OPENING THE ATHENÆUM ON SUNDAYS.

Evening Star, Issue 3425, 12 February 1874, Page 2

OPENING THE ATHENÆUM ON SUNDAYS.

The special meeting called on the requisition of a number of members to consider the advisability of rescinding the vote carried at the annual meeting in favor of opening the A then ream reading-room on Sundays, was held last evening in the Drill-shed, which was densely filled, over 500 persons being present. As each person required to produce hia ticket of membership before entering the room, it follows that little more than two-'Aiids of the total number of subscribers were present. The Vice-President (Mr Lubecki) occupied the ebair. The Chairman mentioned that since la«t meeting he had taken the opinion of a barrister on i)r Stuart’s protest against his (the Chairman’s) ruling on that occasion, that as the resolution did not alter any existing byelaw, it was not necessary that it should be carried by two-thirds of those present. The opinion of this gentleman, who was au English barrister, and occupied a very high position in the Province, endorsed the correctness of his (the Chairman’s) ruling. The Rev. Dr Stuaut asked if the Committee had taken any action in the protest he had lodged. The Chairman replied that the Committee had taken no action whatever.

The Rev. Dr Stuart asked, if it was the ruling of the Chairman that a majority could compel the Committee to open the Athenaeum? The ruling of the Chairman the other evening was that a majority of the voters present wpuld justify or compel the Committee to open the Athenamm on vSundays.—(Hear ) He wanted to know if that was the ruling.

I he Chairman said that if Dr Stuart understood him in that way it was a misapprehension. All he (the Chairman) said was that the resolution did. not amend any byelaw, consequently it was unnecessary for it to be carried by two-thirds of the members. He looked upon the vote merely as an expression or opinion on the part of the general body of the subscribers for the guidance of the Committee. Of course it bad no legal weight- it was not legally binding on the Committee—but he presumed it was morally binding. It remained for the Committee to say whether they would carry out the views of the members as expressed at the last or at the present meeting. Mr E. B. Carqjll moved .-—That the Institute be not opened or Sundays.”—(Loud applause aud some hisses) He hoped the decision they arrived at would be satisfactory, and would finally settle the question. The Athenaeum had been in existence for a good many years, and now it was proposed to make a change, which, it was said, would meet the convenience of a certain number of members, but which was opposed very strongly upon conscientious grounds by a very large number of members. Those members who were attempting to introduce this radical change should bo prepared with some strong reasons indeed before they ventured to give effect to it. He doubted whether the gentlemen who brought forward the resolution would have done so quite so readily had they known that it would be opposed so strenuously as it had been. That perhaps was not the place to discuss a religious question- (h-ar, hear) any more perhaps than the columns of a newspaper, at any rate, in the sense of bringing forward and discussing on its merits any particular dogma of religion ; but he took it that whether there or elsewhere they were bound to avow themselves as belonging to and as members of the Christian Church, and as bound by the rules of that Church to which they belonged.—(Hoar, hear.) Among those who were opposed to opening the Atbenfeum on Sunday were all those who held by the obligation of the Decalogue as to the sacredness of the Sabbath day. Of course, that should comprise the members of most Christian Churches. With few exceptions, probably the members of all Christian Churches, whether Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Wesleyans, Baptists, or Independents, would hold themselves bound by it—that it was a sacred obligation. There was a difference of opinion perhaps as to the meaning of keeping the ■abbatli day holy—(hear, hear, and applause)—and those differences might be pretty wide, going on one side to the extent of a somewhat Pharisaic sanctimoniousaes in thes observance of the Sabbath; and going, on the other side, to an extreme degree of laxitv and neglect of anything like Sabbath obsorv ance. But there should surely be a common feeling among the members of those Churches m desiring to respect one another, and not to do anything which would hurt the others’

