religious sentiment is concerned, it ought to be a matter of gratification to all who entertain it that those workingmen who do not prefer spending their Sundays at home would, by the opening of such institutions, have an inducement supplied to turn their backs upon the beer-shops, and to bring their families to see the things of interest in nature, or the things of beauty in art. It is not that the opening of the institutions in question would act as a counter-inducement to that which is held out by the churches. Workingmen who are in the habit of going to church will, in any case, continue going to church, even though some of them may also spend their Sunday afternoons in the museums and galleries. And, so far as recreation is concerned, I am inclined to think it is not desirable that there should be any antagonism offered to the inducement which is held out by the churches. For I am inclined to think that the class of emotions which public worship arouses in a religious mind are of a high recreative value; and so, as a mere matter of sanitary interest, I should be sorry to see the churches interfered with by other institutions of a less recreative kind. But, in the present instance, the antagonism should not be museums and galleries versus chapels and churches, but museums and galleries versus public-houses and all places of loitering idleness; and any "religious sentiment" that seeks to oppose the introduction of such an antagonism can only be pronounced immoral.
Two other arguments against the reform were adduced in the debate, neither of which posaesses the smallest validity. The Archbishop of Canterbury argued: "What were their lordships called upon to do to-night? It was before the eyes of the people of this kingdom, to pronounce a deliberate opinion that the policy with regard to the observance of the Sunday hitherto pursued in this country had been a mistake. . . . If any change were made, there was great danger of the day of rest being lost," as it would be the thin edge of the wedge to the introduction of other changes of a more advanced kind. Now, this is an argument which may always be adduced against any proposed reform, however obvious the need. We must not make the change because by so doing we should condemn the policy of the past and lead the way to further changes in the future. But, if a change is seen in itself to be desirable, such hypertrophied conservatism as this ought not to be allowed to obstruct progress. Moreover, in the present instance I am persuaded that the fears for the future are groundless. There is no necessary, or even remote, connection between art-galleries and music-halls; and, so long as "the religious sentiments" in this country remain what they are, neither religion nor reason will be able to trace a similarity or a precedent that does not exist.
The other argument to which I have alluded is, that the opening of museums and galleries on Sundays would entail a certain amount of
