THE GLOBE. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1881.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2182, 22 February 1881, Page 2

THE GLOBE. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1881.

SUNDAY OBSERVANCE. The meeting held yesterday of " persons desirous of resisting further encroachments on the observance of the Lord's Day " was satisfactory from one point of view. The discussion was not marked by any outburst of feeling against their opponents, and the memorial adopted for presentation to the Board of Governors of Canterbury College was temperate in tone. That any general discussion of the question at issue would ensue was, of course, not to bo expected. As the chairman remarked, " there was but little doubt their views would harmonize, and that they were little likely to sound a discordant note." They had met together with decided views on a certain subject, and any divergence of opinion was hardly to be expected. The particular object for which the meeting was held was to stop the opening of the Reading and Reference Rooms of the Public Library on the Lord's Day, and the opportunity was improved to throw a dart at the existing custom of opening the Museum on that day, and, generally, at all projects of the same description. The Rev. J. Elmslie, in submitting the draft of the memorial to the meeting, stated briefly the view which he, and the others who thought with him, held. It is generally supposed that one of the failing of clergymen is to beg the question. Pulpit oratory has no chance of being answered on the spot, and the consequence is that preachers get into the habit of laying down propositions on what the ordinary thinker considers to be insecure bases. And this fault seems to us apparent in Mr. Elmslie's remarks. Mentioning the effect of the opening of the Museum, he did not hesitate to say that not one in a thousand or ten thousand were there for the purpose of studying the works of God. That may be Mr. Elmslie's opinion, but there is no reason why the statement should receive general credence. For ourselves, we beg entirely to differ from the reverend speaker, and we should very much like to know on what he founds his view on the subject. That a large number do not go there to improve their minds will at once be admitted, but that a certain proportion take proper advantage of the occasion seems equally self-evident. When peoplo crowd to any building certain of them always go " to see and be seen." It is human nature for them to do so, and, when they are not confined to sitting in the same seat the whole time, the show made by these comparatively frivolous people may easily hide those who use the institution for better purposes. Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones, and it would perhaps be unsafe to inquire what percentage of people go to church for the absolute pnrpose of being improved by what they hear. That this percentage, whatever it may be, are not distinguished from the others is due, no doubt, to the fact that they are obliged to sit still while the service is going on. But Mr. Elmslie is, to our mind, not at all warranted in the assumption that the opening of the Mußeum has been abused. Unless larrikins are excluded,of course they inevitably appear. They would do so in church if they were allowed to roam about at their own sweet will. Enforced quiotude of voice and body is, however, luckily not to the taste of the youths of the pave. Hence Mr. Elmslie's acquaintance with the rowdier portion of our rising generation is but limited. Had it been otherwise he might recognise the fact that the presence of larrikins is not a certain sign that an institution is misused. With regard to the memorial itself, there is one particular point to which we would advert. The memorialists " solicit attention to the fact that recent intelligence from England shows that the opening of Museums and similar institutions in that conntry has been followed by most unsatisfactory results." Now ws would wish to know the source of this same " recent intelligence." We have hitherto been under the impression that the contrary is the case, and we cannot help suspecting that the memorialists have gained their information from organs that they peculiarly affect. As a body, they naturally favor a certain class of literature—whether in the shape of journal, pamphlet, or book—which looks at things connected with the observance of the Sabbath through their own spectacles. That contributors to such literature would take a gloomy view of the present situation must reasonably be looked for. They have fought against the movement from its very outset, and it might just as well be expected that a conquered garrison would embrace the conquerors with heartfelt joy, as that the writers in question would hail with pleasure tho growing power of those who hold views contrary to their own. Indeed, recent events seem conclusively to prove that tho idea that innocent and instructive amusement should be provided for the body of the people has, contrary to the statement made in tho memorial, been steadily increasing. Some of the leading men in the old country have done their best in the direction of fostering it. We can instance the Dake of Westminster throwing open his galleries to all comers and Sir Coutts Lindsay doing the same with the Grosvenor Gallery. There is a body too called the National Sunday League, composed of earnest and good men—not moro atheists and freethinkers—who go tho length of chartering Sunday trains, bo that tho overworked mechanic may once at least in tho week enjoy the breezes of the sea and see nature in ita more beautiful aspects. This same National Sunday League has on its list of directors some of the loading men of tho country, liberalminded members of Parliament and such like. Then, again, sacred concerts are I given at the Albert Hall, and this movo-

ment too is strongly supported. Indeed we might multiply instances to a great extent. But wo fancy enough has been said to show that the assertion contained in the memorial should not be allowed to pass unchallenged. And taking in particular the statement made by Mr. Emslie at the meeting, that the opening of the Public Library would not in any way tend to promote the study of high class literature, we would like to ask what the speaker in reality meant. If he means that the average run of readers would not take to studying deep historical and philosophical works, he is probably right. No one ever thought they would. The Board of Governors provides the mental feast, and there are dishes to suit all palates. It lies with the Board to see that nothing is set out which will not improve the mind. We presume that the same reading as is available on week days will be given on Sundays, and yet Mr. Elmslie has not attempted to show that any of that is of a deteriorating character. Those who suggest that the Library should be opened on Sundays are not foolish enough to imagine that a total revulsion in the reading habits of the public will be the consequence. What they wish to do is to provide harmless amusement to many and instruction to those who chose to particularly profit by the occasion, combining with those aims a determination that nothing shall be allowed to appear on the tables of the Library that may injure its frequenters. The thirty or forty gentlemen who attended the meeting appeared to have been incapable of grasping the gist of the matter. They do not seem at all to hold to the old saw that the devil is in the habit of finding work for idle hands to do. The Board, on the other hand, wish to give the public rational and innocent amusement, and recognize the fact that for many the time between services is a time of temptation. The rich man has his private library, his garden, and a thousand other distractions. But it is otherwise with poor men, who possibly live in crowded lodging-houses, with no means of recreation. The sight of men sitting in rows on rails in complete idleness is not edifying, and the Board propose to give to these and others a chance of enjoying rationally their day of rest. The memorialists may recommend the specific of country walks as a universal panacea—if they do so, they are more hopeful than wise.

Finally, the memorialist suggested the holding of a public meeting on the question at issue. If such meeting be held we have but little doubt as to the result. The gentlemen favoring the anti-epening movement form a compact and energetic body, and in this lies their strength; but if they face public opinion we shall bo very much surprised if they are not forced to realise the truth that the main body of the people of Christchurch do not hold the views adopted by the memorialists.