consciences.-—(Applause.) He held, therefore, that all those who occupied this position should hold themselves bound to regard with very great tenderness any objection made to a change of this sort, npon the around of its being against the conscientious scruples of those at one with them ; but he could not think it the part of any Christian man to seek to force a movement of this kind against the scruples of those who took an opposite view for so very small a cause—so utterly smallacause—as was alleged ontheother side, (Applause.) Now, what had they got on the other side? He did not believe there were many men in their community distinctly opposed to the rules of Christianity altogether. There might be a few—doubtless there were some in every community—but they must be very small in number; and whoever they and whatever were their numbers, he did not think that on a question of this kind they were bound to show their views any respect at all- ( \pplause ; “Oh, oh !” hisses, and prolonged confusion). He was sorry that he had trodden unwittingly on sore toes ; he did not think there wore many corns of that sort in the meeting. But he would say again that for the men who were opposed to Christianity, and opposed to everything bearing the name of religion, be had no respect, and he could not be guided by their opinion—(Hear, hear, and hisses). Then on the other side there were those who did not take that view) at all —who had a respect for religions things, but who claimed to regard the Sabbath as something abrogated, and which did not belong to us g —(Hear, hear). These were not true to their Church, and ought not to belong to it.—(Oh, oh, and “Question.”) Then, thirdly, they had those who acknowledged the sacredness of the Sabbath, but only grounded their differences upon their view of the manner of holding the day sacred. It was to that class that he would particularly appeal, and it was only with those that he could expect any argument used to-night could have effect, because be thought they might fairly appeal to all those who viewed the matter in that light that they should not for a small cause do violence to those whose scruples they were bound to respect. And he would just say that from the very great animus manifested in this matter—the great animus manifested in the writings of the Press and elsewhere, and the great apparent triumph with which the resolution was carried at last meeting—(Oh, oh.) He was not present, but he was told that the successful side jumped jou the former, hurrahed, and waved their hats—(laughter)—as if they gained a very great triumph.—(A Voice: That was before the voting.) And a triumph over what?— (A. Voice ; Over bigotry and superstitution.—Laughter.) He thought those persons who occupied that middle position were in danger, .if they permitted themselves to be led by this movement, of being dragged into lengths they had no idea of going at present.—(Oh !) So much for the religious aspect. Looking at the question from a mere secular point of view, he held that this matter concerned every member of the Athanaeum, an I more particularly the working classes.—(Hear, hear.) Those men who might not have everything they could desire in their own houses should hold out strongly against any attempt to take away the smallest part of the Sabbath Day, Ho agreed with what the Superintendent said in his letter, that the maintenance of the Sabbath in its integrity .was one of the bulwarks of civil and religious liberty—(applause)—and touched the interests of the working classes very much. He would say that it behoved every member of the community to stand up for the maintenance of the Sabbath as one of th ir best privileges and greatest blessings. Therefore bo hoped that the meeting would see Vs way to carry by a large majority the resolution he had moved. Mr M ‘Gregor seconded the motion.

Mr B. Isaac believed that the opening of th<s Institution would effect much good, and that many who took to railway travelling, and to frequenting public houses—(hear)— would be found on Sundays in the readingroom spending a comfortable hour or so improving their minds, and making a better future for themselves. If he thought there was any danger of the Librarian being obliged to work on Sundays, he would go himself, as a Jew, and enter into an agreement to attend to tbp Athenaeum on Sundays for three years. Mr Robert Gillies considered the main reason brought forward for the opposition to opening the Athenaeum on Sundays was based upon the ground of principle as a matter of conscience.—(Hear, hear.) As a religious map, as he claimed to be—(laughter) —as a Christian man, as he trusted he was—he failed to see that any principle was involved.—(Hear.) He would like to ask those qentlemen where the principle was involved ? i hey had not shown it. He would ask them to take the subject as discussed in the Bible or the New Testament—to take any single instance that there related to the Sabbath, and to put it alongside this question of opening the reading-room for the convenience of their youth and the benefit of wayfarers, and then let them say if their Ble sed Lord and Master would not have said—as he did say when he cured the man with the withered hand—that it would he doing good? (Loud applause.) The mover of the motion had challenged the Presbyterians, Wesleyans, and members of the Church of England, who were in favor of the proposed change. As a Ppesbyterjan ho woqld say—and he would say it without fear of contra? diction—that there was nothing in the tenets of the Presbyterian Church that would for one moment prevent the opening of the reading-room for four hours on Sunday.—(“Oh,” and loud and continued apnlause.) He valued his Presbyterianism, but he valued something more, and that was truth.—(Hear, hear.) There was a truth which lay at the root of thin matter, and that was that no man should bind upon other men’s consciences that which God had not made binding. W o uld any man say that the opening of a quiet reading-room, where young men could go in and read without fear of interruption, would be breaking the Sabbath? In the course of conversations he_ had had with the principal leaders of this opposition, he did not find a single one who would say that this was a matter of principle—(Oh.) They were found putting foward the idea that this was the beginning of the letting in of water—that this was the first step towards some undefined evil which would afterwards overwhelm the community. But he could say that the time to meet that difficulty was when it arose,—(Laughter and applause.) He maintained that the friends of religion were raising this question on a false issue (no, and hear, hear)—and were doingan injury to the cause. Therefore, he came forward to say that as far as he was concerned he thought the proposal was right in itself The amendment which ho intended to propose was one which he thought no one who valued the Sabbath could have any objections to support, because it would hedge the matter in a measure from the objections which many had urged against it, namely, that it would necessitate the employment of the Librarian on Sunday, and would encroach upon the hours of Sabbath worship. His amendment was : r .. V -^ at as 80me members of the Athemeum living in hotels, and others, are greatly inconvenienced for want of a proper reading room where op Sqndayp they could read without interruption, the Committee are authorised to open the reading room for four hours bn Sunday, as an experiment; but

should they find, after a fair trial, that only a small number of those for whose benefit it is designed avail themselves of it, or that otherwise it proves in any way injurious to the institution, they are authorised iu their own discretion to abandon the experiment In any case, however, it is hereby declared that on no account are any of the employes to be forced or induced to give their attendance on Sundays, nor are the hours of opening to be such as will interfere in any way with the usual hours of public worship.” J lb had been said that there was no necessity for this step, but he could say, from personal experience, that the reading room would be a great boon to the young men of Dunedin on Sundays. If, instead of stopping this movement, the religious men in the community would only step in and direct it aright, they would be doing an immense service; and if the thing were rightly managed, it ought to be productive of good, and therefore the movement had his support. —(Applause.)

The Rev. R, L. Stanford (who on coming forward was received with loud aud continued applause) seconded the amendment. He would, in answer to the challenge of Mr Cargill, trouble the meeting with the reasons that he, a humble member of the Church of England, could act iu opposition to the resolution, but he would tell them his conclusions. He believed that the Sunday, the day of rest, was a day of Divine obligation upon every human being—(Hear, hear). Ho believed that the Fourth Commandment and the Sabbath day therein ordained were abrogated for ever—(hear) —and he said that the Sunday, this day of rest, which they were commanded to keep, was a day which they might lawfully arrange, manipulate, anti, alter as they please, provided always that in doing so they looked to provide for all their fellow creatures of whatever class they were —{Loud and continued applaasu)' He seconded this amendment, because he believed that there was a real crying need for such a place of recreation and renovation of a man’s wearied faculties as the Athenaeum would provide on Sunday afternoons-(Ap-plause).' No more useful thing could be done than to open the Athenaeum on Sunday afternoons.

Mr J. G. S. Grant next addressed the meeting, but after speaking for about a minute, was persistently hissed. It was then put from the chair whether or not he should be heard, and it was decided in the negative. He then asked for live minutes, and three were allowed him, but he did not say much before the uproar again commenced, and he was obliged to sit down. Mr G. B. Barton opposed the proposal from a purely sectarian point of view. The great thing involved was whether the principle was to be established that the seventh day in the week was no longer to be looked upon and constituted as a day of absolute rest. It would ultimately lead to the librarian having to work seven days in the week —(“ no ”)—and the community would go on from one thing to another. The Museum might be opened, lectures given in the Athenaeum hall on Sundays, have bauds playing, the Choral Society giving Sunday concerts, theatrical performances possibly, and very likely shops opening.— (A Voice: “And the Supreme Court.”) He did nob profess to be a religious man, but for purely secular reasons, and for the general good of the community, he really thought we should not encroach in auy way upon the Sabbath Day. Mr Stout classed himself with that class of people for whose opinions Mr Cargill had said he would not show any respect at all. The meeting should remember this in listening to the remarks he might have to make. He thought that every man’s opinion ought to be shown respect to, to whatever sect he might belong. He had first to explain the origin of the motion to have the readingroom of the Athenaeum opened on Sunday. He knew some people in Dunedin had opposed the opening of thelnstitute on Sunday, simply because he was the mover of the resolution, —(Cries of “ No,” and “Yes.”) He had not the honor, however, to be the first person who had made this proposal. He had agreed with the suggestion, and had moved it because he was not in the habit of shirking an expression of opinion. —(Hear, hear.) He declined to enter into the religious question at all. The real question was this—Was it lawful to do good on tho Sabbath Day ? They were told that if the Athenaeum were opened in the manner proposed, untold evils Would fall upon them: Would the reading of books cause the working man to be obliged to work on Sunday ? He did not wish to insult them understanding by putting such a question to them.—(Apptause.) He hoped that workmen would soon not only have one day to themselves, but a half-holiday on Wednesday, and another on Saturday, and bo would dp all he could to pass a law that no man should be called upon to work for more than 45 hours a week, except where he maefe $ special agreement with big etpplqyer tq work more. When there was an uttefppt to make workmen work for seven days a week, then let the cry be raised j but they should not raise this issue upon the question before them in connection with the Athenaeum. The Athanseum could be opened in the manner proposed without any qne having to work, and if it was found that this could not be done, the terms of Mr Gilllies’s motion provided that it should be closed again. He asked th§ meeting to discard the religious question. Was it wise to open an Institution that would tend to elevate therp all, or only tq allow the advantage to a select few who would rush qn Saturday night and grab all the magazines they could lay their hapds on fqr Sunday reading ? (Applause.) * 6 '

Mr L. J. H. Shaw did not approve of the introduction of the religious discussion, for the matter was a social one. Archbishop Whately, a great authority, bad said that every change was in itself an evil—(oh 1) and that those who proposed must hold themselves responsible for the consequences of that change, besides showing how it could be given effect to. He was told that the proposed change in connection with the Athenajum would be a great convenience to a number of people, who would suffer hardship it they did nob get it. This was a small matter, and they must nob forget the illleelmg that had been aroused.—(“No no ”) Lb was most unwise to take the course pro-posed.—-(Cries of “ Time,” and stamping of feet, which continued for some time.) Mi* H. S. Fish had looked at the matter calmly, fairly, and unimpassionately, and nad come to the conclusion that a great deal of good would be done by the opening of the Athemeum on Sunday, while on the other hand no harm would be done to any member of the community. Those who were in favor o. opening the Institute for a few hours on Sunday did not want to force anyone to go there ; they simply wanted the same freedom of choice that the other side had. The other side said, “No. this course is wrong, and whether you like it or not. you shall Sot go. but will have to do as we tell you ” Thin was intolerance and even bigotry. He annk! on behalf of a large of oommuniW who were compelled lo live in UohTmS boarding-houses, who would bo greatly beneMnSiSKf of *• - - At this point of the proceedings a stm™ Th*Z7 t( ? war< * 8 rowdyism was deveWl? up by persons at th?b«Eoff considerable time to obtain a hearing * dehed Mr Stanford to prove that the Sun!

day had no divine authority, or that it could be tampered with according to man’s own notion, provided only some good could be done by doing .»o. What should be done on the Sunday should be only what came within the category of works of necessity or mercy. Mr Gillies had declaied, to the astonishment of every other Presbyterian in the meeting—(great laughter)— that there was nothing in the Presbyterian Standards opposed to the principle of the movement proposed to be inaugurated. He (Or Copland) would simply point him to one of the Standards, in which he would find that in regard to the Fourth Commandment unnecessary work was prohibited on the Sabbath. In this, which was a public matter, he held that he was implicated if he gave sanction to the A the** mum being open on Sunday; while he was not implicated in the Sabbathbreaking of individuals on their own authority. Therefore on principle he objected, and rightly too, as far as his rights and privileges were concerned, to being a party either t» the opening of the Athenamm on Sunday or to the unnecessary employing of labor to which it would certainly lead. The change would be greatly the worse for the community.—(A. Voice : “ Bunkum.”) The Rev. Dr Stuart defended the clergy from Mr Fish’s charge of interfering too much with secular matters. Messrs A. Rennie and R. H. Leary wanted to speak, but the meeting flatly refused to hear them. After Dr Stuart spoke, tke vote Was taken by division. After the counting had been going on for some little time, Mr Stout came forward to the front of the room, and addressing the Chairman, said he wished to know if it was the duty of a teller, if a member was on one side of the room, to ask him to go to the other ? Great noise here ensued, and Mr Millar, who followed Mr Stout up the room, made an explanation, part of which could not be heard, and that pait which was heard could not be understood. The result of the division was—for the amendment 252, against 242, and the announcement was received by the victorious party with immense cheering. A proposition by Mr Keith Ramsay that the readingroom should not be opened on Sundays until a poll to ascertain the opiuion of all the members bad been tak*n, was met with loud cries of “You have been beaten twice already and Dr Stuart advised that the as who sided with him should leave the matter in the hands of the Committee, advice which Mr .Ramsay adopted, and withdrew his amendment. The meeting broke un at 10.55. *